Given Castlevania IV as a number 4 in it, I don't see it as a spin-off or experiment myself; I always felt Bloodlines was more of a spinoff. I felt the whip action and how the whip was used in Castlevania IV, for some of the levels was far better that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by turboxray
Always felt it was the best in the series myself. I haven't played much of the DS games mind
Castlevania Bloodlines and Contra Hardcore look like MSX2 games, very simple backgrounds, tile repeating to the exhaustion, same for the TMNT Hyperstone game and Sunset Riders, they should have ported the MSX Gradius and Salamander games instead.
The title of the game is Akumajo Dracula. It's a remake of the original game story wise and a slapped together SNES demo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
The "IV" was used in foreign markets to deceive the gullible. Hard as it is to believe, even with the internet, many people remain fooled to this day.
C'Mon It was intended to be the new Castlevania game for Nintendo next system and its hardly a SNES demo, but a top-quality game and one of Konami best. And who cares if it was a in part a remake ? That's like having a pop at Evil Dead II (the film) Magical Flying Hat or even to a point Ghost N Ghouls & JSRFQuote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
Given the talent that worked on that game, I was amazed it was so crap. Was that rumour ever confirmed that Wolf Team were told to program the game not to use any of the Mega CD hardware (gfx and sound chip) as SEGA was behind on getting the tech out, to early developersQuote:
Originally Posted by Gryson
Earnest Evans was a case of an experiment gone wrong (and they really should have canned the idea early on and gone with more traditional physics instead). The issue with that game is that every limb has its own hitbox, which at first may seem like it'd give much more impressive physics (and, more importantly, automatically "solve" the issues with slopes), but in practice you end up playing as an animated ragdoll. It doesn't help that some animations are forced, and physics are tied to them, which leads to stuff like being shot out of tight gaps when you get hit because the game tries to force you to recoil back and that means your body is crammed into the ceiling and floor.
It was one of those ideas that seemed great in theory but are a disaster in practice. Games cheat a lot for a good reason.
Also, SNES Dracula X takes the prize of being the most underrated 16-bit Castlevania. People hate it for not being Rondo. Funny, because gameplay is the same, sound and music come close and the background graphics are better than in Rondo. Seems like people can't forgive missing branching paths and playable Maria (and some cheap deaths, probably).
Actually, I've just realised that we were really lucky with 2D Castlevania games. Three games on NES, two on SNES, one for Genesis, one for PCE one for X68000, and one masterpiece for PS1. This is not counting numerous handheld games. I wish Contra series got the same treatment. Imagine PCE CD Contra, or a proper 2D PS1 Contra made with the same passion as SoTN.
Unless you were an Amiga/ST owner and all you got was this garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orchid87
Can one really complain too much about the bad art in Bloodlines when you could have gotten... that... instead?
Japanese game franchises and European home computers rarely got along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
MSX also got Castlevania and it was different than what the NES got.
Mind, for a franchise that apparently wasn't making much money, it sure was prolific when it came to releases. I wonder what was Konami's greenlighting process like.
The result is only bad when it's rushed or handled by the wrong people. Maybe that's what happened in most cases, I don't know, but I have found memories of games like Rainbow Island or The New Zealand Story on the Amiga. BC Kid was a nice port, too, although I didn't have it back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orchid87
I was excited for the SNES version of Rondo until it came out and found that the gameplay and stage design is broken. The developer didn't put any polish (or seemingly play testing) into the control/collision/enemy layouts. Being different doesn't make something bad, but in this case you feel how little thought was put into each aspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orchid87
Richter is sluggish and less responsive, but the stages which range from uninspired to just random aren't engaging or satisfying and the collision and enemy patterns can lead to you getting clipped at full health and juggled till you die without you being able to interact at all after the initial hit.
The new stage assets are a completely different style than the carried over Rondo assets, they're inconsistent, feeling like they come from different games and are cobbled together in silly ways.
I've run out of time to finish this post. But the composition in stages is often hilariously misguided and parallax is messed up in unique ways. It's worse than a launch'ish game like Castlevania IV for having a checklist of things to try doing and failing miserably.
I actually thought Master Of Darkness on the Master System was better than Bloodline's. I'm amazed and disappointed that SEGA never made a sequel for the Mega Drive and Mega CDQuote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Masato Maegawa has talked about working on the Castlevania: The Adventure (GB) at Konami. He and everyone else on the team except for the main programmer were new hires working on their first game. He said that there was a bit of grumbling from other Konami staff that the management let a team of newbies handle Castlevania, but at the time nobody thought the Game Boy was going to be a success so management didn't really care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sik
Maegawa said that even though the game was crap, it sold 1 million+ copies, mostly overseas, and the development team all got huge bonuses (to the frustration of other Konami staff).
Konami really did seem to want to milk the franchise, since it was one of their earlier successes. I think Castlevania games sold well, just not as well as TMNT.
You and me man, Kenseiden too for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Andromeda
I loved the look and setting of that game , so good at the time . Shame SEGA never looked to make sequels to both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
There are some utter gems on the Master System
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orchid87
Dracula X is the only Castlevania of this bunch that I've never actually played.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
I understand the comparisons with Rondo, but on it's own merits, is Dracula X any good at all?
The backstory on it is also lost on me other than I swear I once read that NEC asked (payed?) Konami not to make a direct port...
