Dracula X (PC Engine) Vs Super Castlevania IV (SNES) - which game is better?

[Tatsujin]

This is an unfair comparison. DracX is legions greater than CV4 in every conceivable way, and that's not fanboyism speaking, it's reality. As much as I like CV4, it doesn't hold a candle to the masterpiece that is Rondo. A better Castlevania did not come out until Portrait Of Ruin, and wouldn't ya know it... Richter and Maria are in it too. Go figure.

Please give this man a medal!  

And preferring to play drac x other than on the pce is kinda hilarious for almost every possible reason.

[greedostick]

I honestly can not decide. I really like the total whip control in Super Castlevania IV. But X did pretty much standardize castlevania lore with the release of SOTN. I love 2,3,4, X, and SOTN.

I would personally go with the PSP version. It can be played on a television, and has the arranged and original PC Engine version included. And sega saturn version of SOTN.

That's not the Saturn version of NitM.

A compilation of standalone games is not a version. Ys I & II for PCE being intertwined as a single continuous game can be considered a single game, but extra games tossed into the same container isn't the same. Otherwise, the Capcom Classic Compilations have the best version of each included game, no matter how buggy they are, because there are other games in the same container.

The regular version of Dracula X in the PSP set seems decent enough (I've only played it with PSP controls), but I don't like the changes, new soundtrack (it's not too bad) or localization as much as the original (and don't like the gameplay or graphics of the budget 3D remake). Is there a method to use any controller you want on a PSP? If not, then the PCE version would win for controls alone, even if the emulated version was 100% faithful.

are you sure its not the Saturn version? I haven't played throught it yet. only a little over 50% so I haven't got Maria yet. but I heard she is unlockable. I agree, I don't care for the arranged version. I'm pretty certain you have to use the PSP unit. this does not bother me at all. I like the PSP buttons and dpad. with the component cable it looks pretty good. But if we can't pick compilations then I would choose X after thinking about it. It's just a great game. But I love mist the 2d castlevsnia games.

[NecroPhile]

Is there a method to use any controller you want on a PSP?

You can use a DS3 with a PSP Go, but I think that's it.

[SamIAm]

I sat down and played both of these again to consolidate my thoughts on them.

I voted for SCIV before, and I have to say I'd do it again. What follows, of course, is my subjective take on the two games.

IV's only real weakness...whether it's large or small...is that the enemies aren't aggressive enough, including the bosses which are just too simple. I totally agree that traditional Castlevania gameplay balances everything perfectly around a straight-forward whip, but there's no reason why they couldn't have tuned the enemies to be more threatening against the 8-way whip and struck an entirely new balance.

So I'm cool with the 8-way whip. In fact, even though it makes things too easy sometimes, it's also more stimulating than I used to give it credit for. One thing I noticed while playing these back-to-back is that IV has a higher frequency of "stuff" you can whip. You might still argue quality over quantity, but with the 8-way whip, there's quantity and good variety. Even in segments that aren't very difficult, there's a pleasant "cleaning house" kind of feeling to it. With better difficulty, it would have been awesome.

Dracula X's gameplay IS better overall, definitely. Enemy movements are so much deeper and demand so much more in the way of reaction-to-their-actions. Like I was saying before, the thrilling, well animated boss fights are probably the best in the old series. I love how for all the depth and difficulty, it's possible to get through every segment consistently without getting hit as long as you know what you're doing. That's good Castlevania gameplay in a nutshell.

Richter moves just a little better than Simon, too. He's faster, not quite as bulky, and he handles more nimbly on stairs.

The production of Dracula X feels much bigger and slicker. It packs some real "wow" moments, especially with the volume turned up. If it weren't Castlevania, it might be my favorite PCE game. But because it is Castlevania, I'm expecting it to have a certain dark sophistication to it, and I'm sorry to say I just don't get that at all. Instead, Maria the well-endowed 12 year old in a bright pink dress floats down and has a cutesy giggly chat with Richter, and I just wonder WTF I'm playing. The same thing happens when Annette cries "Save me, Richter!" while a soap-opera clarinet plays in the background. This isn't a Japanese-style vs. Western-style issue to me. Old school Castlevania really just shouldn't have damsels in distress.

Call me crazy, but I think Castlevania is best when there are no words spoken in the game at all.

What can I say about the music? Dracula X makes me tap my foot. IV makes me feel like I'm alone in Transylvania. As for graphics, you could say Dracula X has the sprite animation while IV has the background animation. But while IV's enemies look a little dorkier, its world also feels a lot bigger, and that's the clincher for me.

