Dracula X (SNES), complete in box, on ebay. Minimum?

[bluberry]

I notice that for a while it always seems to hover at $40, but then a bunch of new users end up racking it up to $100 two days before the auction ends. I know that it's just so high because they're new users and don't understand the concept of not bidding before the last hour, but if I get the chance to get it for, say, $50, is it worth just jumping on it?

[Ed Oscuro]

Whatever it's worth to you is what you should pay for it. On average, though, $50 is a great price for that game.

[charitycasegreg]

I saw that, it ended up at like 80 bucks or so didnt it?

[bluberry]

Up to $91 and still hasn't entered the last hour.

So if I get the change to snag it for $50 or something like that, I guess I'll go for it.

[badinsults]

I don't see why people pay so much for it. It isn't half as good as Castlevania IV, and there are plenty of rarer better games.

[v1rich]

I could not get past stage 1. It is good for collecting and that is all.

[Spartacus]

The one I was watching was at $203.67, with two hours to go, last night. The high bidder had 0 feedback. Like you and I, he's ignoring the reviews on this game. Can it be had for $50.00? With Ebay, patience makes anything possible.

[Aussie2B]

Well, it's a must for Castlevania fans. It's one of the few left that I want and don't have yet... The price seems to be only going up and up on eBay, but I'm not about to cave in. Sooner or later I'll get it at an acceptable price.

Oh, and if people only bought the best games, then none of us would be collectors. ;)

[Lemmy Kilmister]

If you don't care about having it in japanese just get the import. It goes for a hell of alot less. Plus it's easier to find complete.

[maxlords]

I just sold a mint complete on on eBay about 2 weeks ago for $96.00. I was happy But honestly, it's an awful game....get the Duo version or avoid it altogether...for gameplay purposes it's not even worth $50. Bleah.

[lendelin]

The game goes on ebay for two years now between $80 and $100 complete in very good condition, pretty stable in price.

The game is a good example how a price can go up for a game.

On the supply side:
1) The game didn't sell as well as other Castlevania games by far, and was probably shipped to the US in lower numbers (I'm speculating here). It dropped relatively fast in price after it was released, I got mine new for $25 one year after it came out. (an incredibly good price for a new SNES game back then)
2) It got modest reviews not becasue it's a bad or average game by any means but because it wasn't as excellent and outstanding as the other Castlevanias.
3) The year it came out there was a lot of competition.

On the demand side today:

1) The series is still alive and well, and gamers want to complete the series.
2) There is a kind of myth about the series.
3) The play value is really good, Dracula X isn't an average game at all just falls short compared to other games in the series. This makes it attractive for gamers and collectors alike.

Be very patient on ebay, as a general rule it pays off. However, the demand for the game didn't decrease so far for some time now, so it's difficult to snap a bargain.

Personally, I would nver spent more than $30 to $40 for an older used game, I think some prices are just insane today...but then, I'm not systematically collecting.

[Red Warrior]

I bought this game practically mint with box and instruction manual at my local video store back in 1997. They only wanted $10 for it! Needless to say, I picked it right up. Worked out pretty well since I had just purchased the other Castlevanias and was looking for Dracula X to complete my collection (at the time). Once I got home and played it, I wasn't real thrilled with the gameplay and stuff... but the graphics and music were pretty good. I ended up playing through it till I got all 3 endings, but never picked it up again... but it was a great purchase from a collector's standpoint... at least to me it was.

Anyway, back on topic... yes, if you can find it for $50, that'd be a great deal on a rare game... even if it ain't the best. It's worth owning if you're a collector.

[-hellvin-]

First off, 50 dollars would be a good price to have this game for collecting purposes. Otherwise if the game seriously goes for 100-250 like someone above said (I have no idea, no interest in the game and never watch the auctions) then stay the hell away. It is not that great. I've played it on emulation and while the graphics and sound are rather great, the gameplay just kinda sucks. Richter also seems (to me IMO) walk EXTREMEMLY fucking slow. For that price just go win an auction for the turbo duo version. I could not believe how much better this game was compared to the snes version. I thought it was all hype but after checking out the ISO, I absolutely love it.

So bottom line: If you want to throw a medicore collectible port in your collection for 50$ then do it. That is all ;).

[Aussie2B]

Eh, the only reason people trash the game is because they're comparing it to Rondo of Blood. :/ There is nothing "wrong" with it. It's a solid, entertaining platformer with good graphics and music in its own right. If there was no Rondo of Blood, everyone would be talking about how great it is. I personally don't even look at it as a port of Rondo of Blood. It's far too different. BOTH are worth owning and playing, if you ask me.

[badinsults]

The game is worse than Castlevania III and Super Castlevania IV. That is one point. The second point is that the music and graphics aren't as good as Super Castlevania IV. The gameplay is also more limited than Super Castlevania IV, as you can't whip any direction you want. Also, with all the buttons on the Snes controller, why didn't they assign one to shoot a weapon? It is terribly awkward to shoot an item when you are jumping. The game was a step backwards, and I have never played Rondo of Blood.

[E Nice]

That's debateable. CV4's music sounded way to midi-ish to me. Dracula X sounded better in comparison. Graphically CV4 was a mixed bag. Some places were alright, other places were colored to a point it was tricky to distinguish what was foreground and background.

As for gameplay being limited, well since it isn't really brought up with Rondo I consider it a moot point with CVracula X. It barely improves in SotN. Richter was just given a bunch of attack moves to compensate there. Then lets not forget the way easy bosses in CV4. All you had to do was hack away at them tit-for-tat to win. That strategy didn't change until you got to last batch of bosses at the very end.

