Topic: Is Dracula XX really that bad?

[GuyStarwind]

I still need to play Dracula XX. I saw it at a used game store. I asked how much and they said like 80 bucks! I laughed at them and teleported away in a giant light beam surrounded by bats while I was laughing.

[RichterB]

Oh, Dracula XX is easily one of my favorite Castlevania games and one of the best, IMO. (It should be on Wii Virtual Console, but it's not yet, and my SNES isn't working well even though I have the game cart still). I prefer it to Rondo, actually. XX doesn't have as big of a "scope" as Rondo, but it's a tighter "game" with more traditional challenges like CV 1-4. There are fewer hostages, but they're harder to save and it means more to save them, since not only the ending, but stage progression and boss choices alter and there's no "turning back" like in Rondo without starting from the beginning. In other words, there are consequences. (In that, keys and secret passages are more tricky to utilize, too). Speaking of bosses, there are new ones mixed in with the Rondo ones. And the stages, while many are inspired by Rondo, are new--the addition of the all-new Sunken Water Temple marks one of the best levels in the series, IMO.

It has an interesting and unique visual art style, too, that's sort of like water colors, and it doesn't rely as much on "blocks," making it more organic. There are neat visual effects, as well, like 3D gears and transparent/warping flames. Some of the item crashes are different, like the cross. It's more tasteful and more powerful--zigzagging tons of boomerang-crosses across the screen.

The soundtrack, while it largely borrows from Rondo, is a much better mix with richer sounds. It has a drawn map like the older Castlevanias, as opposed to Rondo's blackened squares and lines. The Dracula fight is one of the hardest (and most unique) in the series until you learn the correct attack strategy, but even then it requires precision. And "precision" in the name of the game. This game has a learning curve like the older Castlevanias, where you have to plan ahead on jumps and attacks. It feels more satisfying when you get all the timing and enemy placement down. And finding and getting through the alternate routes is rewarding.

All and all, it's at least worth a play, especially if you're a fan of CV 1-4, Rebirth, Bloodlines, or the Original Gameboy entries. (It feels like sort of a blending of III, and IV--it has the gameplay and some of the path-strategy of III and some of the effects and horsepower of IV).

PS: I find it one of the most replayable Castlevania games. It's fun to just run through it once you've got it figured out.

[Puwexil]

Dracula X carries itself with a level of craftsmanship akin to a romhack: elements are reused, but the understanding of what makes anything work is wholly absent. The level design is filled with neverending mundanity from beginning to end. Backgrounds repeat constantly with no interesting or even identifiable visual or geometrical landmarks in sight, enemies are placed thoughtlessly (when out of ideas, just add medusa heads) and there are instances of reaching a new screen with no particular entry point existing where the transition supposedly took place. It's just a terrible slog to play through, and depressingly indicative of its nature as a sloppy imitation. Although if Rondo were not to exist, Dracula X still wouldn't be good. It's not an issue of looking bad next to a superior sibling, it's bad all on its own.

People often mention the visual style as something of a saving grace -- if not outright superior, then at least a valid option next to Rondo -- but I'm not impressed with muddy palettes, unimaginative setpieces and the like. There's nothing notable about the music, either. It's about as lifeless and stock as the rest of the game, barely keeping afloat because the source material is strong. CV4 made the SNES sing, this just makes it groan.

[Ridureyu]

The Dogether is watching both sides of this debate.

(hehe. I originally animated this gif in like 1999 or so. hehehehe)

[Reapers Death]

No it's not bad at all. The game starts great, and it peaks on the Necromancer fight which is one of the best in the entire series. Then though, it begins to lose its steam with what some would say average level design and that's where points are taken down. Bosses are interesting all the way though. Older games have way better level design, and latter games are more flashy and with more content. That's probably why it isn't on many favorite lists on both types of fans, but it's still a pretty cool game that while somewhat inconsistent, has some of the series' best when it gets serious (Necromancer and Death fights, Bloody Tears and Dance of Illusions).

