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

[Black Tiger]

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.   

[Black Tiger]

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 f*cking 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.