And one last thing that pisses me off about Dracula X. Why the hell can't I get a perfect ending in one go? It's not possible to save Maria AND go to level 3' to save the nun without dying or resetting the system. Why didn't they put Maria first in level 2?

I would really love to see a hack of Dracula X that puts all the stages back-to-back.

[Tatsujin]

oh man, that is some complaining on very high niveau. but sure thing to each his/hers own.

As for graphics, you could say Dracula X has the sprite animation while IV has the background animation. But while IV's enemies look a little dorkier, its world also feels a lot bigger, and that's the clincher for me.

This statement doesn't make any sense to me at all, since Drac X has tons over tons of great background animations, that I don't even know were to start with. it sure and undoublty beats the hell out of CV4 in this department, unless your talking about some lame mode-7 trickery, which would be just plain hilarious.

[CrackTiger]

I honestly can not decide. I really like the total whip control in Super Castlevania IV. But X did pretty much standardize castlevania lore with the release of SOTN. I love 2,3,4, X, and SOTN.

I would personally go with the PSP version. It can be played on a television, and has the arranged and original PC Engine version included. And sega saturn version of SOTN.

That's not the Saturn version of NitM.

A compilation of standalone games is not a version. Ys I & II for PCE being intertwined as a single continuous game can be considered a single game, but extra games tossed into the same container isn't the same. Otherwise, the Capcom Classic Compilations have the best version of each included game, no matter how buggy they are, because there are other games in the same container.

The regular version of Dracula X in the PSP set seems decent enough (I've only played it with PSP controls), but I don't like the changes, new soundtrack (it's not too bad) or localization as much as the original (and don't like the gameplay or graphics of the budget 3D remake). Is there a method to use any controller you want on a PSP? If not, then the PCE version would win for controls alone, even if the emulated version was 100% faithful.

are you sure its not the Saturn version? I haven't played throught it yet. only a little over 50% so I haven't got Maria yet. but I heard she is unlockable. I agree, I don't care for the arranged version. I'm pretty certain you have to use the PSP unit. this does not bother me at all. I like the PSP buttons and dpad. with the component cable it looks pretty good. But if we can't pick compilations then I would choose X after thinking about it. It's just a great game. But I love mist the 2d castlevsnia games.

I played the Saturn version death when it came out, after having played the Playstation version a lot when it was new. Aside from the fact that it's easy to tell which version it is if you know them both, while promoting the upcoming release of the PSP set, Koji Igarashi went on and on about how it was a port of the Playstation version and how the Saturn version's original content would never be used for anything ever again, because he wasn't involved with that version.

[SamIAm]

This statement doesn't make any sense to me at all, since Drac X has tons over tons of great background animations, that I don't even know were to start with. it sure and undoublty beats the hell out of CV4 in this department, unless your talking about some lame mode-7 trickery, which would be just plain hilarious.

Name me one section of IV that consists of only one completely static and uniformly scrolling background plane.

Such areas of Dracula X:
the middle and underground sections of stage 2
the first part and late-middle parts of stage 3
the first part of stage 3' (except for the flapping cape and the appearance of the mid-boss)
all of stage 4
the first part of stage 4'
the middle part of stage 5'
and a bunch of the pre-boss areas.

All of that accounts for a fair chunk of the total game. Maybe 25%?

In IV, the nearest I can find is last section of stage 3-3, which still has a transparent waterfall layer that Simon can go behind.

[jperryss]

Name me one section of IV that consists of only one completely static and uniformly scrolling background plane.

Such areas of Dracula X:
the middle and underground sections of stage 2
the first part and late-middle parts of stage 3
the first part of stage 3' (except for the flapping cape and the appearance of the mid-boss)
all of stage 4
the first part of stage 4'
the middle part of stage 5'
and a bunch of the pre-boss areas.

All of that accounts for a fair chunk of the total game. Maybe 25%?

In IV, the nearest I can find is last section of stage 3-3, which still has a transparent waterfall layer that Simon can go behind.

Most would agree that Rondo is the better game, but you and several other posters here have made some excellent points about IV and some fair criticism of Rondo. I'd be pretty bad at trying to write game reviews, but most of the comments regarding IV's atmosphere and feeling of loneliness are right on, and though I don't have an issue with Maria's cutesy charm in Rondo, it's hard to deny that it all feels very un-Castlevania-ish.