[RichterB]

There are instances of reaching a new screen with no particular entry point existing where the transition supposedly took place...Backgrounds repeat constantly with no interesting or even identifiable visual or geometrical landmarks in sight...and

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but just so you know, Rondo does the same things just as blatantly. The transition thing: Rondo's Chapel, for just one example, loops you to the right side of the screen when you are traveling left if you go through the exit instead of the chain elevator at the top/end of the stage. And those bland/drab repeating brick backgrounds are terribly uninspired. And as for Medusa heads, when were they not cheaply placed? That's their purpose: To add challenge and strategy to platforming...even at the cost of frustration. I liked that the player could figure out how to counter that. Also, I enjoyed the fact that the stages didn't end abruptly by and large like in Rondo--like when you find Dogether in the swamp level in Rondo. That made the level almost skip-able. But I digress.

The Dogether is watching both sides of this debate.

Ha! Nice! Dogether is so discerning.

[Abnormal Freak]

And the art in the intro and ending (and credits) I find it terrible.

This is sooooo unfortunate considering the art it's supposed to be based on is so incredible. :( Akihiro Yamada's artwork for the SNES Dracula X is amazing—far better than the cheapo anime style of the PC Engine game.

I really like Dracula X. Fun game, awesome tunes (many of the SNES versions are really interesting, and the new songs are really good), really wonderful background art that reminds me of a lighter Demon's Crest, and so on. Complaints about it being too short and not having enough alternate paths compared to Rondo are valid, but then, it's almost nothing like Rondo; I just view it as its own installment in the series and enjoy it as such as well. It's a really good game, and one I like a hell of a lot more than every Metroidvania except the obviously amazing Symphony of the Night.

[Puwexil]

Rondo's Chapel, for just one example, loops you to the right side of the screen when you are traveling left if you go through the exit instead of the chain elevator at the top/end of the stage.

I'm not concerned about sudden flips in perspective, really. You have to set your mind to allow certain abstractions in the way characters in a 2D game traverse their world. I can buy that the direction has remained the same, and just the audience's perspective has changed.

What I really meant was things like Dracula X's final stage, which presents a myriad of illusion-shattering problems in just a few seconds. You start with a view of the castle (in its entirety, mind you), far off in the horizon. That's already weird as hell when the stage is short, and mostly vertical. You shouldn't be able to survey it somewhere else entirely. It worked in CV1 when the castle keep loomed in the background during stage 3: there's still ways to go to the end, so of course it's far off in the distance. It's a wonderful bit of worldbuilding. Dracula X tries something similar and just blows it.

Then you ascend the stairs in front, and in the next screen... you're standing on a flat surface with no stairs in sight. And when you walk off that screen, behind you is a tall, solid wall. In both instances, Richter has just mysteriously appeared to the next segment of the stage. Things like this are murder to a game's visual narrative, and Dracula X's are pretty arresting to behold. I know Rondo doesn't always have an obvious doorway of arrival visible in its boss rooms, yeah, but it doesn't wreck my brain in the same way because they're a separate entity from the rest of the stage, with full screen blackouts, a brief pause for loading etc. My mind is able to connect the dots. The things that bother me about Dracula X happen in the middle of stages for no concrete reason. It doesn't flow.

And those bland/drab repeating brick backgrounds are terribly uninspired.

I'm aware Rondo doles out its lustrous brickwork in rather generous samplings, but that wasn't all I was talking about. I'm talking about eye-catching, unique details, whether it's accomplished through curious background elements or interacting with the game world, or its inhabitants. You know, level design. Rondo is bursting with creativity from its seams, every new stage bringing something gorgeous, something incidental, something utterly trivial yet incredibly interesting to the mix. This is the team that went on to make Symphony, after all. It's never lacking in the setpieces it whisks the player into. There are burning towns to navigate (enemies blasting through windows = exciting), crumbling aqueducts to cross (day turning to dusk as you do), rapids to ride (still one of the best things the series has done), ghost ships to infiltrate (the layout of which is so good it hurts), etc. There's so much to do and see.

Dracula X might as well be dead for how soulless it is. The stages each have a (vague) theme -- the castle entrance, the caves, the clock tower and so on -- but this is where the creative process ends. At no point is there something interesting happening with the world at large, something that would differentiate a stage's section from the next. No unique enemies. No areas are simply allowed to exist and liven up the world - everything is an asset that has to be used for as long as the developers think they can manage it. It never feels like you're making progress in the game. At some point, a stage just ends. Was it really that significant to trek that stretch of land for the umpteenth time? This is the problem with the level design in this game: everything mixes together in your head, and afterwards you have a vague notion of what you just played through, but you sure can't name any singular instances where it captured your imagination. It just doesn't happen.

