Castlevania Dungeon Forums

The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Unknownsou on April 06, 2011, 07:36:13 PM

Title: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Unknownsou on April 06, 2011, 07:36:13 PM
So I've never played through Dracula XX, and I'm a little curious... but the game has a bit of a reputation, to say the least.  Is it really as bad as some people make it out to be, or is it just chided because it's not the PC Engine game?
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ridureyu on April 06, 2011, 07:47:05 PM
It's a fun game.  It's just inferior to Rondo.  I'd put it at about Bloodlines level, although it's a different game.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ahasverus on April 06, 2011, 08:03:26 PM
I't like The Adventure rebirth. Fun, but made with a very rigid template.
Still one of the better adventures in the whole SNEs library
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Profbeanburrito on April 06, 2011, 08:04:49 PM
I've always liked it. Not as good as Rondo but much more challenging. You should definitely try it
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ridureyu on April 06, 2011, 08:32:03 PM
It's certainly less "in-depth" than Rondo - very few alternate exits, for example.  As far as improvements or difficulty changes go:

-The crumbling bridge is in stage 2, not the next-to-last.  Instead of being chased by bats, you are harrassed by severely inopportune fishmen.

-I love the Dogether and all, but Cerberus is actually somewhat of a challenging boss (at first).

-The Shaft standin certainly is no Shaft, but it's a really cool and creative boss fight.  Yoiu have to be on your toes, or he will wreck you.

-Bosses in general are less susceptible to "stand in place and spam until he dies."

-They made the Giant Bat intimidating.  Hit him at the wrong time, get swarmed.

-Using the key to free Maria and Annette is now much tougher.  You have to keep that Key through a pretty good chunk of gameplay, including a NASTY platforming segment (fail and go to an alternate level) and the Dullahan boss fight.

-The sinking temple stage is very tough.  Good use of water skulls, and the "sinking" part of the stage is nerve-wracking.

-Better graphics for the burning village.

-Fighting Death on top of the clock tower face is MUCH cooler than fighting him on a boring old pirate ship.  The battle is essentially the same, althoughg he loses his background-to-foreground skulls (since the clock face is in the background, he would have had to shoot through it).

-There is one specific platforming moment in the last stage that will have you tearing your hair out, old school-CV-style.  Two moving paltforms, medusa heads, and an angry axe armor at the end. SO simple, yet so hard not to fail.

-The Dracula battle is much improved in difficulty.  Why?  Because now it's platforming hell!  if you don't choose your positioning wisely, you will die. T he axe is also now the best weapon for this fight.

-Dracula's second form is not as cool as his second form in Rondo, but it's a little harder to deal with partly due to the platforms and partly his slightly different movement patterns (he flies forward, and moves more than the old one jumped).

There you go! I do prefer Rondo of Blood overall, but Dracula X has some definite good points.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: darkwzrd4 on April 06, 2011, 09:23:59 PM
It's an ok game.  The Dracula fight is really annoying because you are platforming and getting hit can knock you into a pit causing instant death.  Plus, the best sub-weapon is not the cross, but the axe.  The only thing that was better than Rondo was the background fire effect on the first stage.  I mean it's really spectacular.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: X on April 06, 2011, 10:29:28 PM
I liked the SNES Dracula X despite the fact that it is inferior to it's TG-16 predecessor. The SNES color pallette IMO is much better and gives the game a more in-depth feel like it was with SCV4 rather then the bright & cheery 'Turbo Graphix' it first appeared on. And the game is a lot tougher: if you have played Dracula X before RoB then RoB is that much easier to breeze through. I was disappointed that only two of the four characters were cut from the final release as the story shouldv'e had all four girls to rescue and you shouldv'e been able to use Maria. But since you rescue her so far into the game then there's really no point in playing as her. The game's anime cut-scenes were also not included which was also a cheap move since the main story kind of relied on them. Instead they gave you an intro and an ending (depending on how many people you've rescued). That's it. The music wasn't bad but the TG-16 music was much better however, the SNES was able to loop their songs where-as the TG-16 gam played the song from begining to end and then it cycled up once more which I found annoying. And another unfortunate thing is Richter's whip. In RoB it glows like the vampirekiller should, but it was left out in the SNES port  :P