It's too bad that all you get in return are brainless "nuh uh!"s from SOME of the members here. Yes, Rondo is a fantastic game, but surely you can take it's cock out of your mouth for five minutes?

Oh, and shame on anyone who hasn't played Rondo using an original disc on an original PCE, because that simply doesn't count and the idea of playing it any other way is ridiculous.   

[CrackTiger]

I've never understood how critics of PCE games can go to such extremes to stretch the lack of parallax in some games to cancel out existing parallax or the library in general. Lots of "legendary" games from popular consoles have lots of parallax free sections and nobody thinks anything of it. But it happens in a PCE game, somehow it devalues or writes off the game in general.

Too many people say how bad it is that there are dozens of PCE games without much of any parallax and that is supposed to make the overall library weak. But if those games were never released and there was only the hundreds of remaining games, then the same console with the same games would be magically be normal? At the same time these people always dismiss the massive amount of crap for Genesis/SNES and popular systems in general, as an avoidable result of success.

Dracula X has 400% the content of Castlevania IV, but 25% of it is parallax free (just like many sections of SotN and similar games that followed)... and somehow than equals Castlevania IV>Dracula X in that regard?

[SamIAm]

The particular discussion point that Tatsujin raised was background animation. Parallax matters quite a bit in that case.

Rondo wins in sprite animation, but I think the backgrounds in IV are more impressive.

Also, 400% more content? When it comes to the number of music tracks, number of stages, number of enemies, number of bosses, and number of changes in the scenery, IV has either the same or a little more of everything. Both games take about the same amount of time to clear 100%. Rondo's probably got more background and sprite tiles, which is an unmistakable advantage on its own, but IV is overall very competitive thanks to all its graphical effects.

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, IV is a longer game than RoB.  It has more content, not less.  RoB may seem longer the first time through if you're going back and trying to find how to get to the alternate levels, but they lead to the same ending, so that's all just optional stuff -- and anyway, if you do know how to unlock them, playing through all the levels still is shorter than a single playthrough of SCIV, I believe. 

For play beyond the first time through the game, RoB's "second quest" is playing the same game with the other character.  Of course one is harder to play as than the other, but the contents are the same.  In SCIV you play as the same character, but the game gets harder in the second time through (hard mode).  I'd say SCIV's second quest is more fun, since after playing RoB with Maria, I can't bring myself to suffer through playing it with Richter... while SCIV's second quest is more of the same but a bit harder.  Also, the second time through RoB you learn where the hidden stages are, which reduces the exploration element of the game and makes it shorter in that respect, so that advantage, if you consider it one, is temporary.  I like that they're there and it does add to the game, but it'd have been nice if they had more of a point beyond just finding some alternate stages along the way... you know, if they led to an alternate ending or something like that.  Ah well.  Of course SCIV is linear, which has its own limitations (it's always the same), but I at least am fine with linearity in games, as long as they are well-designed along the way.

[Tatsujin]

This statement doesn't make any sense to me at all, since Drac X has tons over tons of great background animations, that I don't even know were to start with. it sure and undoublty beats the hell out of CV4 in this department, unless your talking about some lame mode-7 trickery, which would be just plain hilarious.

Name me one section of IV that consists of only one completely static and uniformly scrolling background plane.

Such areas of Dracula X:
the middle and underground sections of stage 2
the first part and late-middle parts of stage 3
the first part of stage 3' (except for the flapping cape and the appearance of the mid-boss)
all of stage 4
the first part of stage 4'
the middle part of stage 5'
and a bunch of the pre-boss areas.

All of that accounts for a fair chunk of the total game. Maybe 25%?

In IV, the nearest I can find is last section of stage 3-3, which still has a transparent waterfall layer that Simon can go behind.

I am sorry Sam, but I still do not get your point here really.

