Hot damn is Castlevania IV overrated

[Kamahl]

I phrased it incorrectly, I'm not saying they're bad. But, compared to the other remixed versions of the tracks it is lackluster. The Dracula X versions were WAY better. The Bloodlines version, well I like it better, not sure about other people. However I can say in terms of arranged soundtracks it isn't as good as other incarnations.

Sorry I misunderstood, you're absolutely right then. With the exception of the song I posted though, to me CV IV has the best version of it.

[Baloo]

And now I'm banned from Penny-arcade. Note that the last post in that topic is the last post I made.



The post which got me banned, for being "arrogant."

Any video game forum where you can't have debates on without being banned isn't worth the time in my opinion. That's what makes video game forums fun and exciting!

[Armoured Priest]

For me, Rondo is definately the best of the Castlevania games though, like others here, I still really like CV IV. I think the music in CV IV is pretty good. I can see why it might garner a measure of dislike, though. CV IV's soundtrack is definately more ambient/incidental then pretty much any other CV (excluding Lord of Shadows, as I haven't played that one...assuming you care to even consider it a "Castlevania"...again, I've not played it so I've no opinion on it). As such the music does kind of warble in a lot places, going for mood rather then musical structure. CV IV's soundtrack is in a number of ways almost like something you'd hear in a Western PC title.

As far as gameplay goes, yeah, its slow, and its definately one of the easiest (if not outright THE easiest) Castlevania.

I think CV IV was the right game for its its time. When I first saw it back in 1991 it had a lot of visual punch (i.e. a lot of eye candy). It is a bit shallow, but it was quite the spectacle for its day. Nowadays, when I play it, CV IV is partly boayed by nostalgia...no question. Still its a fairly solid platformer. Its a bit longer (as a straight platformer) then many of its contempararies, has some reasonably varied art direction for its various location, and the level design gets a lot more interesting in the second half (the first half of the game outside the castle is, IMHO, kind of weak). Also, the music gets better as you get away from the ambient stuff and more into re-arranges of the classic Castlevania tunes.

I can see why the OP has his greivences with CV IV, and I agree that Rondo is the better game (Rondo is still one of my favorite games PERIOD since I got a copy for my Turbo back in 98). I am going to respecfully disagree that CV IV is crap, though.

[Thenewguy]

...aww man, I've never played Contra 3, yet I've heard heaps of praise on it. I love Hardcorps, the original, and Super C, along with Contra 4 and Hardcore Uprising... Is Contra 3 going to be another Castlevania IV when I pick it up?

If you're an old pro at the Contra games you just mentioned, I've got a feeling you're going to have waay, waay more disappointment with Contra III. But if you're more of a casual fan of the series, and don't tend to aim to play games through to completion quickly (ie if you're the sort who plays a game, dies, and has a break for a while instead of continuing over and over), you may enjoy it a lot, as the 1st few stages are pretty cool and exciting.

Contra III is a very short, and limited game in comparison to Hard Corps (and to an extent compared to the NES games too), its only 6 stages long, and 2 of them are gimmicky Mode 7 stages which have zero gameplay merit at all, most of the exciting set-pieces which made Contra III famous were re-tooled, improved, and included in Hard Corps, unlike Hard Corps there's no attempt at a plotline, there are no branching pathways, and the weapons systems and characters are much simpler (more like the NES Contra's), I also much prefer Hard Corps music.

Where it came to Castlevania IV, I liked it, when compared to Bloodlines I think what personally stands out to me is that Castlevania IV feels like a more polished game with higher production values, but Bloodlines was still a very cool game too, I can see it from both point of views to be honest.

[Curryman123]

Incidentally, I just wanted to say how much I enjoy the actual conversation going on here. I cross posted this topic over on penny-arcade, and got a bunch of people trying to take me down a peg (by claiming Sonic sucked... nice argument) or telling me that it's not nostalgia which makes the game good, but rather that I wasn't there at the time (lol what?), or that it's not nintendo fanboyism that makes me not like it, but if I thought the SNES had the best music ever then I'd appreciate the game more (lol what again?), intersperesed with "STOP TROLLING THIS GAME IS GREAT"

ultimately the thread was locked, because making a topic about how a game disappointed you is trolling.

So... yeah, thanks for being great over here, guys. Even if you disagree, it's so much more enjoyable to actually converse and debate with people rather than be called a troll.

That's nothing. Once I said something negative about CV soundtrack on Gamefaqs, and some immature dude bombarded me with non-clever mom jokes.

[maxxfarras]

I agree that castlevania IV is very overrated. I played castlevania IV when comeout back in time. And I was very dissapointed, I felt the game very boring and slow paced.

Bloodlines for the sega genesis and Dracula X for the pc engine are great. ( my favorite is Dracula for the pc engine, it looks more polished than bloodlines.)

Dracula X for the snes sucks, is even worse than castlevania IV in my opinion.









.

[DarkDragon]

Dracula X for the snes sucks, is even worse than castlevania IV in my opinion.

Its not that bad if you view it as a stand alone game and not as port of Rondo. Back when it came out a lot of people like myself only heard about Rondo and didnt get to play it so to us Dracula X was seen as decent game and not viewed as a bad port.

Rondo is the best because its the longest. If you want to get 100% you have to play through tons of stages. Bloodlines length is laughable compared to Rondo's length. In Rondo after you beat Dracula you start over with Maria and play through 4 new stages you didnt play through before.

[Curryman123]

Dracula X for the Snes is a good game. Why do so many people dislike it? Too hard?

[JRedmond3]

Dracula X on the SNES is okay but it's just sort of annoying. It seems like they liked to spam those spear guards in really tough places to get at.

[Barone]

Too many cuts, maybe...

[TrekkiesUnite118]

Dracula X for the Snes is a good game. Why do so many people dislike it? Too hard?

People dislike it in comparison to Rondo of Blood, which is by far the better game.

[j_factor]

I disliked Dracula X way before I ever played Rondo. The level design is poor, the controls aren't very good, and there's a ton of cheap hits. Good graphics though.

[Kamahl]

Good graphics though.

And music, really good music

[sheath]

I remember playing Dracula X in my dorm room with my Nintendo fanatic roomate. I hated the game so much I couldn't help but point out a couple of its flaws. He went home that very day to pick up Castlevania IV claiming it was the real Castlevania. This was before Bloodlines mind you, and I didn't even dream about bringing my game consoles to that dorm room besides.

[maxxfarras]

Dracula X for the Snes is a good game. Why do so many people dislike it? Too hard?

Is not that the game is very hard, (at least for me), is more the annoying kind of difficulty/design and very slowpaced gameplay which bother me.
At least castlevania IV is easy and you can finish the game faster and forget it .
But in any case in general Im never been a big fan of action games for the snes (with very few exceptions as contra 3 which I love it).
Matter of tastes I suposse.