Talk:Castlevania: Dracula X

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Difficulty

is it last difficult? Least difficult? Most difficult? either of the second can fit, but the first does not, I have never played the game so, which is it?64.80.89.61 06:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh yeah

I think they meant to say, it's the last Castlevania game that is difficult.

POV

A "Criticism" section that takes up the whole article with no redeeming qualities listed from the people who actually like the game? Seems pretty biased to me.

I'm tempted to remove that section entirely, but I'm sure the RC patrollers who never even played the game would immediatelly revert it and label me a "vandal". 66.191.237.124 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PC

I have two problems with the following sentence: "On the PC, there are four paths that can be taken through the game, while the US Super Nintendo release featured only two." The gameplay section only mentions that "On the PC, there are four paths" with PC linking to the Personal Computer article. As far as I know, this game was only released on the SFC/SNES. It also says "while the US Super Nintendo release featured only two." implying that the Japanese SFC release featured more than two. Does this need rewording or are there differences like this between the Japanese and US SFC/SNES versions. Unless anyone knows better, I'm changing this to "In the PC-Engine version, four paths can be taken through the game, while the SFC/SNES release featured only two." unless anyone knows better. Liam Markham (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception

I think this article would benefit from a section regarding it's initial reception among critics. At the time of the game's release, the only really recognized and reliable reviews in the industry came from EGM and GamePro.

EGM volume 95 page 62 features a set of four review scores and blurbs. The scores were rated on a scale of 0-10. The game received: 7.0, 6.5, 7.0, and 6.5.

GamePro Oct. 1995 page 64 features another take. The game was rated in four catagories on a scale of 0-5. The following scores were published: Graphics: 3.5, Sound: 4.0, Control: 4.5, and Fun Factor: 2.5.

A really good writer should use this information and provide a reliable and proper section regarding the game's reception.

Both magazines noted two things. First, both thought the game lost something in translation from the PC Engine CD. Second, the whip and jump conrols from Super Castlevania 4 were missed. I think you could state those things and have two reliable sources to back you up--at least in reference to the game's critical reception at release. But, the person that adds the section must be careful not to go any further or add a spin. Let readers know that the magazines gave those reasons for the lukewarm reviews--and leave it at that.

I think I like this game too much to add this section myself. But, somebody should add a neutral section that outlines how the game was viewed at release. Thanks. 68.102.77.56 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rarity

I don't have any numbers to back this up; but I understand the cart wasn't produced in large numbers and is now considered to be (somewhat) rare.

If someone has anything on that, I think it would make a nice addition. 68.102.77.56 (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]