-X
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: VampirehunterB on April 07, 2011, 03:03:28 AM
I liked it just as much as rondo, perhaps even more because it has a speical place in my heart..it was the first CV game I ever played! I just wished that it was much longer..
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: A-Yty on April 07, 2011, 04:32:58 AM
No, it's not terrible. It just pales in comparison to Rondo. If people play it without having played Rondo before, I think most will think it's not bad at all.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Chernabogue on April 07, 2011, 10:21:52 AM
I like Dracula XX. It was a cool game.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Sumac on April 07, 2011, 11:09:06 AM
I played both games, but like Drcaula X better.
It's harder. Bosses are more dangerous, than their ROB counterparts (most of them were cakewalk). Especially Dracula, who was the simpliest boss in the Rondo in BOTH of his forms.
Graphics is a bit better. I liked SNES arrangements of the music much more than ROB versions.
Rondo has more variety, but while DX is more straightforward, it's more difficult and more interesting.

P.S.
Never liked ROB Maria, so I don't care that she wasn't included in the DX. Nothing of value was lost, IMHO.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ridureyu on April 07, 2011, 02:34:42 PM
Rondo stage 5' gave me a whole lot of trouble, but yeah.  Generally speaking, when Dracula X decides it wants to be difficult, it doesn't screw around.  You die.  You die in a fire.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Mike Belmont on April 07, 2011, 04:24:05 PM
The only bad thing that I find in Dracula X, is that is too short than RoB (even SCVIV is larger). And the art in the intro and ending (and credits) I find it terrible. The only thing that I miss from RoB, is the beggining of the first stage (Veros town, I believe. If I´m wrong, tell me, please), because is the same as the town in Simon´s Quest. Also, the different paths (which give you different ways and bosses) are missing.

The good things, that I like it more in Dracula X, are the music (Bloodlines, Cemetary, The Den, and Dance of Illusions) and the mayority of the graphics. The bosses are awesome. I like the Death and Dracula fights. And hear Dance of Illusions (the best Dracula fight track, next to CoD Toccata into Bload-soaked Darkness, in my opinion :P) while you fight Dracula in that pillars, is simply amazing. Maybe you need more strategic in this fight, but is very challenging (don´t forget to get the pork roast, or leg of werewolf if you prefer, in the left side of the room ;)).

In other words, CVDX is relatively inferior to SCVIV in terms of lenght, and character movement (more free in IV than in more DX more classic movement). I like SCVIV more than DX. If only this one have all the stages like in RoB, it would be really great.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: capkcan on April 07, 2011, 05:13:40 PM
its not
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: thernz on April 07, 2011, 06:33:42 PM
DXX sported some really bad level design coupled with a blander, even though it was technically better, aesthetic than Rondo imo. I thought there were a lot of boring spots, nonsensical platforms, and lack of flow. Plus, Richter controls more sluggish in a step back from Rondo and SCIV when the enemies are basically the same from Rondo, so it adds a level of cheapness.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: GuyStarwind on April 08, 2011, 01:09:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: RichterB on April 08, 2011, 02:14:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Puwexil on April 08, 2011, 04:43:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ridureyu on April 08, 2011, 04:57:00 PM
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20081016082057%2Fcastlevania%2Fimages%2F4%2F49%2FDogetherani.gif&hash=54447ff3e9a960d7aa309f3794c4d0bc)
The Dogether is watching both sides of this debate.

(hehe. I originally animated this gif in like 1999 or so. hehehehe)
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Reapers Death on April 08, 2011, 08:09:24 PM
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).
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: RichterB on April 08, 2011, 11:31:16 PM
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.

(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20081016082057%2Fcastlevania%2Fimages%2F4%2F49%2FDogetherani.gif&hash=54447ff3e9a960d7aa309f3794c4d0bc)
The Dogether is watching both sides of this debate.

Ha! Nice! Dogether is so discerning.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Abnormal Freak on April 09, 2011, 08:04:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Puwexil on April 09, 2011, 12:33:41 PM
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
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Sumac on April 09, 2011, 08:52:20 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Puwexil on April 09, 2011, 09:28:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ridureyu on April 09, 2011, 09:30:12 PM
The nice thing about this thread is that there are valid points and counter points on both sides of it.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: thernz on April 09, 2011, 09:38:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: darkjak951 on April 09, 2011, 09:57:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Maedhros on April 09, 2011, 11:34:15 PM
It's a good game. But Rondo is better.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Successor The Cruel on April 10, 2011, 08:00:25 AM
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 (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
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: TheouAegis on April 10, 2011, 11:02:12 AM
Many of them were tedious, ESPECIALLY dracula(though nowhere near as hard as CV3 drac).

