Castlevania Appreciation Thread

[Xeogred]

item-crash = da hell?

You mean you played through Rondo of Blood and Bloodlines without knowing that you could do the item crash thing?

Oh, that. Why do you keep saying "item crash" it that some term?

... it took me up to the fight with Death to remember about it. So no I didn't beat the game... but about half of it that way!

I dunno though, in general I just don't care to use the full screen attacks or completely forgot about them in the traditional games. They seem more essential or fitting in the Metroidvania's though.

I honestly don't think I used it at all in Bloodlines. I can't recall what the specials were at all. In fact the only time I may have used it was when I had the whip fully powered up (to the blue beam thing) and had the special home-seaking beam attack that came with it, but if you accidentally picked up something else (or got hit) you couldn't get it again until your whip was completely powered up for it I believe? So yeah, that subweapon's attack was probably an item crash and was the only one I really used.

[nullPointer]

I'm always a bit surprised when I see people describing Super Castlevania IV as being a remake of the original Castlevania on the NES. I really see little to no similarity between the two games other than they both feature Simon as the protagonist. The level structure, nearly all the bosses, most of the enemies, and even the core gameplay mechanics are all distinctively different between these two games. Are there compelling similarities and parallels between these two games that I've simply missed for all these years? If it truly were a remake, wouldn't it just be called "Super Castlevania" rather than "Super Castlevania IV"? I'm not calling anyone out or anything, as I've seen this in various places across the internet, but interestingly it wasn't until the last couple of years that I had ever really heard this. To me it just sort of seems like an odd retrofitting of modern popular opinion based on internet rumor and speculation. So if there is merit to this belief, what is the source?

item-crash = da hell?

You mean you played through Rondo of Blood and Bloodlines without knowing that you could do the item crash thing?

Oh, that. Why do you keep saying "item crash" it that some term?

An item crash is the powered up special attack for a sub-weapon in your inventory.

[Gunstar Green]

I'm always a bit surprised when I see people describing Super Castlevania IV as being a remake of the original Castlevania on the NES. I really see little to no similarity between the two games other than they both feature Simon as the protagonist. The level structure, nearly all the bosses, most of the enemies, and even the core gameplay mechanics are all distinctively different between these two games. Are there compelling similarities and parallels between these two games that I've simply missed for all these years? If it truly were a remake, wouldn't it just be called "Super Castlevania" rather than "Super Castlevania IV"? I'm not calling anyone out or anything, as I've seen this in various places across the internet, but interestingly it wasn't until the last couple of years that I had ever really heard this. To me it just sort of seems like an odd retrofitting of modern popular opinion based on internet rumor and speculation. So if there is merit to this belief, what is the source?

The Japanese manual is the source. The US manual changed it to take place after Simon's Quest but officially the game is a re-telling of the Simon's original adventure in 1691. In Igarashi's timeline they're the same thing.

Despite it always being a remake in Japan, Konami USA stuck by it being a sequel for a while but finally changed their stance when Portrait of Ruin came out during the 20th anniversary and struck it from the US timeline that was included with the special edition of that game.

Oh, that. Why do you keep saying "item crash" it that some term?

It's just what the ability is called in the Castlevania games that have it.

[Ziggy]

I'm always a bit surprised when I see people describing Super Castlevania IV as being a remake of the original Castlevania on the NES. I really see little to no similarity between the two games other than they both feature Simon as the protagonist. The level structure, nearly all the bosses, most of the enemies, and even the core gameplay mechanics are all distinctively different between these two games. Are there compelling similarities and parallels between these two games that I've simply missed for all these years? If it truly were a remake, wouldn't it just be called "Super Castlevania" rather than "Super Castlevania IV"? I'm not calling anyone out or anything, as I've seen this in various places across the internet, but interestingly it wasn't until the last couple of years that I had ever really heard this. To me it just sort of seems like an odd retrofitting of modern popular opinion based on internet rumor and speculation. So if there is merit to this belief, what is the source?

The Japanese manual is the source. The US manual changed it to take place after Simon's Quest but officially the game is a re-telling of the Simon's original adventure in 1691. In Igarashi's timeline they're the same thing.

Despite it always being a remake in Japan, Konami USA stuck by it being a sequel for a while but finally changed their stance when Portrait of Ruin came out during the 20th anniversary and struck it from the US timeline that was included with the special edition of that game.

Also, check out the original (Super Famicom) title for the game. Castlevania on the NES, Super Castlevania IV on the SNES, and Castlevania Chronicles on the PS1 were all originally titled Akumajo Dracula. So you're right, it probably should have been called "Super Castlevania" but NA decided to call it IV, for better or worse.

The word remake is appropriately used. Remake can mean an exact 1:1 reconstruction, or it can mean to make something again only differently. They all share the same story line, they're just retelllings of it.

[Ziggy]

Has anyone ever beaten SotN using Richter? I played a little bit as Richter once, way back when I first played SotN, but I never beat the game as him. I remember it being really hard.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Has anyone ever beaten SotN using Richter? I played a little bit as Richter once, way back when I first played SotN, but I never beat the game as him. I remember it being really hard.

I have many years ago. If I recall correctly, it is not too bad once you get used to way the he controls.

[Ziggy]

So what's the goal as Richter? I forget, do you make it to the inverted castle? Do you have to get all the parts of Vlad and make it to the center and beat Dracula?

[prfsnl_gmr]

So what's the goal as Richter? I forget, do you make it to the inverted castle? Do you have to get all the parts of Vlad and make it to the center and beat Dracula?

I just beat the regular game, but according to Google, you can access the inverted castle with him. (I just burnt out before I got there.)

[KalessinDB]

Has anyone ever beaten SotN using Richter? I played a little bit as Richter once, way back when I first played SotN, but I never beat the game as him. I remember it being really hard.

Significantly harder than Alucard, no doubt. I haven't personally beaten it with Richter, but I hear once you get used to his super moves it becomes much easier.

[Xeogred]

I thought Richter was Game Genie mode.

I think this sums it up.


His "item crash" abilities destroyed the bosses.

There's no point to playing as Richter other than having fun with a different character, powerups, and moveset. There's no story parts with him and no item/key requirements. Beating a boss levels up all your core stats. IIRC right from the get go he has the infinite jump so you can sequence break the entire castle. Youtube confirms this with ~5 minute speedruns of people clearing the game (inverted castle final boss).


Personally I like Richter more:
- Whip
- Cooler sprite
- Cooler moveset