Only for that I had to force me to at least play through 3/4 of CV4 to see what you might be talking about, and I still don't get it perfectly.

and the few things that popped right again into my mind were:

..that game is so slow paced and it seems that almost nothing goes on. pure boring whipping trough some partly really tastless and synthetic lengthened levels with odd and boring enemies (both in attack and design point of view).
..it als reminded me once again how silly, boring and unspectacular its level bosses are. no really, a fucking joke straight up to dracula.
..the color sheme at some points is so wrong, it almost produces eye cancer.
..mode 7 isn't the same any more than it was back in 1991.


but regarding your concern, RoB might have a few less animated BGs as you prefer to single it out here, but that's almost the only negative point that can be handed out. but in return it has the 100x cooler animations than anything seen in CV4. who whants to see a level long the same boring low-frame skull that looks after you while passing it?

remember stuff in RoB like the saurus with its red eyes that walked in the dark background before entering the castle? the three mirrors that the last one suddenly refelcted a skeleton instead of you? or the sitting man which crumbles if touched or whipped? the cursed picture that tries to take you to hell (probably not really a BG per se, but you'll get the point of how much richer this game is regarding details and animations), the lost souls that are trying to drag you to hell with their hands? ... not to speak of all the super cool level boss introduction animations. that's the real stuff that makes RoB so great in animations, not some silly boring 100 times repeating 3 frame animationed nonsense skulls. hell, already the fiery BGs in the first level were fantastic, and tops almost anything shown in CV4. and there are many many more great examples to be found.

the only really good thing I can say about CV4 is regarding its music. real nicely done in a good old well-known konami fashioned way. but all the rest just aged badly, and wasn't even up to RoB for just one split second back in the days.

as some others already had pointed it out earlier, RoB plays that much in a different league, it is hardly possible to even put them up against each other.

[SamIAm]

It sounds like we're not disagreeing about so much. This is my third time saying that Dracula X has better gameplay, better bosses, and better sprite animation. It's just that the there are many aspects of its tone that turn me off.

SCIV has, to my taste, a deeper and more appropriate tone and much more interesting backgrounds. The bosses were disappointing, but the gameplay still works (I have fun), and the stages in the castle are no walk in the park in terms of difficulty.

Dracula X has nice touches all over the place, but IV has plenty of character of its own, too. Think of the library level. Portraits reach out and grab you so you can't move. Something under the rug tries to push you up into spikes. Statues fall out of the background to hit you.

The swinging chandeliers is a fun, moderately challenging little section made better by mode 7, and the transparent water throughout the game looks great, too. Yeah, some of the colors are a little funky, but that's not a deal-breaker for me. The vision of the designers still comes through to me, and artistically I think it's the best game in the series.

[Tatsujin]

It sounds like we're not disagreeing about so much. This is my third time saying that Dracula X has better gameplay, better bosses, and better sprite animation. It's just that the there are many aspects of its tone that turn me off.

SCIV has, to my taste, a deeper and more appropriate tone and much more interesting backgrounds. The bosses were disappointing, but the gameplay still works (I have fun), and the stages in the castle are no walk in the park in terms of difficulty.

Dracula X has nice touches all over the place, but IV has plenty of character of its own, too. Think of the library level. Portraits reach out and grab you so you can't move. Something under the rug tries to push you up into spikes. Statues fall out of the background to hit you.

The swinging chandeliers is a fun, moderately challenging little section made better by mode 7, and the transparent water throughout the game looks great, too. Yeah, some of the colors are a little funky, but that's not a deal-breaker for me. The vision of the designers still comes through to me, and artistically I think it's the best game in the series.

I do see your point now a bit better.

So to put it all down to a single statement, the (all in your opinion of course) "deeper and more appropriate tone and much more interesting backgrounds" of CV4 is the only one deciding reason that you prefer CV4 over Drac X, even Drac X delivers so much more in almost every comparable area, including gameplay etc?

I mean really, put those two games side-by-side and one could get the giggles out of CV4.

So even if you were right and the BGs in CV4 in fact are better (even though many of them looking so generic and randomly boring repeatedly put together), I still think this does never makes it up to the sheer infinite grace that Drac X possesses. It's just so much more of sheer everything that they are not even the slightest able to be compared to each other.

[SamIAm]

So to put it all down to a single statement, the (all in your opinion of course) "deeper and more appropriate tone and much more interesting backgrounds" of CV4 is the only one deciding reason that you prefer CV4 over Drac X, even Drac X delivers so much more in almost every comparable area, including gameplay etc?

Replace "delivers so much more in almost every comparable area, including gameplay etc" with "delivers more gameplay" and you've about got it.

To me, the gap is wider between the quality of the atmospheres of the two games than is the gap between the quality of their gameplay (gameplays?). If the gaps were equally wide, the one with the better gameplay would win, but IV's advantage in atmosphere is enough that I ultimately enjoy finishing it more.

Dracula X is a better challenge, but IV is a better experience.

How's that for a single statement?

