Is there a reason why Dracula X is not as good as neither Rondo of Blood nor Super Castlevania IV?

[Ikagura]

Despite that the SNES was more a much powerful system than the PC Engine (CD) and that Castlevania IV, a game that came out several years prior, allowed 8 directions and a better air control when jumping.

[Melodia]

What does system power have to do with game qualitty?

[Ikagura]

Originally posted by Melodia:

What does system power have to do with game qualitty?

Well, usually a more powerful system is seen as having better game (well, it was mostly true in the 80's and 90's, the SNES was a juggernaut in term of power).

Super Castlevania IV had a better gameplay whereas Dracula X reverted to Castlevania 1 style whipping.

Rondo of Blood had more stages, cutscenes and overall better level layout and more levels than this tonned down game.

The background of the first stage was still rad though.

[Klampus]

System doesn't matter (really), design is everything

[Ikagura]

Originally posted by Klampus:

System doesn't matter (really), design is everything

I fully agree on this part, power alone don't make the games.

I'd still be curious who directed Dracula X. I can excuse Rondo on the PC Engine for reverting to the NES Castlevania formula of gameplay but when Super CV IV improved on the system there's less of an excuse.

Imagine being a SNES player and buying this game (thinking it's basically Castlevania V without the numbering) and finding a huge downgrade while discovering your friend still owning a Turbo GraphX/Core GraphX having an arguably better game than a SNES version.

At least Alladin SNES and Genesis are both good 16-bits games despite their differences.

[StoneofTriumph]

Originally posted by Ikagura:

I fully agree on this part, power alone don't make the games.

I'd still be curious who directed Dracula X. I can excuse Rondo on the PC Engine for reverting to the NES Castlevania formula of gameplay but when Super CV IV improved on the system there's less of an excuse.

Imagine being a SNES player and buying this game (thinking it's basically Castlevania V without the numbering) and finding a huge downgrade while discovering your friend still owning a Turbo GraphX/Core GraphX having an arguably better game than a SNES version.

At least Alladin SNES and Genesis are both good 16-bits games despite their differences.

I can't tell you who directed SNES Dracula X, but what I can tell you is that Super Castlevania IV was worked on by a lot of people who would later leave Konami and found a new company, Treasure (Gunstar Heroes, Dynamite Headdy, Alien Soldier, etc.). So it was made by a bunch of people who were way more willing to experiment.

[Ikagura]

Originally posted by StoneofTriumph:

Originally posted by Ikagura:

I fully agree on this part, power alone don't make the games.

I'd still be curious who directed Dracula X. I can excuse Rondo on the PC Engine for reverting to the NES Castlevania formula of gameplay but when Super CV IV improved on the system there's less of an excuse.

Imagine being a SNES player and buying this game (thinking it's basically Castlevania V without the numbering) and finding a huge downgrade while discovering your friend still owning a Turbo GraphX/Core GraphX having an arguably better game than a SNES version.

At least Alladin SNES and Genesis are both good 16-bits games despite their differences.

I can't tell you who directed SNES Dracula X, but what I can tell you is that Super Castlevania IV was worked on by a lot of people who would later leave Konami and found a new company, Treasure (Gunstar Heroes, Dynamite Headdy, Alien Soldier, etc.). So it was made by a bunch of people who were way more willing to experiment.

Treasure are great devs... I miss them nowadays.

On a side note: Contra Hard Corps and Castlevania Bloodlines felt like Treasure games in term of quality yet they were released way after Treasure got formed, how come?

I am pretty sure that Vampire's kiss was rushed somehow since nothing prevented them from making the same levels as the original PC Engine game (minus the animated cutscenes). Earnest Evans on the Sega CD had a Genesis counterpart and it was still the normal game.

[CrowRising]

Strictly speaking, it's true that game design plays a more direct role in how a game turns out than how powerful the hardware is. You can have great games on weak hardware and terrible games on powerful hardware. However, it's also true that hardware power determines the maximum potential for how a game might turn out. Back in the day especially it was common for more powerful hardware to have "better" games because developers could push to higher limits than they could with weaker hardware, allowing them to implement graphics and game mechanics that wouldn't be feasible or sometimes even functional on weaker hardware of the time.

Just because developers could do more with better hardware doesn't mean they always did however, and occasionally you'd get games that just aren't as impressive/fun as they could have been. Perhaps due to budget, perhaps due to being rushed, perhaps due to both or even a number of other factors such as internal company politics or etc. Beefier hardware has never been an outright guarantee that games made for it would turn out overall better than games made for weaker hardware.

