Classic-vania games all function so similarly that it seems pointless to go over their design except as a delta of the template, but that makes it difficult to review this game in particular. Bloodlines has multiple characters, Super Castlevania 4 focuses on setpieces more than challenging action, but Dracula X is essentially the first game all over again. It’s simple, it’s difficult, but it doesn’t have the same stylistic flair as its peers.
Ok, I can’t keep going on with that style, anyone who reads my stuff knows this sudden lurch in tone is the equivalent of me throwing the papers on my desk into the air, but I take issue with the way that Dracula X is discussed, and this is my chance to air some grievances. The phrase you can’t get away from is “botched Rondo of Blood”, and while there is some truth to that, I think it’s way too easy of an evaluation to slap on and call it a day. The truth is that Rondo of Blood has its own flaws, and Dracula X is a response to those criticisms mixed in with the limitations of the Super Nintendo. Namely, the difficulty curve of Rondo of Blood definitely needed a second look. Most of the game is pretty easy, until you reach the sixth stage, which is a massive difficulty spike that I found to be one of the hardest bosses in the series. Then, the difficulty jerks up and down until the final fight, a showdown with Dracula that’s one of the most effortless. Meanwhile, Dracula X’s curve makes much more sense, starting high but increasing steadily, finishing off with an appropriately difficult climax. Whether that makes the total experience for you better or worse is a question unto itself, but the point is that it shouldn’t just be dismissed as a porting mistake. Meanwhile, one aspect that’s an almost indisputable downgrade is the general game feel, where Richter feels less responsive and slower than he does in Rondo of Blood. However, when compared to the rest of the series, the movement in Rondo is the one that’s the outlier. Castlevania Bloodlines also came out after Rondo and feels the same way as X, but it doesn’t receive the same criticism because it fits in line with the rest of series without carrying those stylistic expectations.
That’s really what I wanted to put out there about Dracula X, that I hope people can play it with the perspective of the wider series, not just its most direct predecessor. Imagine how this game would be thought of if it had the exact same content, but was about, I don’t know, Steve Belmont instead of Richter. I think we would end up with more reviews like the one I started with, simply noting that this game felt like a SNES version of the original Castlevania. It’s simple, it’s challenging, and it requires more planning and experimentation with subweapons than either Bloodlines or Super Castlevania 4. As someone who likes that original NES Castlevania more than Rondo of Blood (I can hear people fainting), I’m completely ok with that. I like Dracula X, even if it really isn’t as good. In my view, it’s much worse of a fate to be dismissed and forgotten rather than critiqued, so I hope this review can inspire people to take a second look and be disappointed in a whole new way.
Ok, I can’t keep going on with that style, anyone who reads my stuff knows this sudden lurch in tone is the equivalent of me throwing the papers on my desk into the air, but I take issue with the way that Dracula X is discussed, and this is my chance to air some grievances. The phrase you can’t get away from is “botched Rondo of Blood”, and while there is some truth to that, I think it’s way too easy of an evaluation to slap on and call it a day. The truth is that Rondo of Blood has its own flaws, and Dracula X is a response to those criticisms mixed in with the limitations of the Super Nintendo. Namely, the difficulty curve of Rondo of Blood definitely needed a second look. Most of the game is pretty easy, until you reach the sixth stage, which is a massive difficulty spike that I found to be one of the hardest bosses in the series. Then, the difficulty jerks up and down until the final fight, a showdown with Dracula that’s one of the most effortless. Meanwhile, Dracula X’s curve makes much more sense, starting high but increasing steadily, finishing off with an appropriately difficult climax. Whether that makes the total experience for you better or worse is a question unto itself, but the point is that it shouldn’t just be dismissed as a porting mistake. Meanwhile, one aspect that’s an almost indisputable downgrade is the general game feel, where Richter feels less responsive and slower than he does in Rondo of Blood. However, when compared to the rest of the series, the movement in Rondo is the one that’s the outlier. Castlevania Bloodlines also came out after Rondo and feels the same way as X, but it doesn’t receive the same criticism because it fits in line with the rest of series without carrying those stylistic expectations.
That’s really what I wanted to put out there about Dracula X, that I hope people can play it with the perspective of the wider series, not just its most direct predecessor. Imagine how this game would be thought of if it had the exact same content, but was about, I don’t know, Steve Belmont instead of Richter. I think we would end up with more reviews like the one I started with, simply noting that this game felt like a SNES version of the original Castlevania. It’s simple, it’s challenging, and it requires more planning and experimentation with subweapons than either Bloodlines or Super Castlevania 4. As someone who likes that original NES Castlevania more than Rondo of Blood (I can hear people fainting), I’m completely ok with that. I like Dracula X, even if it really isn’t as good. In my view, it’s much worse of a fate to be dismissed and forgotten rather than critiqued, so I hope this review can inspire people to take a second look and be disappointed in a whole new way.