So even if you were right and the BGs in CV4 in fact are better (even though many of them looking so generic and randomly boring repeatedly put together)

I really think that if you were to try to describe the scenery of both games in words using a strictly objective method, you would be able to write a higher number of words for IV than Dracula X.

[geise]

I think both games set the mood quite well.  SC IV does have levels that are way drawn out.  When I think of drawn out levels in SC IV the library level comes to mind. 

On a different note.  SC IV has amazing sound effects for a launch title, and for being on SNES/SFC.  Not talking music (which is also amazing for a cart) but just the sound effects.

Now there's things I love about both games, but when i think of what I like about SC IV I realize that RoB does it all better.  I also totally disagree with A Black Falcon saying it's shorter because you can't play those "other levels" right off the bat.  Well it adds to the replay value of the game.  Being longer isn't necessarily a good thing.  I used to be kind of sick/done with SC IV by level 9 thinking "Man, when is this going to end?". 

This also isn't a biased opinion because I owned SC IV at launch and loved it, and I still do!  I just love RoB 45897263459876234598763259876445120+1 times more.

[FraGMarE]

Both of these games are incredible, but personally, I prefer Rondo.  The art style is more pleasing, to me, and it marks a return to the "traditional" Castlevania gameplay.

[awack]

Damn, I think I finally finished ripping Rondo, I know these numbers are boring to just about every one....your typical 16bit side scrolling action game, Altered Beast, shinobi, castlevania, GNG, Act raiser, etc are between 280 and 700 frames of animation, the best action games, batman & Robin, Demons crest, Dracula XX, Kaze Kiri, etc are around 1000 to 1100 frames of animation, Rondo has approximately 4000 frames of animation, but to be completely accurate, lets compare it to SCIV 700 frames, which is amazing for an 8 meg game, on average the sprites in rondo are far, far larger, so that 4000 frames vs 700 frames is actually 5000, 6000 frames(only a guess) vs 700 frames, ah, but it doesn't end there, not all animation is equal, many if not most of Rondos sprites have what I call full body animation, take richter vs Simon or the standard skeleton for example, whether the main character is standing on flat ground, facing up stairs or facing down stairs, if you swing your whip the upper and lower part of the body animate, 7 for the top and 7 for the bottom, in SCIV Simon and enemy sprites the lower part of the body does not animate, and since enemy characters and and bosses are typically made up of multiple sprites(not talking about multi jointed bosses) you see that you can save a lot of memory this way especially for cartridge game.

So its not 5000, 6000 frames vs 700 frames its more like 7000, 8000 frames vs 700 frames,(again a guess:)...Rondo of Blood is, a excuse my language, a Goddamn freak of video game design!!!

heres the last comparison of Rondo and SCIV, im sure I don't need to say which is which.





infact the game over animation for Maria has as many if not more frames than SCIV they are a bit small though, but you get the point.

[Tatsujin]

I tried again to play some more CV4, but it just couldn't catch me anymore as it did bitd when it was released. it was more of a pain than any pleasure. I'm frightened to say so, but in my honest opinion CV4 aged badly. the only good thing I still can say about it is regardijg it's great music, which was amazing for such an early cartridge based game.
If the music failed as well, there wouldn't be much left in that game for any enjoyment.

[awack]

Yeah,  many sprites and BG tiles in SCIV are what I would call unrefined, I even felt this way when I bought the game on release.

The snes was never going to reproduce a game like Rondo of blood, it doesn't have the CPU or the memory, to do so...just look at Dracula XX possibly the most impressive snes action game when it comes to the stuff im talking about, just look at the death battle, richter moves slower, death moves slower, the syths move slower, everything moves slower, at the same time it has half the number of syths and half the amount of blood onscreen at once, also look at the mermen, DracXX has a set number on screen with a set pattern, about three mermen at once, Rondo has far superior AI, and the most merman I got onscreen in rondo at once was eleven...nor did it have the CPU to reproduce the special fx((like draculas orb attack, or enemy fiery  deaths)) not to knock the snes, it was amazing at turn base RPGs and other type games.

[Tatsujin]

not to knock the snes, it was amazing at turn base RPGs and other type games.

this quite made me chuckle

and because it's also true.

And yes, I also felt about the often strange tiles and misscoloring in CV4, when I frist played it bitd.
I mean even the whole coloring is far superior in rondo, and colors aren't exactly the SFC most weakness.