Dracula X starts with a bang, with an insanely cool looking intro section with transparent wobbly flames that form a third background layer. Game feels a little stiff compared to rondo but nothing too bad. The level is kinda basic, and has some mildly annoying medusa heads (talk about starting on the wrong foot there :lol:), but it makes a good first impression.
The problem happens after that first stage, where everything gets really uninspired. The stages look pretty but there's nothing interesting going. I know you wanted to know how the game stacks on its own but the comparison with Rondo really gets the point across.
Rondo starts with richter riding a horse pulled cart and being attacked by death who mocks you after toying with you a little. Then you reach the town on fire (like the SNES game, but not as pretty). In the SNES game, the whole stage is the same pretty much, just a giant fire in the background that turns blue for the boss fight.
In Rondo you first see the town burning far away, then you reach the town and skeletons jump at you out of the buildings through the windows, then can find an underground area where you are attacked by a crazy plant monster (which leads you to an alternate level) or you go out into a park area of sorts where you see the town on fire again but now from a closer perspective and are attacked by giant rock monsters, ending with a fight against a dragon (rather than panther or something like in Dracula X).
Same happens with other stages, like the falling bridge which in Dracula X is just... a falling bridge, whereas in Rondo it leads you to Charon and an alternate level if you fall. The battle against Death is also insanely cool in Rondo at the top of the ghost ship, whereas the battle atop the clock tower in Dracula X is... ok?
There's no comparison, Rondo is way better. If you end up liking Dracula X more than Rondo I dunno what to tell you. While game design is subjective, this is a pretty clear cut one.
That was an awesome video!
Contrary to most people in this thread, I actually adore CB's color choices. I think it's very fitting to locations that should appear strange, especially Dracula's castle. It makes perfect sense that not everything would look like you'd expect.
I agree and it's unfortunate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
I think it's perfectly reasonable when you have two characters. Eric can attack diagonally while standing but John can't. John can do it while jumping but Eric can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sik
With much of what you've said about Dracula X, I wonder if it would have fared better had Konami made it more of it's own game rather than a quasi-port (reinterpretation?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Looking up Dracula X up on the eBay, I remember it being a $50-$100 game - but I guess it's been that long since I've bought a SNES title...
Since when do sellers figure loose SNES carts fetch as much as some complete Saturn games? Also, when was it permitted to openly sell reproductions!?
Oh well. Thanks for the testimony. Sounds like Dracula X is in the same category as what I would place something like Valis IV.
I just remembered one area where Dracula X is better than Rondo, the clock tower. It looks hideous in Rondo, as in, the original Castlevania looked better. Looks fine in Dracula X :lol:
Dude, they're even being graded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lync
Agreed,Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Dracula X has alot of problems, but of they like reclying the art/bgs in some places, simple segments its one of the limitations from a cartigde game.
Just on stage 1 of Rondo you had alot of unique tilesets and monsters thats you could almost make an entire game using this artwork.
Also i think thats they uses alot of rom memory to make the soundtrack thats sounds amazing, one of the best on the system, you really felt hearing a cd game sometimes.
And in the end... to be fair, even Konami never could achieve the same level of quality of rondo in other game in Castlevania Franchise, its an special game.
Dracula X never had a chance...
No no no, this can't be true. I've literally just checked them side by side and both exhibit some kind of an input lag on the original hardware. Nothing deal breaking, they are both playable, but the controls feel and responsiveness are 1:1 exactly same between both games. I kind of agree about cheap level design in Dracula X, but certainly not about the controls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Tiger
They're not exact 1:1. Rondo can attack slightly faster (if the timing is right). I've played a lot of both, and it's there.. it's just subtle IMO. Part of it is probably psychological; they pretty much scroll/walk the same distance over time, but the snes dracula-x animates faster.. so it feels like he's spinning in place, or covering less ground based on what his animation indicates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orchid87
Well to be honest, Rondo art design isn't consistent. Some parts look great, some parts are minimal (for no reason.. it's a CD game) - both in tile work and color usage. But yeah the clock tower is just a few screens (seeing the gears).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
I played through Bloodlines again, yesterday, and I can't figure out why it's an 8meg game. The animations, at best, are only average (even if awkward like it's missing frames). Color aside, there's no detail in this game. Large parts of solid color. The most detail you'll ever seen in a stage, is the very first opening area of the game. This game definitely screams 4meg.
That is mind-boggling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sik
I feel like the people buying graded games are suckers.
But buying graded reproductions? That is straight crazy.
There has to be just a bunch of yuppie prick bastards somewhere out in California looking to make video games the new-age stamp collecting.
For what it's worth, I bought a graded Pokemon card once. I couldn't seem to buy it any other way, but as soon as I got it I cracked the plastic open with some pliers (and scuffed the edge of the card, ouch!) just so that I could place it and complete my childhood binder of cards.
And without totally derailing this, I love talking and reading about people's thoughts on Castlevania. I personally stopped with the Game Boy Advance games and thought all three were great also.
Ah, that's might be it. I've only completed each one once some time ago and only did a quick comparison now. Probably should spend more time with them to notice the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by turboxray
So, what's everyones opinion on Akumajo Dracula X68000? I think it's great, especially if you fairly treat it as a 1993 X68000 game, not a 2001 PS1 title. FM soundtrack is amazing. The game's got it's own flavor as a take one the original Simon Belmont adventure, that's for sure. I'd surely get the original media if I weren't so cautious about floppies shelf life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lync