Psycopathicteen, do you really
prefer Castlevania Dracula X to Super Castlevania 4? I thought SCV4 was excellent. Control particularly was solid. CV DX has much stiffer handling particularly in jumping but just in general whip control. Both are great games though. CV DX probably has more animation but it also benefits from twice as much ROM storage.
[This is a good split point as any -- MOD]
Maybe the Wii's VC is just f***ed up then, because there is clearly a delay between hitting a button and seeing it happen onscreen when I'm playing it on the Wii.
Well you are playing on an emulator. If you are playing on a HDTV you may have HD lag.
Not to mention bluetooth lag from the Wii Remote.
You should play SCV4 on a PC emulator such as BSNES or Snes9x. It's really a great game, and had amazing graphics considering it came out in 1991 when the SNES was brand new (okay it was released in 1990 but not many game were released that year). It also does the best use of mode 7 of any platformer I had to play on the SNES.
Bregalad wrote:
It also does the best use of mode 7 of any platformer I had to play on the SNES.
You
had to play? Who/what was forcing you?
He meant it was the best of the platformers that he "owned" or "had access to". He didn't mean he was imprisoned and forced to play SNES.
Oh, OK. Of course I was just kidding anyway! =)
MottZilla wrote:
Well you are playing on an emulator. If you are playing on a HDTV you may have HD lag.
This is something I've noticed on my TV as well. Even with the "Game" mode enabled on the TV settings, it's still happening...
I see it on games like Punch Out Wii... I've seriously considered putting my 1994 CRT back in because of things like this.
An NES hooked up to the thing doesn't provide as clear a picture when fast animations are going on.
Movies become nicer to watch, but games certainly don't become nicer to play.
It's unfortunate but true. For non HD games, a standard CRT is the best display for them. I know some people will claim that their HDTV doesn't have any lag problems but not everyone is going to perceive it the same way and there may be varying degrees.
I keep around a Sony PVM with RGB input for my old consoles such as NES, SNES, Genesis, Saturn, and PS1.
tokumaru wrote:
Oh, OK. Of course I was just kidding anyway! =)
Sometimes we can't tell, especially if Portuguese is your native language.
Sivak wrote:
MottZilla wrote:
Well you are playing on an emulator. If you are playing on a HDTV you may have HD lag.
This is something I've noticed on my TV as well. Even with the "Game" mode enabled on the TV settings, it's still happening
One thing that might help is plugging a component cable into your Wii console and then setting your Wii to progressive display. Monster's Wii cable was in fact cheaper than Nintendo's, which I honestly didn't expect out of Monster. At least on my Vizio TV, upscaler lag disappears once the source is 480p or higher.
tepples wrote:
tokumaru wrote:
Oh, OK. Of course I was just kidding anyway! =)
Sometimes we can't tell, especially if Portuguese is your native language.
Don't really see how Tokumaru having Portuguese as his first language matter, really. His English skills seems to be quite good from what I can gather.
Anyway, context sensitivity FTW! :-)
I love both games, mostly for nostalgic purposes. Even if games are crappy, I usually enjoy them just because they bring me back to a time long gone =)!
But seriously, I don't think either of these games are crappy. Dracula X has cool levels, nice graphics, but pretty annoying controls. The worst part is that 4-screen segment right before dracula where you're trying to ride the moving platform, kill the medusa heads, AND kill the Axe Man at the end. That is SO annoying. Besides that, I guess the hardest part would be dracula himself, haha. I've seriously never fought a harder version of dracula. Once you get him to his demon form after about 10 minutes, be prepared to basically die. Either by getting knocked off the edge, damaged by him twice, or jumping to your miserable death trying to dodge him. I found really the only way to win is get 99 hearts, save them all for the end, and use the super power of the crucifix subweapon and kill him in 4 uses of that. This is my own solution I made, I'm sure there's some easier way on youtube you could look up.
Rondo of Blood is way better though. In all aspects.
Castlevania 4 on the other hand, has some pretty nice controls. The graphics are a bit worse, but I agree with Bregalad I like the Mode 7 parts. It really adds a cool element to the game. Also, there are more levels and replay value than in Dracula X. And while Dracula X offers the ability to use superpowered subweapons, CV4 has other strategic elements that aren't found in Dracula X like the mode 7 parts and whip-swinging.
I'd probably say CV4 is overall a better game because you can get more out of it, but I think I enjoy them equally and for different reasons. Like I said before, mostly because of nostalgia.
That's a relief. I was beginning to think it was acceptable for games to have delayed control back then, thanks to the VC.
On the case of SC4, I thought it was delayed because Konami broke Mr. Belmont up between 10 dma loads and couldn't move him until the dma loads were finished.
Ever play Space Castlevania 200X?
- Super Castlevania IV is a masterpiece; Dracula X (Super NES) is... crap. Well, that's me anyways.
I'd lke to add a vote for SCV4. It is a masterpiece. Graphics, sound, control were all great.
Zepper wrote:
- Super Castlevania IV is a masterpiece; Dracula X (Super NES) is... crap. Well, that's me anyways.