When rondo came out, which of course was also the very next castlevania I had played after CV4, it offered a whole new world of so many awesome things I probably wouldn't have even ever dreamed about. its prodcuction value was such immense higher than for any existed CV at that time (was btw. konamis most expensive production at that time), and it shows it off all and very clear in the best imaginable manner just possible.

And yes I'm still confused by few people in here, that still think CV4 is superior to rondo, when it clearly isn't. I know the "it's a matter of taste" blabla thing, .. but this just doesn't count here anymore, way too big the gap between is.

[spenoza]

Honestly, CV IV's weaknesses have a lot to do with it being an early SNES title with limited game data being used and Konami wanting to make it darker and "more realistic". While I'm not sure I like Simon's new look, I really do like the atmosphere. I think it is the creepiest of the CV games. The music and graphics design really create a dark, spooky environment that I think works well for the game.

Rondo has a very different kind of appeal, quite frankly. Sometimes I think the game is way too light-hearted, and a couple of the CD tracks actually bother me a little because they're not serious enough.

Yet, both are great games that are fun to play even today, and both are definitely CV games and will never be mistaken for anything else.

[Tatsujin]

Honestly, CV IV's weaknesses have a lot to do with it being an early SNES title with limited game data being used and Konami wanting to make it darker and "more realistic". While I'm not sure I like Simon's new look, I really do like the atmosphere. I think it is the creepiest of the CV games. The music and graphics design really create a dark, spooky environment that I think works well for the game.

Rondo has a very different kind of appeal, quite frankly. Sometimes I think the game is way too light-hearted, and a couple of the CD tracks actually bother me a little because they're not serious enough.

Yet, both are great games that are fun to play even today, and both are definitely CV games and will never be mistaken for anything else.

your first point may be valid, but why did the 2nd one the SNES so baddly too, compared to rondo? it even had a lot more of memory than the first had (sure still no real comparions to a full CD of data, but which most of it was used for cda red book anyway) and came even out two years after rondo.

also as said, the music in CV4 was great and added a lot to its darker atmosphere. though, the graphics are not really dark per se, more like muddy. like the SNES tried obsessive to pull off darker colors but for which it wasn't really designed. kinda of replicate the MDs brown palette, but with a higher color count.

I must say, rondo has its brighter parts compared to CV4, but it also has way muuuch more darker and creepier locs than anything ever seen before.

few locs that come to my mind:

1. the saurus in the 1st stage walking in the dark background before entering the castle (only red eyes)
2. the heavily splattered saurus is chasing you inside the castle (heart attack)
3. the beginning of 2nd stage with the great thunderbolt effects (enlights the dark back ground)
4. the sitting man that falls into dust when touched or whipped against the wall.
5. particulary every boss location is way more creepier (and adrenaline loaded) than anything in CV4.
-> especially the by bones made skeleton boss comes to my mind. damn I was really terrified while fighting against him the first time. such a creepy loc with all the bones and skulls everywhere and then suddenly the boss rises out of it and even transforms itself several times. only creepier in a similar way was the boss "legion" in SotN.
6. also that part (in the 5th stage I believe) with the graveyard where those dead souls try to grab you with their arms from the ground and drag you to hell. or the picture on the priate boat as mentioned before, as well the mirror etc etc... oh and the landscape with the viaduct in the back ground, where all sudden a mid-boss is coming out of the behind. that one dark landscape picture alone brings me more creepy atmosphere than almost any stages in CV4 combined.

I could go on and on...

walking throught CV4 is just like whipping the shit out of the same repeating as well mostly boring enemies again and again.

[OldRover]

Legion was also used in Portrait Of Ruin and I have to say, the first time I fought that thing, it was quite terrifying. Hard as fuck to beat the first time too... had not played SotN at that point so I didn't know what to expect. The music that accompanied the PoR version of Legion just added to the intensity of the battle.

Every pre-boss area in Rondo is fucking creepy. The PSG music that plays during that time, and then the oppressive boss track that mixes in when the boss makes its appearance, is legions (haha, see what I did there) more memorable than anything in CV4, especially in the cases of the Minotaur and the headless knight. I do agree that there are parts that don't come off as being very serious... but I think CV4 actually tried too hard to be dark and creepy but ended up looking rather wimpy and washed-out.

CV4 isn't a bad game. It's definitely a Castlevania. I've played it through a few times; it's fun in its own ways. It's just a rather weak entry into the franchise. Trying to compare it to Rondo though? Pure insanity. That's like trying to compare a rhinestone to the Hope Diamond.

