Why compare these two games? Well, they're often said to be the worst of the 16-bit era Castlevania games. So of these two black sheep, which is better?
There's always been something that I don't like about Castlevania Chronicles, but it's hard to put my finger on it. I've beaten it once on arranged mode, but usually on a playthrough attempt I quite out of lack of interest. I can nit pick things... I hate the whip sound effect and the noise that the boomerang makes. The graphics in some of the levels look ugly. Some enemy designs don't look that good, especially the fleaman. Some of the tracks are the worst of any Castlevania game. But I think what I like about the game the least are the controls. They feel horrible, and I think it's what keeps me from enjoying the game. There's something distinctly not fun about controlling Simon for me. And if a game doesn't feel good to play, then nothing else matters!
Castlevania Dracula X on the SNES, I've put this game down many times on this forum. I played it long before playing Rondo of Blood for the first time, I so I can't say I ever felt like it was a "watered down version" or anything like that. The first time I played this game it was completely unbiased with nothing to compare it to but CV 1-4 and Bloodlines (the only other CV games I had played up to that point). But even then, I was a let down by boring and uninspired level design, some really flat and bland looking graphics in some stages (mostly boring backgrounds) and overall something that just didn't feel polished. It has probably one of the dumbest Dracula fights. Castlevania Chronicles actually has a really awesome Dracula Fight, so I'll give it that. And those fucking Spear Guards! Once you realize that if you had the backflip from Rondo, they wouldn't be so hard, it makes their overuse that much worse! I was wrong, you DO have the backflip in Dracula X. But there's still a miserable amount of Spear Guards and some of their placement is just cruel.
But I just recently played each game for the first time in a while. I feel like Castlevania Chronicles will just never grow on me. A game that I dislike this much I would never pick up and try again, I feel like the only reason I keep giving it a try is because it's a Castlevania game. Dracula X pisses me off because I know that the game could have been so much more awesome if it just spent some more time in development and they polished it up. But even as it stands, and even with the missing backflip, it still FEELS good to play. And it does have a lot going for it. Although a lot of the level design is boring, it's still fun to play. And although some of the graphics are bland or flat, I still think it's a better looking game than Chronicles. And people can put it down because doesn't have the CD soundtrack that Rondo had, but on it's own as a SNES game it has a really awesome soundtrack! The Dracula fight is really, really dumb. But overall, I'd say it's a much better game than Dracula X.
So in short, Dracula X isn't nearly as bad as I remember it. And I don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be. Chronicles, on the other hand, I'm always wondering why some people think it's great.
PS, for anyone that missed it, I had made a similar thread comparing Castlevania III and IV - viewtopic.php?f=50&t=52995
... but did you see there's patch out for Saturn's SOTN improving performance? 
