Forums  /  Castlevania series  /  Castlevania (NES)  /  Why is FC Banned?

My two cents:

The FC reissue is banned because the tallies at the end of the level are faster. The FC version would give an unfair advantage to all the runs on the current leaderboard.

I'd be happy to add a separate category for the FC reissue, but FC and NES (U) on the same category isn't really a fair comparison, especially for whip only which has mandatory heart counts.

I'd be curious to hear more opinions from the community.


Is it interesting to lobby to change the rules, so you have an advantage over talented runners that came before?


Frankly, I don't really hate the idea of allowing FC on any%, because it's pretty marginal. But for whip-only and low%, make a separate leaderboard for it (which I also hate, generally) and by your logic, that new leaderboard should be come the definitive category for those attempts. Problem solved.


I don't think the leaderboard would be too bloated if we just add misc. categories for different versions of the game. I'd like to get input from truefalse before making any changes, of course.

An overwhelming majority of the runs and all of the competitive runs for any% and whip only have been on the same US NES version for awhile now, and I don't see the need for a meta shift to the Japanese 93 reissue, FDS, AC, etc.

I'd definitely like to keep the category bloat at bay, but I don't want to have an uneven playing field either. In my opinion the current rules are doing a pretty good job at this, but if there are 50FPS PAL runs on the main board, it might be wise to split those out so they are on their own level playing field.

2snek2snek likes this. 

I'm not saying the FC version should be in a different category because nobody plays it. I'm saying the FC version should be a different category because it tallies the hearts at the end of the level faster and creates an uneven playing field--especially for whip only and low%. If runners prefer the FC version and it overtakes NES U, that's perfectly ok!

Another alternative: we could work on an accurate conversion rate to account for any hearts for levels 1-5 if someone really really wants to run FC whip only or low% and have their times on the NES U leaderboard. Shouldn't be too difficult to find the frame differences in a few bizhawk tests.


We have had this discussion before if I remember correctly. My position is the same as it was then. Any difference between versions needs its own leaderboard because it is not a level playing field. Everything has to be exactly the same, always, in order for it to be a level playing field. Any difference, any deviation, any additional factors or variables added or omitted, anything at all, regarding anything in the rom, is sufficient grounds for separation regardless of any other consideration, and not justified to be otherwise by any amount of reasoning that violates this simple principle.


Leaderboard bloat is bad, I agree. Imho, it's probably why CV 3 has suffered from a lack of popularity, despite being such a great game. There's no definitive category, which I think turns people off.

Despite this ideology, my opinion is that it's a disservice to earlier generations of CV speedrunners that grinded whip only and low % runs on NES, despite knowing that FC is faster, because those were the rules. It's not cool to change the rules and use the new rule set to "beat" earlier players.

I recommend creating a new board for whip only % FC and allow folks that are interested in running the fastest possible version for whip only. If folks are truly interested in running the fastest version of the game, it won't take long for that new board to fill up and make the old one obsolete. But then it would have happened naturally, rather than shoehorned because 1 player wanted to play with different rules.


Infer what you will, but you've been explicit in going after whip only WR, but I guess you don't want to do it the same way everyone else did. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

KomradeKomrade likes this. 

I guess it's just a coincidence that you fire up a new thread the same day one of your submissions gets rejected for using the banned version. 🤔


You're right, I was drinking a little too much of the Hateraide and I apologize for that. But if it's your intention to have an open, honest debate on the subject, undermining folks on twitter ain't helping. I'll adult up here, but I'm going to ask you to do the same.

If you want to have some drama, let's have some drama. If you want to have a friendly debate, let's have a friendly debate. But you can't choose friendly debate on SRC and snack on PopCorn on twitter.

Chambers_NChambers_N, NeoKadNeoKad and KomradeKomrade like this. 

Seems like this topic keeps getting brought up every once in a while.

These things are usually decided on a community-by-community basis. Some communities allow every single version available to be run under the same umbrella, and if it so happens that, say, wiivc is the fastest, then it's just how it is and that becomes the standard. Other communities instead push for a specific version, and they either separate other releases with different leaderboards, or sometimes outright ban them.
I don't think either scenario is unreasonable. Whatever the community prefers should dictate how the leaderboards are structured IMO.

Now, I wouldn't personally be opposed to allowing the FC re-release. It wouldn't become the unquestioned standard for Any% anyway because by playing well it doesn't save any time, and I prefer the faster reset time and the personal convenience of the US version.
But it's also important to note that allowing it now, after having it banned for a few years, would mean shaking up a meta that is already pretty well cemented. And more in specific, it would in fact become the new standard for Whip Only and Low%. If the reasoning for allowing it isn't strong enough, I'd say it's best to keep the boards the way they are. At worst, make a compromise and create a different leaderboard just for the FC re-release, which as far as I understand it, is the only version that is actually banned.

If necessary, I think holding a vote on this matter would be a good way to settle it.

LordMike111686LordMike111686, 2snek2snek and NeoKadNeoKad like this. 

I don't really have much to add, since SBDWolf summed it up really well I think ^^

But I might as well add this: It's true that, by that logic, we should separate every single version of the game into their own board, such as the GBA ports or the WiiVC rerelease. However, I think a key point to remember is that most of those versions are EXTREMELY similar to one another! There's no heart count difference, no item drop changes, no messing around with framerules and such, etc.
What I'm trying to say is, for example, if we ignore the minuscule framerate difference between the WiiVC and the NES as a whole - which isn't a difference in the game itself - then most of those versions are identical to each other, which would make creating so many boards for so many versions silly.

But since the FDS rerelease does have a difference in the game itself no matter what port is ran (the heart count), then I do think it's an advantage most versions don't have, so that's why I think it's fair for it to have its own board.


i'm all for fairness in competition.


My opinion stands as described above.

I'll add something though, say a re-release comes out and it ends up being faster than original hardware (which, allegedly such a re-release could already exist in the form of the anniversary collection, but it's still unclear if it actually does reduce lag, and if it does, if it makes up for all the time lost due to the slower framerate. Not enough testing has been done due to lack of interest). Would we want to use the fastest version in existence, no matter which one it is and what platform it is on? I'd argue in our case it's best to stick to the original releases, but that's my personal stance.
If we were to follow this logic, what should this FC version classify as, an original release (since you could make the argument of it being the japanese version, running on similar hardware), or as a re-release?