I played CV3 on an emulator twice this last week (I have the actual game cart, one of the few times I'm actually allowed to have the ROM  ;D ), and granted I did play with save states. And granted I used them quite often, but mostly on the stair climbing stages (forget Medusa heads, I hate those freaking gargoyles with shields) or when trying to kill bosses in 2 hits (holy water is just cheap, seriously, kill a boss with just 2 hearts!). But I found Dracula's battle to be definitely tedious but definitely not hard. You stand in close to him, hit him a few times, dodge the first 2 walls of fire, stand right next one of the walls and keep hitting Dracula, then dodge the 3rd wall of fire and keep hitting Dracula until the fires go down, then quickly run away while he teleports. After phase, hurl axes or holy water at the floating head thing and keep moving back and forth and jumping to throw off its movement pattern. I think Sypha is the easiest to kill this with unless you have the axe, maybe, but the first two heads will die quickly if you can chuck a couple holy waters under it. Then in his third form, you just have to watch the lasers and either jump early to throw them off or jump after they fire. There seems to be no good character for this one, although I'm sure the axe would be good to have, and Vlad is just cheap if you can get there with level 2 or level 3 fireballs -- stand in the corner and keep attacking.

But I've always hated platforming boss battles. Always felt it showed a lack of creativity in the bosses. "What? You can't make a boss that can kill me so you make a room that can?"
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ridureyu on April 10, 2011, 11:04:13 AM
with CV3 Drac, I do best with Simon and Grant. With Grant, I want the axe and triple shot, and then his second two forms die within seconds.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: PFG9000 on April 10, 2011, 11:22:29 AM
This has been quite the refreshing topic to read.  It's always good when there's a good debate going here, with both sides giving valid, well articulated points and keeping things civil.  I don't have much of an opinion on either Dracula XX or Rondo.  Neither are among my favorites in the series, Rondo because I've played it to death, and Dracula XX because I usually get frustrated halfway through and shut it down.  I do need to play through Dracula XX again though, and soon.  Rondo certainly has more work, more detail, more polish, and more everything when compared to Dracula XX.  But I really prefer the synths used in the Dracula XX versions, even though Rondo's are higher quality samples.  And just the fact that it's more classic Castlevania for me to play is enough to make me fire it up once in awhile.

Puwexil, welcome to the CVDF.  I've really enjoyed reading your posts and I hope you stick around.

Then in his third form, you just have to watch the lasers and either jump early to throw them off or jump after they fire. There seems to be no good character for this one, although I'm sure the axe would be good to have, and Vlad is just cheap if you can get there with level 2 or level 3 fireballs -- stand in the corner and keep attacking.
I've always used Trevor with the Axe, and no other helper characters, for all three forms of Drac.  Save up your axes for the third form.  Keep the timing of the lasers first on your mind, and use the platforms to get high enough up to hit Drac's head with an axe.  When he shoots his lasers, you'll probably have to jump down to the ground to avoid them.  Sometimes you can jump straight up just as the lasers are "warming up" so that they target the space in the air over your head and shoot there when you've landed, instead of shooting right at you.  Do this and you'll have hit him without taking any damage yourself.  Rinse, repeat.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ridureyu on April 10, 2011, 11:44:42 AM
Yeah, what PGF9000 said.  I usually svae up enough hearts (about 40 or 50) so I can spam both of Dracula's second forms without a worry, though.  Triple Shot helps a lot, too.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: X on April 10, 2011, 01:00:44 PM
with CV3 Drac, I do best with Simon and Grant.

Don't you mean 'Trevor' and Grant?

-X
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ridureyu on April 10, 2011, 01:11:39 PM
Nope. Simon.  The KOnami Code activates Simon mode, didn't you know that?
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: X on April 10, 2011, 04:32:03 PM
I really don't want to come off as being the 'village idiot' but...it does?!?

-X
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ahasverus on April 10, 2011, 04:32:46 PM
I really don't want to come off as being the 'village idiot' but...it does?!?