I think the game was the package hoped for in the 8-bit generation, as that's what the gameplay resembles. CV4 was never followed up to and is just there. That places Rondo, CVracX and Bloodlines in their own group.

[Ed Oscuro]

The game is worse than Castlevania III and Super Castlevania IV. That is one point.

Most folks are undivided in holding that opinion, and I'd say it's a fair analysis but it's easy to sell Dracula X SNES short. The game doesn't have enough subtle touches, for one. On the other hand, the levels tend to be very passable; the secret level is wondrous fun. (I'll make an exception for the very first area of the first stage; you can demonstrate a whole range of Rondo's movement glitches there. There's certainly nothing as horrible as Rondo's stark lower path (forget exactly which levels, but there's a few stretches which are monotonous and bare of pretty much anything). While I think the game could've traded some of the larger set pieces (and the horrid isometric view pillars found later in the game where you have to take out whole columns of bone heads at once) in for better details, the graphics ARE amazingly detailed. Take the clock tower - that's one of the best pre-SotN areas in terms of graphics.

Richter has been powered up, as well, being able to hit things above and behind himself with the standard chain whip attack. Very nice! Hearts seem to be in short supply, though, and health is scarce indeed. It is nice not to need to rush through stages, however, as I feel a Cv game should be taken at one's own pace. Again, there's a tradeoff - you can "cheat" in the game and keep attacking Zombies at the top of the set of stairs from Bloodlines (yes, the level design at the area where Den plays is taken straight from Bloodlines, though you can't fall off the stairs anymore ;) for points, which equates to more lives.

A sidebar @ E Nice: Dracula X's music is great indeed, but there isn't nearly as much variety as in Super Cv IV, and there's a good deal of semi-scratchy samples in there. Super's baseline takes the game music a far way, and Pillared Corridor is one of my favorite laid-back tracks of all time - not to mention many of the other awesome tunes from this game :)

The second point is that the music and graphics aren't as good as Super Castlevania IV. The gameplay is also more limited than Super Castlevania IV, as you can't whip any direction you want. Also, with all the buttons on the Snes controller, why didn't they assign one to shoot a weapon? It is terribly awkward to shoot an item when you are jumping. The game was a step backwards, and I have never played Rondo of Blood.

Indeed, the original Castlevania must be terribly awkward with no ability to, oh, jump on and off stairs at will. Let's see you do THAT in Super Castlevania IV, too! As for using items when jumping...I never had much trouble with it. What's more, the game allows one button

The graphics aren't as good as Super Cv IV - they're better! Usually, that is. The style is much different, which is sometimes better and sometimes worse. Some areas are a bit bare, but the entrance hallway is much nicer than Cv IV's, for a direct comparison (the whole lower castle in CV IV was rubbish anyhow, outside of the Secret Room). Super Cv IV had higher production values - if you remember the screen in Cv IV sometimes scrolls a bit on its own to show you traps, and of course the truly gimmicky Mode 7 bits are gone. Dracula X SNES would've benefited from some more custom programming, which might have taken the game from being seen as a "bad Rondo port" to "a classic in its own rights." It could've been, indeed. Dracula X's Mode 7 fire is pretty awesome, you have to admit! Overall the game makes damn good use of SNES colors; the characters retain their PC-Engine palette but the details are fleshed out with their own. The starting area of this game turns more heads than Dracula X's very first area in Stage 1 (Prologue is Stage 0). That traditional "pick up a few items" bit was one of the weakest parts of Rondo, though.

If anything, Dracula X suffers from having used too much from Rondo. Richter's sprite (jester shoes and all) could've used a makeover, and while they've mixed up some of the bosses and such this dose of water hasn't extended the juice much.

It's been a while since I last remarked what the ROM sizes were - I recall Super Cv IV was only a 1 megabyte (8 megabit) game, and that Dracula X was a 2 megabyte game. There isn't as much obvious use of tiles, but Cv IV made great use of tiles.

I'm actually a bit surprised Aussie2B comes down on the same side I do - many Cv fans view this game as Konami's "cover-up" of their failure to do a real port of Rondo. This game might not have some of the whimsical features in Rondo (skeleton that you can turn into dust by touching or knocking it into the wall, fleaman-infested bell, gigantic bomb hidden in a wall, gigantic slab of meat hidden in a wall, Maria's game, skeletons swinging on ropes of bone, the ancient dragon skeleton (one of two Dracula games in 1993 to have a dragon skeleton in fact), the Ghost Ship's motor, hidden stairway before Dracula, the Minotaur's last ditch attack, and even more), but the new graphics are (mostly) more pleasant on the eyes and I feel most of the level designs are definitely worth seeing.

[Richter]

Eh, the only reason people trash the game is because they're comparing it to Rondo of Blood. :/ There is nothing "wrong" with it.

you still have to hit Up+B to us the sub-weapon o_____o that's wrong enough :P

[-hellvin-]

It's a good collectible, but it really isn't that great of a game. Wether Rondo existed or not, and without comparison.

[Aussie2B]

Eh, anyone who whines about a CV title having to hold Up+B for a special weapon or no mid-jump changing and multi-directional whipping is just a neo-Castlevania fan, in my opinion. The older games, even Dracula X which came after such changes were made, did JUST FINE without such things. To me, those complaints are pathetic. :/ On par with "It's not 3D, so it sucks!" kind of complaints. If I had to pick a favorite CV title (I usually prefer to just say 1 through 4 are my favorites), I'd go with Castlevania 3, and it didn't need any of those modern control features, dangit. In fact, at times the lack of those features made the older games BETTER. You couldn't be a sloppy player. You had to know exactly what you were doing, exactly what the enemies do, the layout of the stage, AND you had to execute your strategy of making it through the stage or beating the boss perfectly. Now that's good game design.