[Ikagura]

Originally posted by CrowRising:

Strictly speaking, it's true that game design plays a more direct role in how a game turns out than how powerful the hardware is. You can have great games on weak hardware and terrible games on powerful hardware. However, it's also true that hardware power determines the maximum potential for how a game might turn out. Back in the day especially it was common for more powerful hardware to have "better" games because developers could push to higher limits than they could with weaker hardware, allowing them to implement graphics and game mechanics that wouldn't be feasible or sometimes even functional on weaker hardware of the time.

Just because developers could do more with better hardware doesn't mean they always did however, and occasionally you'd get games that just aren't as impressive/fun as they could have been. Perhaps due to budget, perhaps due to being rushed, perhaps due to both or even a number of other factors such as internal company politics or etc. Beefier hardware has never been an outright guarantee that games made for it would turn out overall better than games made for weaker hardware.

Some "8-bits port" of 16-bits games ended up being competent (like Ristar on the GG), same with Gameboy versions of NES/SNES games or even GBA spinoffs.

But nothing prevented the devs to port the same level design as Rondo of Blood.

[Klampus]

It was a different team within Konami, on a completely different console.

Also, it was marketed as a sequel in Japan, so chances are the devs got free reign to change stuff.

If the game had been improved over the original nobody would have minded. The only way people outside Japan even knew about the original was through video game magazines anyway, so most people back then didn't know what they were missing out on

[Ikagura]

Originally posted by Klampus:

It was a different team within Konami, on a completely different console.

Also, it was marketed as a sequel in Japan, so chances are the devs got free reign to change stuff.

If the game had been improved over the original nobody would have minded. The only way people outside Japan even knew about the original was through video game magazines anyway, so most people back then didn't know what they were missing out on

Oh, a sequel? That's a new story for me.

It explains a lot now.

[Hotel Security]

Was a classic case of Rondo being made on a powerful system and them having to cut levels and graphics and effects to fit it onto a SNES cartridge.

Realistically, Dracula X was the next big game after Super CV4 as most people didn't even know Rondo existed. I remember thinking it was a decent game but it didn't blow me away. Wasn't until years later that we knew the full story and you could find PC versions of Rondo online.

This was funny since SOTN came out and referenced the plot of Rondo...which most folks had never played. And yet it didn't matter one bit.

>Also, it was marketed as a sequel in Japan, so chances are the devs got free reign to change stuff.

That kind of stuff didn't matter back then. Every CV game was just "the continuing adventures of the Belmonts" so there was no such thing as "marketing it as a sequel." It was just yet another game with yet another Belmont. Fans didn't need them marketing as anything but. The plot of these games never mattered then. Kind of still don't.

[1337Dude]

I don't think Dracula X is that bad, really. SCV4 is a different kind of Castlevania game, and I kind of prefer the classic feel of Dracula X. It's obvious why Rondo couldn't have been done on the SNES, and I think what we got was decent given the circumstances.

[Annoying Old Party Man]

Whatever you think of Dracula X's quality, the lack of 8 directional whip and sitffer jump controls aren't a mistake, they're a conscious decision to make the game play more like Rondo and the NES titles. Obviously it feels better in the immediate to have the ability to control your momentum in mid-air and whip in 8 directions, but it impacts the way you can design stages.

[Ikagura]

Originally posted by Annoying Old Party Man:

Whatever you think of Dracula X's quality, the lack of 8 directional whip and sitffer jump controls aren't a mistake, they're a conscious decision to make the game play more like Rondo and the NES titles. Obviously it feels better in the immediate to have the ability to control your momentum in mid-air and whip in 8 directions, but it impacts the way you can design stages.

I think it was excusable for the NES (and Rondo was on a technically 8-bits console) so having it on the SNES after Castlevania IV (also considered by many as being one of the best game with Symphony) feels like you got ripped off...

If Vampire's Kiss was the game that had CV IV's controls and got released after a hypothetical CV IV that kept the classic controls it would've been better accepted...

On top of that VK isn't a straight port of Rondo despite that they could've ported it (without the cutscenes nor CD ost obviously) and arguably the level design and "openness" of the level progression is way less obvious than with Rondo (only one set path for the "good ending" and not the possibility to go for the alternative path to make the game feel different from one run to another like with Rondo).

[Hotel Security]

>the lack of 8 directional whip and sitffer jump controls aren't a mistake, they're a conscious decision to make the game play more like Rondo and the NES titles.

Yeah, I was fine with this. I still feel like Super Castlevania was one of the easiest CV games and a huge dropoff from CV1 and CV3 as a result. It was cool to go in all directions but also made it too easy.