-X
Nop it doesn't  :P :trolled:
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: X on April 10, 2011, 04:36:09 PM
Yeah I was just throwing that in there ;D But I did play a CVIII Simon hack a while ago so I guess Ridureyu is half right.

-X
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Munchy on April 10, 2011, 04:37:26 PM
Drac XX is alright. It's far more playable than, say, CVA, though that game has the advantage of an original and awesome soundtrack.

I did discover that the way to beat Dracula easily is Axe spam.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ridureyu on April 10, 2011, 07:16:47 PM
Yeah, I was being silly.  I felt embarrassed about screwing up Trevor's name (like I did with Soleiyu), so I made a patently obvious joke about it.

I mean, come on, Simon in CVIII would be about as probably as getting to play as Julius, Yoko, AND Alucard in the Soma games!
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ridureyu on April 11, 2011, 01:19:24 PM
Something I never noticed before.  You know how in Rondo, stage 1 mirrors one of the towns from CV2?  Well, in DX, stage 1 mirrors stage one in Castlevania 3.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Profbeanburrito on April 11, 2011, 05:02:58 PM
Something I never noticed before.  You know how in Rondo, stage 1 mirrors one of the towns from CV2?  Well, in DX, stage 1 mirrors stage one in Castlevania 3.

Yeah I always thought that was awesome
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Jorge D. Fuentes on April 11, 2011, 08:13:47 PM
Stage 5 from DraculaXX also heavily resembles Block 9 from CVIII

The beginning area with the staircase that opens up into the courtyard with the eagles that drop the fleamen is the same as CVIII's only in CVIII it's harpies holding up the hunchbacks.

(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inverteddungeon.com%2Fjorgefuentes%2Fimages3%2Fdxx-stage5intro.png&hash=291c8cb806227aafa32093142857c4f9)
VS.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inverteddungeon.com%2Fjorgefuentes%2Fimages3%2FLv901-intro.gif&hash=7ad166ec730d053e025c54d5b9e3105d)
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: X on April 11, 2011, 10:32:45 PM
I noticed that too right off the bat. It was kinda neat to see them incorporate an older level into a newer game.

-X
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: PFG9000 on April 12, 2011, 07:08:16 PM
Stage 5 from DraculaXX also heavily resembles Block 9 from CVIII

The beginning area with the staircase that opens up into the courtyard with the eagles that drop the fleamen is the same as CVIII's only in CVIII it's harpies holding up the hunchbacks.
Wow.  That always seemed familiar, but I never made the connection.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: X on April 13, 2011, 11:34:33 AM
Not only that but they use the only tune not used in Rondo unless you're trying to play the game without the disk and just your memory card.

-X
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Jorge D. Fuentes on April 13, 2011, 12:18:44 PM
Actually that tune IS used in the extra stage (5') but only after you beat the regular game.
But I get what you're saying. Opus 13 is great. :)
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: X on April 13, 2011, 09:19:43 PM
Actually that tune IS used in the extra stage (5')

I forgot about that  :-[

-X
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: xscientist5000 on April 14, 2011, 07:52:07 AM
I'm playing Rondo right now for the first time. I've played Drac X a million times before, and I have to say that I'm pretty impressed with Rondo. Way more background detail than Drac X. There's a skeleton that you can whip out of his chair, people impaled on pikes, and the pirate ship has an engine that you can destroy. I don't think boat engines existed at that point, but its still fun. Did anyone else try to kill the guy in the background whose dropping the boulders down the stairs? whats that story with that guy?

Drac X was good, and def worth playing. I replayed it so many times because its the kind of game you can easily get into. I disagree with haters, I think the music is great. Just don't expect any bells and whistles like an engaging storyline, cut-scenes, or cool background stuff. Its just fun to play.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Inccubus on April 15, 2011, 10:49:18 AM
It's not a bad game, but the changes are enough that if they had taken it a step further they could have called it a different game or a prequel. The art work is ok, but the palette is way too pastel for a CV game most of the time. I agree it's too 'stiff' like The Adventure Rebirth was.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Nail_Bombed on April 16, 2011, 08:05:47 AM
Haven't put enough time into SNES Dracula X. Only really found out about it after getting the PSP Dracula X Chronicles, and seeing a lot of people saying that it would have been nice to see that on there as well.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: X on April 16, 2011, 12:37:42 PM
Haven't put enough time into SNES Dracula X. Only really found out about it after getting the PSP Dracula X Chronicles, and seeing a lot of people saying that it would have been nice to see that on there as well.

