Castlevania II: Simon's Quest and Bioshock 2

That game's a stinker. A striking compassion to the amazing Castlevaina 1

Fusion was the first GBA game I ever had, I spent an entire night trying to find it until Zellers of all places came through. Still one of my favourite games.

Ummmmm, no. Castlevania II is a fantastic game, and one of my all time favorite games from my childhood. I spent possibly a hundred hours trying to figure out all of the weird clues you were given on how to make shit work. It's a much better game than the first Castlevania, which I also spent a lot of time with as a kid. It's just very different. I always wished they would make a game that went back to that style at some point. Eventually, they sort of mashed the two styles together to create the Metroidvania style they are now so famous for.

It sucks. But your point of view is interesting though. Have you played Castlevania: Symphony of the Night? I guess it's most similar to C2 in terms of mechanics in series.

But it doesn't suck. It was a very interesting game that tried a lot of new things. There really isn't anything about it that I could call bad. The localization maybe, but that sort of added to the mystery of it.

Let's say I agree to most arguments here ^

Let's say I'm not going to watch that, and you've probably never played the game.

I've played both, I'm currently on Castlevania III (not completed this one yet)

What don't you like about it then?

Apart from bad translation (there's a patch for that), the enemy placement isn't really good, the bosses are at least dissapointing (and there aren't many of them). Fight is not really that challenging, it's more like farming. It's a much longer game because of that, but gets boring at some point. Dracula fight is a joke.

The music is cool.

But....it wasn't about boss fights. And.....there are quite a few areas that are challenging.....and how can you complain about enemy placement after playing Castlevania I?

So basically, you are judging the game based on what it isn't instead of what it is.

The parts where you had to throw holy water continiously just to know where you can walk and not fall was poorly executed.

I'm playing a game which is a sequel to Castlevania, and it's bad of me to expect the pros of the first game?

Most enemy placement in C1 was good (not every), it was made to make the player not rush carelessly through enemies but make some tactics on how to kill them without losing (much) health

There was nothing wrong with the holy water section. It worked perfectly fine.

Enemy placement in the first was ridiculous, especially once those fucking Medusa heads came out. And the major difference here was backtracking. The kind of placement that they used in the first wouldn't work for the second because you have to constantly go back and forth over the same levels. Back tracking through the first game would have been almost impossible the way they placed the enemies. Hell, as it was, going forward in the game became almost impossible at some points.

Again, it's meant to be a very different type of game, so saying that it's bad because it's not like a game that it wasn't meant to be anything like doesn't make any sense.

Backtracking is a cheap way to make the game longer. And the game felt a bit rushed in development

It wasn't only a bad translation, the NPC dialogue was meant to be cryptic and misleading from the start, though you have a valid point there. I can cut the game a bit of slack for the farming and day/night things, as these were (at the time) brand new mechanics. As for the bosses, my guess was they spent so much time concentrating on the world and the complex castles that they neglected spending time working on good bosses.

The Holy Water mechanic was good, but yeah, the 'fake' floors were a real pain. Some of the platform segments were also pretty hard to get right first time.

Is that all it is? So, it isn't meant to make you explore, and be immersed more in the world of the game? No? It's just cheapness, huh?

So every Metroid game is a cheap piece of shit, I guess.

Look, it's fair, and fine that you didn't personally like the game for these reasons, but most of your reasons come down to Seinfeld isn't funny. These were the early days, man. And this shit was new, and amazing. Was it the greatest game ever made? Definitely not. But it wasn't afraid to mix up the recipe, and try out some things that would eventually became staples of the video game world.

Gotta point out I'm not complaining about Day/Night system, it was pretty cool after you speed up the "What a terrible night..." notification by fix

Oh, I dunno... the locations in C2 weren't that interesting in my opinion. Some of them were dull (the best example would be the Dracula's Castle, but you don't backtrack there). Unlike in C1 where I can remember most of them (if not because of the design then because of prev. mentioned enemy placement)

I think that's crazy. To me, the environments in C2 were a hell of a lot creepier than the first. Especially some of those underground castles with the corpses hanging everywhere. Then you add in the towns, and the weird graveyards, not to mention that crazy fucking cliff that I was stuck at for about seven hours. I just don't see it.

Wait wait... the towns? ...really?

Yup. The towns. That was a pretty new thing for that type of game.

But... but they were ugly.

http://www.nesmaps.com/maps/Castleva...TownOfAlba.png

You’re ugly.

*burns*

Again. Seinfeld isn't funny.

I think it's a little much to expect any game on the NES, apart from maybe Super Mario Bros 3, to look nice nowdays.

Especially when the game in question had reviewers raving over the art and graphics when it was released.

Egoraptor in his video rightly pointed that in NES games colors can make a huge difference in how the graphics feel for player. C1 (And C3) had much better color balance than C2. When I look at that city, I mostly see one color, therefore I categorize that as less pretty than those in these two games

Okay

I finally watched that video. I was unimpressed all the way through, especially at the end where he basically implied without saying that there's no value in adventuring and exploration.

So, I just watched it, or at least most of it. Yeah. It was stupid, and it does what every hack reviewer ever born does. It judges it based on what it isn't instead of what it is.