I agree. At first I throught it was SCV4 that was the sequel to Dracula X so I throught it was decent, but when I learded it was released 5 years later, and that they reverted the controls all the way back to what it was in the SNES days, I just don't understand. The graphcis are kind of washed out too (not that they're bad but they are better in SCV4). The music is great through. The gameplay is especially horrible, and it's SO difficult just because of how stupidly the whip and jumps works, if it would be like CV4 this game would be a piece of cake to beat.
To be clear, Dracula X on SNES is a port/remake of Dracula X Rondo of Blood for PC-Engine. It came out on PC-Engine Super CD-ROM 2 years after Super Castlevania on Super Famicom. The only reason I can see for the Super Famicom port of Dracula X (somewhere between 1 and a half to two years later) was probably to reach a greater audience.
Personally I think the SNES Dracula X is a solid game on its own. It's different in many ways from the source material but it's not really bad. It definitely seems out of place with the timing from our perspective. But if you take it for what it is, it's not a bad game.
How does SCV4 have better graphics? Dracula X just strived for a more cartoony look.
Man, I'll take CV1 over CV4 any day. Dracula X, on the other hand, is sweet.
I never played either game (not a fan of the controls/physics in this series), but from watching YouTube videos I must say that whoever said that SCV4 has better graphics must have been high or something. They are blocky like hell, and too "first-gen" looking.
Well it was an early 8 megabit SNES game. What do you want them to do exactly? The SFC had been out for about a year when it came out. At the time it definitely looked good. I still think it looks good. Don't judge it on craptube videos, play the real thing or atleast look at it on BSNES.
I've played CV4 quite a bit and I can say it's quite rough. Again, Castlevania 1 has clean graphics with clear edges.
Quote:
Well it was an early 8 megabit SNES game. What do you want them to do exactly? The SFC had been out for about a year when it came out. At the time it definitely looked good. I still think it looks good. Don't judge it on craptube videos, play the real thing or atleast look at it on BSNES.
Bregalad said it looks better than Dracula X, and thought SCV4 came out later.
I don't really know why he thinks that, SCV4 looks pretty blocky, the colors look kind've clumped together onscreen, and the sound quality is nowhere as clear.
SCV4 was good when it came out since it was a first gen game and we all were used to nes graphics. But now, it's nothing special actually. After playing Dracula X on the pc-engine later, I prefer this one instead.
SCV4 is worth a few dollars in japan. On the other hand, dracula X is more expensive to get (either version , snes/pc-engine), so is the megadrive version. Do the math.
MottZilla wrote:
Well it was an early 8 megabit SNES game. What do you want them to do exactly?
I didn't say it looks like shit, I just said that it's clearly inferior to Dracula X, graphically I mean.
Quote:
The SFC had been out for about a year when it came out. At the time it definitely looked good.
Definitely, it just doesn't look as good as Dracula X... This might not even be a fair comparison, considering the time between the two games, which makes it even crazier the fact that someone thinks SCV4 looks better.
Banshaku wrote:
SCV4 is worth a few dollars in japan. On the other hand, dracula X is more expensive to get (either version , snes/pc-engine), so is the megadrive version. Do the math.
Personally I don't think this means anything. There's hardly a direct connection between how good an old game is and how much it costs, sellers usually go with stupid things like availability or other shit invented by stupid collectors.
Expensive just means either rare, or good and uncommon. It's just rarity. Game quality doesn't always enter into price. Hence why very common but excellent games are still cheap. For example, Super Mario Bros 3 is really cheap.
Dwedit wrote:
Super Mario Bros 3 is really cheap.
You'd think so, but I met a crazy seller once that charged more for SMB3 just because it was "Mario", you know, the big-name company mascot.
I really, really enjoyed the PSP port of Castlevania: Rondo of Blood (the real Dracula X). Dracula's added third form was a real treat. The lower half of stage 5' was absolutely psychotically difficult, though. Much harder than the top half with that awesome Hydra boss.
Yeah, I'm not too sure I'd say CV4 is better graphically than Dracula X. True, there are some cool Mode 7 moments, but Dracula X has nicely drawn tiles. The only complaint I have is that the colors are a bit dull in Dracula X. Otherwise, yeah, the sprites are pretty much SOTN quality (since they are the same ones imported from Rondo of Blood).
Celius wrote:
The only complaint I have is that the colors are a bit dull in Dracula X.
I don't think they are dull, I just think the artists went for a "hand-painted" look, that doesn't have as much contrast as other art styles. I think it looks great.
- I really enjoyed Super CastleVania IV, mainly because it's a 16-bit highly improved version of its 8-bit counterpart.
Who cares if the gfx looks blocky or whatever? It has some awesome backgrounds, a great music and so on! Cool!
- Dracula X (SNES version) is a bad remake of the original Rondo of the Blood. They're, in fact, different games. Yup, it brings a few better things, but CV4 is better.
Though I like Dracula X, I have to agree that it is completely different from Rondo of Blood. I don't know why they didn't make a decent port of that game to the SNES; it's completely doable. And plus, you can't play as Maria, who totally owns over Richter.