And as for Medusa heads, when were they not cheaply placed? That's their purpose: To add challenge and strategy to platforming...even at the cost of frustration. I liked that the player could figure out how to counter that.

I don't have a problem with Medusa Heads themselves, it's just how they're used. Dracula X has an overabundance of them, and it's clearly because they are the easiest enemies to include in any given section of a game. You don't need to think about where to place them in the stage, they just do their thing in an unerring stream, unfettered by obstacles in the layout. When a game has this little enemies to work with, it just screams lazy that several segments are taken up by this one thing, for how convenient it is for the designers. I mean more likely than not players are going to have trouble with them, so now they've delivered the challenge quota too. Without an ounce of thought.

If you want a good example in the usage of Medusa Heads, look no further than the last leg of CV1's stage 5. The combination of forward momentum, the Axe Armours' defensive ranged play and the added danger and pressure of the Medusa Heads all culminate in one of the series' very best action setpieces. It's heart-pounding every time.

Also, I enjoyed the fact that the stages didn't end abruptly by and large like in Rondo--like when you find Dogether in the swamp level in Rondo. That made the level almost skip-able. But I digress.

I don't really know what this means. You encounter Dogether in 3' by keenly exploring the environment and then interacting with the world in a meaningful way - allowing you access to a more secret, unique boss fight. It's like a summarization of everything good about the game, this series, hell, even video games altogether. How could anyone hate that?

argleblargle

[Sumac]

Then you ascend the stairs in front, and in the next screen... you're standing on a flat surface with no stairs in sight. And when you walk off that screen, behind you is a tall, solid wall. In both instances, Richter has just mysteriously appeared to the next segment of the stage. Things like this are murder to a game's visual narrative, and Dracula X's are pretty arresting to behold. I know Rondo doesn't always have an obvious doorway of arrival visible in its boss rooms, yeah, but it doesn't wreck my brain in the same way because they're a separate entity from the rest of the stage, with full screen blackouts, a brief pause for loading etc. My mind is able to connect the dots. The things that bother me about Dracula X happen in the middle of stages for no concrete reason. It doesn't flow.

Looks like someone touch your sore spot today, huh?

I personally find DX much more solid and mainly more interesting then Rondo. As for level design, as long as it does make sense for the game, I don't care if there are no stairs on the nest segment of the level or if there are no door at the end. It deosn't lessen developers creativity or something, they felt just to comose levels to interesting and different. As far as I concerned they achieved they goal in DX and that's the main thing for me. In general "levels that make sense" is not for what I am playing the game and I personally see such complaints directed for the 16 bit game as a rather strange form of nitpicking.
But it's not the last time I see CV fans doing it, so I am not surprised.

[Puwexil]

It's nitpicking because I pay attention to how a game presents itself -- tells its story -- to the player, and take issue when there are problems with the way it's doing it? I'm just making a point how Dracula X is lacking the expertise the makers of other games in this series have so many times over displayed. There's no need to excuse something like that, especially when a precedent for better things exists.

[Ridureyu]

The nice thing about this thread is that there are valid points and counter points on both sides of it.

[thernz]

I can't really think of any examples in DX's level designs that shows that by disrupting flow, that it can craft more interesting setpieces and variety in layouts and etc. Despite Rondo following a sort of cohesiveness, it still offers more variety imo. So I can't see DX's disjointedness having any sort of value when it adds nothing of value.

so rob is like i have this... and more! and dx is all like, nothing.

[darkjak951]

See when I played Dracula XX BEFORE I knew about Rondo, I still saw it as a downgrade to SCV4. I hated that the 8 directional whipping was removed, how bland the levels felt, and how AGGRAVATING the level design was. Now this was all said before by other people yes but I also hated a good amount of the bosses. Many of them were tedious, ESPECIALLY dracula(though nowhere near as hard as CV3 drac). Overall its not a HORRID CV game, it definitely felt like one....but it lacked a "hook" other than item crashes.

[Maedhros]

It's a good game. But Rondo is better.

[Successor The Cruel]

This game is pretty cool, I think.  I could go further into detail, but eh...

I wrote a really in-depth review about it.
http://www.chapelofresonance.com/games/dracula-x/review.html

Not just to plug my own thing, but I believe t's just the most practical thing to do when someone asks me if I think this game is good or not, since I said so much of what I think there.

But, long story short, I think it's pretty fun and kinda' in an unfortunate situation o__ob