I was thinking this exact thought as well. It would've made the DXC fully complete even if a lot of people out there don't think so.

-X
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Successor The Cruel on April 17, 2011, 03:40:02 AM
I get the feeling that Konami kinda' wants to bury that game.  Unfortunate, if so.  I would never say it's better than Rondo, but it's got stuff to offer.  That Dracula battle is righteous.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Pneophen on April 17, 2011, 02:17:37 PM
Overall, I like the game, although I do wonder how close to Rondo it could have been if they had more rom space to work with.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Sumac on April 18, 2011, 12:06:01 PM
I am not sure who said it, but in theory Rondo could have been put on the SNES cart in it's entirety, save the music.

Even if it's not the case I think they deliberately changed stuff in the game, not because of the space issues, but more likely because they wanted to create something new.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Renonsgoods on April 18, 2011, 03:27:24 PM
I believe a number of changes were made anyways because Konami had to (or wanted to) remove a number of Rondo's religious elements for the Nintendo version.

It does make me wonder, though......how much DX was a necessary redesign as opposed to perhaps a genuine attempt to just do something different and/or better.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: X on April 18, 2011, 06:47:14 PM
Overall, I like the game, although I do wonder how close to Rondo it could have been if they had more rom space to work with.

There is plenty of room to have a proper Rondo port put on the SNES. The only real thing they would need to deal with is the music and sound files. Those files alone take up a lot of room on a single cartage. But I believe that the SNES was capable of handling it. After all, take a look at how much the stuck on the Genesis cartage of Contra: Hard corps. That beast was packed! Also SCV4 comes very close to having the same amount of levels featured in Rondo. SCV4 had eleven stages while Rondo had thirteen. Only just 2 extra levels over it's predecessor. This is probably just one of the many different reasons why we got Dracula X and not Rondo. But at least we can get Rondo now  :)

-X
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: knightmere on April 18, 2011, 10:44:13 PM
I like the Dracula XX versions of Bloodlines, Bloody Tears & Cemetary better then Rondo's, but thats about it.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Ridureyu on April 18, 2011, 11:08:54 PM
Bloodlines was worse when it came to clumsily attempting to cut religion out of Castlevania.

"It's a MAGIC MIRROR, yeah! That's the ticket!"
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Von Doodling on April 21, 2011, 12:43:02 AM
Dracula XX isn't all too bad. It still holds memorable value to me being a long time CV fan. I always liked the first part of the second stage when you're traveling across the broken bridge. The rays of sunlight coming out of the clouds was an especially nice touch.  Also the character design for Annette Renard was so much better than the lavender haired Annette in Rondo.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Belmonto on April 27, 2011, 05:55:46 AM
Dracula X: Rondo of Blood is MUCH better. Dracula XX is an inferior port.
You can download and emulate both versions, to feel the difference.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Francis on April 27, 2011, 06:29:05 AM
I think it's a cool game, maybe a little stiff,but enjoyable and hardcore.I don't understand why people think Dracula's battle is one of the hardest,because of the cliff,uh? Well, come on,There is no need to rush, there are safely spots where you cannot die in one hit ;) From my point of view is one of the easiest(second only to bloodlines), what is challenging here is Death battle, similar to Rondo but, with less space to dodge the attacks.It take me a lot of tries before beat it.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: Abnormal Freak on April 27, 2011, 12:12:55 PM
The Dracula battle in the SNES game is so farking easy if you have an ax. Just chill at a safe level where you won't get hit and throw a couple.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: VampirehunterB on May 02, 2011, 04:21:45 PM
Dracula XX isn't all too bad. It still holds memorable value to me being a long time CV fan. I always liked the first part of the second stage when you're traveling across the broken bridge. The rays of sunlight coming out of the clouds was an especially nice touch.  Also the character design for Annette Renard was so much better than the lavender haired Annette in Rondo.


totally agree.
Title: Re: Is Dracula XX really that bad?
Post by: knightmere on May 02, 2011, 04:22:59 PM
A LOT of the graphics in XX are actually better then Rondo's, its the overall design that fails.