There has been a concerted effort in recent years to reframe Castlevania 64 as an unjustly maligned gem of the fifth generation. This is propaganda for the weak of spirit and mind, and if you believe these lies then you're probably susceptible to joining a cult. Hey, you wanna come over and play some Castlevania 64? It's good actually, and when we're done we can read your thetan levels. Oh sick, you have an OT of 8, I think you're ready for Legacy of Darkness!

Castlevania 64 is a very misguided and weak attempt to lift a formula perfectly suited to 2D and force it to work in a 3D space. The opening of the game might actually deceive you into thinking it comes together competently enough. For as drab and lacking in bombast as it may be, it at least plays alright. Combat is barebones but functional, platforming is still simple enough as to be moderately enjoyable. Damn, is that skeleton riding a motorcycle? Why's everyone being so hard on this game? On first impression, it's a serviceable if antiquated action-platformer.

Hey, you know what else had a good first level? That's right, Dracula X. It all falls apart just as quickly for Castlevania 64, too. As soon as you find yourself in more enclosed spaces, the camera and controls start to work in concert to undermine you with a level of determination that makes them seem like the true villains of Dracula's castle. Parts of the game feel straight up untested, like the infamous nitro sequence, though I found the garden maze and really any vertically oriented space to be pretty miserable too. However, 64's greatest sin is that it lacks one of the central pillars of the Castlevania franchise: challenge. Don't get me wrong, the game is plenty hard, but there's a definable difference between rote difficulty and challenge. Death in the 2D games presents an opportunity to get better, every failure helps you build skill until you're capable enough to overcome the obstacles the game lays out before you. It feels good, it's what compels you to hit "continue" the second you reach the game over screen rather than put it down. Castlevania 64 on the other hand just feels like someone is grinding their knuckles against the sides of your head. It's irritating and you want it to stop, but you have to keep going because you spent 15$ to get a cart off Ebay and god damnit, you paid your money and you're gonna play the rest of the game.

It is a little ironic that Symphony of the Night felt like a more substantial jump forward for the series despite keeping itself locked to 2D, whereas Castlevania 64 not only fails to evolve the standard formula beyond shifting perspectives, it botches its most important elements. I cannot overstate how good this series was between IV and Symphony, every release had its own identity while still being definably Castlevania in the best ways possible, then 64 comes along and pushes all that good will off a cliff. As far as console games goes, it marks the beginning of the series nadir, and the fact that people try to frame it such that it's a misunderstood darling of the N64's library is bizarre to me.

At least it's cheaper than Dracula X.