[awack]

TATSUJIN

this quite made me chuckle

and because it's also true.

Yeah, and I mean it, just look at Final Fantasy 3 or Chrono Trigger, amazing turn base RPGs...I truly want to know, is there a PCE turn base rpg((other than Mysterious Song )) that's as impressive as those two games, I don't have a lot of experience with these type games, I think Black Tiger is the one person who can answer that question with some kind of authority, and I know its kind of an ambiguous question since what exactly do I mean by impressive, well, I mean animation/special fx....any way, that's not the subject of this thread, so.

I remember a few people talking about background animation, this is another category where Rondo dominates, and BG animation and Parallax  scrolling, horizontal or vertical line scrolling such as is in rondo(last boss fight) rotating tunnels, warping fire, the leaning tower of pisa etc...im talking about actual animation whether it be tile or sprite animation,  such as lightning, rain, torches, fish, figures, cogs etc, most games just have a handful or a couple dozen frames, Rondo has hundreds of frames....as far as parallax scrolling goes, does SCIV or Dracula XX ever have three or more over lapping layers, I cant think of any off a hand, Rondo has a few like the first part of the ghost ship level..... and by the way, not every section in a game has to use parallax, just look at SOTN, there are many, many sections that don't have parallax.

[PCEngineHell]

This is a bit of a one sided compare. The odds are obviously not going to be in Castlevania 4's favor due to its age, the fact it was an early release, and that it was designed to be more in line with Castlevania 1 and Haunted Castle as opposed to all the later Castlevanias. Dracula X really got the benefit of a system that had been on the market for a long while at that point and its capabilities could be exploited fully. Plus, I mean, cd-rom versus what, an 8mb cart who's development was started in 1989?

I'd worry less about comparing the two and just simply celebrate the fact that Super Castlevania 4 accomplished its goal, of bringing the gameplay from pt1 back to the series, and enjoy both games for what they offer. As far as whatever drawbacks Dracula X on Snes has, you still have to admit the music is damn nice on it for Snes stuff (some of the best game music I have heard on Snes), as well as the backgrounds and colors. Its really not a bad Castlevania game. May not be up to the Pc-Engines snuff as a whole action wise, but compared to like Bloodlines it can hold its own fine. That and many of its backgrounds are way more detailed then the PCE Drac X. People when comparing the two never really seem to want to compliment the Snes version for that or anything else it did right, and that is pretty sad.

[awack]

There has been a few Dracula XX vs Rondo threads, and the comparison was a little more fleshed out. As far as SNES action games are concerned (contra, Demons crest, super ghouls n ghost, act raiser1, act raiser 2, Batman & robin, Hagane, and so on) Dracula XX is one of the more impressive titles by far with its large sprites, lots of frames, beautiful sprite and tile graphics, cool fx, and yes really good music, the pre boss fight music is amazing, the clock tower stage looks fantastic, in many ways, I prefer it to SCIV, im kinda curious on how a 16meg Rondo of blood port for the Genesis would have turned out.

[johnnykonami]

I love all of the classicvanias, myself, and I think both games you've mentioned have their merits.  I was lucky to score a copy of Drac X when it was released in 1992 (or was it 93?) and I played the heck out of it.. I'm sure I'd be terrible at it today but back then I had it basically memorized.  Loved the multiple paths, the boss fights, everything, and of course bragging rights to my friends since I was the weird one with the NEC consoles.  I really like the soundtrack to Super Castlevania IV, though, and that is what comes to mind first when I think of that game.  It has it's cool moments and I definitely enjoyed playing it at my friends house.  I wonder if Castlevania Bloodlines is a fairer comparison, I rank that one quite a but higher than IV personally.  But it's all a matter of taste and they are all great games.

I do enjoy the Metroidvanias, but Symphony of the Night is the best in my book and I don't like the direction the art design took in the later games as much as the originals.  I did enjoy the multiplayer Castlevania HD on Xbox 360 though, wish that would get a rerelease on Steam so I'd have an opportunity to buy all the DLC which I never got to try (because frankly it was a bit of a rip off on 360.)

The newer 3D castlevania titles I've barely played, they don't seem to convey the spirt of the series to me.

[Tatsujin]

I also quite like those kind of peeps that brag about how dare of drac x rondo to bent off the classic way castlevania style with its anime stuff and multiple ways, but in the same sentence praise the n64 casts..le LOL

[spenoza]

So, all this talk has me wanting a real sequel to Cvania II, and on the PCE. I think I enjoyed CV2 more than most folks...

[RyuHayabusa]

I love both games but Castlevania IV will always have a special place in my heart. Rondo may be a deeper game due to multiple playable characters, branching paths, etc. but IV has the spookier atmosphere due to the music and overall darker look. IV also has better controls due to the 8 direction whipping, being able to change direction mid-air easier, using the shoulder buttons for weapons. Both games are neck and neck for me so I can't really choose one.

[Tatsujin]

as said before, I don't think or feel that CastIV is spookier than drac x or its colors are held darker.

I have the feel that most peeps that claim that have probably played CastIV as an 8yo kid e.g., where drac x was experienced the 1st time many years later, which may cause that biased feelings.

in fact its colors is only "muddier" and mostly unfitting with the regular more pastel kind of SFC/SNES color palette. that's why it came out kinda strange. but some might be attracted  exactly to that look. I'm not very much.

[RyuHayabusa]

I have to disagree about the colors only being muddier. There are parts where it's kind of ugly but Konami definitely went for a more dark, spooky look with Castlevania IV. The music is far more dark and spooky in IV as well compared to Rondo. Don't get me wrong, I love Cross A Fear and Op.13 but Rondo's soundtrack isn't spooky for the most part. As I said before, Rondo is a deeper game but it lacks the spooky atmosphere that IV has.

[OldRover]

I decided to play SC4 again a couple of days ago... I had forgotten how boring it can be at times. I also did not remember the sprite animation being so crude.

[PukeSter]

Now that I've played CVIV, it's a very slow and kind of ugly game.

Rondo wins, hands down.

Bloodlines is really fun, but still not as good as Rondo.

[Otaking]

I just watched the 100th episode of Game Sack and they rank SCIV above Dracula X!!

Game Sack - Top 10 16-Bit Games

I still maintain that SCIV is an awesome game, not as good as Dracula X but still awesome.

[PukeSter]

I just watched the 100th episode of Game Sack and they rank SCIV above Dracula X!!



Game Sack - Top 10 16-Bit Games



I still maintain that SCIV is an awesome game, not as good as Dracula X but still awesome.
 

What a bizarre list...

[NecroPhile]

At least Dracula X is in there and it's not a complete SNES and Genny circle jerk.

[ToyMachine78]

Drac x is the better game, but I believe with a top 10 list, IV was ranked higher because it appeals to a broader audience. More people owned the SNES, and played IV.

[ToyMachine78]

One that left me scratching my head was Road Rash.... Really!?... out of all the great games for those 3 consoles, how does road rash make the cut? I wouldn't expect to even see that on a top 25 lol

[NecroPhile]

It's more their favorite five + five games, not a list based on technical feats, sales numbers, etc.

[Miracle_Warrior]

Gotta go with Rondo here.   

[Bernie]

It's more their favorite five + five games, not a list based on technical feats, sales numbers, etc.

Which they both stressed before the video started.. 

[Tatsujin]

rondo alone is better than anything released on genny and snes together. period.

[Otaking]

I just watched the 100th episode of Game Sack and they rank SCIV above Dracula X!!

Game Sack - Top 10 16-Bit Games

I still maintain that SCIV is an awesome game, not as good as Dracula X but still awesome.

What a bizarre list..

I thought it was a pretty good list, I thought particularly Dave's top 5 games were good choices.

[spenoza]

Some of you have way too much pent up angst over someone else's opinions (and opinions clearly identified as such). A lot of what we like has a great deal to do with timing. When did we discover a game? What was going on in our lives when we discovered it? This isn't about quality, necessarily, but about personal enjoyment and nostalgia. You can't argue that. It just is.

[Mzo]

/ud3ngaG.jpg

[jperryss]

Some of you have way too much pent up angst over someone else's opinions (and opinions clearly identified as such). A lot of what we like has a great deal to do with timing. When did we discover a game? What was going on in our lives when we discovered it? This isn't about quality, necessarily, but about personal enjoyment and nostalgia. You can't argue that. It just is.

What are you thinking, trying to bring logic and rational thought into this discussion?

[CGQuarterly]

It's more their favorite five + five games, not a list based on technical feats, sales numbers, etc.

Which they both stressed before the video started.. 

Yup. Just enjoy the video for what it is; a nostalgic look back at each persons 5 favorite 16-bit games.

[NecroPhile]

And DO NOT comment about it in a discussion forum, else you'll be branded a half-crazed asshole.