Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: darkjak951 on March 11, 2011, 04:46:11 PM
-
Sequelitis: Castlevania 1 vs. Castlevania 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aip2aIt0ROM#) I agree with a lot of what he said and it was a pretty enjoyable review, but I will still love this game despite his opinions. I liked the RPG elements and the town system, but I agreed with the whole farming aspect. I just find it interesting to see him do a video like this, pretty cool change of pace of his usual stuff.
-
That was the most entertaining review I've seen in awhile.
Shit I agreed with a lot of his points, Simon's Quest is a horrible game.
-
Entertaining review for sure, but I don't think Simon's Quest was a horrible game. Far, far from it IMHO. Sure the game can be confusing if you don't know what's going on, but it had an excellent atmosphere overall. Very good music, the day/night cycles were cool, great backgrounds & locations and a good story. Plus the RPG elements, different weapons/items, etc were a fun new twist at the time. I still play and enjoy CV2 very much to this day.
-
That was very entertaining! :D It's like watching his Metal Gear Awesome flicks.
X
-
We need to give credit where credit is due though. Simon's Quest introduced Bloody Tears. One of the freaking staple tracks along with Vampire Killer.
-
While I agree with his assessment of the games technical problems, I also agree with Thunderbrand regarding the quality of the game.
This was especially important for me to see and I thank you OP for posting it.
-
Very good and interesting video, thanks for sharing!
-
Simon's Quest kicks the shit out of every Castlevania game that isn't called Castlevania (NES) and Super Castlevania IV, so...
-
Pretty much agree with him in retrospect. Yes, compared to today's CV's, Simon's Quest blows goats. At the time it was released though, it was something new, and I enjoyed it. But even back then, I strongly felt that the game was impossible to figure out without a guide (Nintendo Power was very useful back in the day), and thus poorly designed. Still liked it though, but won't ever play through it again.
-
It took me awhile, but I got through CV2 the first time without a guide. I remember talking to every villager and writing down pretty much everything they said, trying to figure it out. It was difficult at first, especially since every mansion entrance looked the same and going through them could be tricky, but by the time I got the 2nd or 3rd body part I had a decent idea of what to do. During that very first playthrough way back when, the hardest part for me as I recall was finding the damn castle ruins! I had all the body parts, weapons & items but could not figure out where to go with them. The famous wall on the castle bridge was especially frustrating >:(
-
It took me awhile, but I got through CV2 the first time without a guide. I remember talking to every villager and writing down pretty much everything they said, trying to figure it out. It was difficult at first, especially since every mansion entrance looked the same and going through them could be tricky, but by the time I got the 2nd or 3rd body part I had a decent idea of what to do. During that very first playthrough way back when, the hardest part for me as I recall was finding the damn castle ruins! I had all the body parts, weapons & items but could not figure out where to go with them. The famous wall on the castle bridge was especially frustrating >:(
How did you figure out to kneel in that one spot with the (I think) red gem equipped?
-
I thought Id try to use the red crystal like you did the blue one to raise the lake in that one part. I tried it all over the place (like bombs and burnin bushes in Zelda 1) and it shocked the shit outta me when that tornado came. I mean shocked the shit outta me lol
-
This is gonna sound crazy and condescending (and I assure you I don't mean it that way) but I don't think you can fully appreciate Simon's Quest unless you played it around the time it was released. Sure, nowadays it seems poorly designed and even antiquated in some ways, but back in '88-'89, it was an amazing game, in part because there weren't many like it. Games back then couldn't be made to be beaten in a day. SQ is actually the game that got me into VIDEO GAMES as a whole, so I'm certainly biased. But I still think the game holds up despite its shortcomings.
You definitely need a guide in a couple places, but overall, the game gives you a lot of the information you need to solve it. You just have to try every clue you're given and suss out which ones are real and which are fake. I was able to get through the entire game and only needed help finding Dracula's Castle at the end. I think most of you who think the game sucks just aren't willing to put in the time, which is fine. But don't blame the game for your lack of interest.
-
I thought Id try to use the red crystal like you did the blue one to raise the lake in that one part. I tried it all over the place (like bombs and burnin bushes in Zelda 1) and it shocked the shit outta me when that tornado came. I mean shocked the shit outta me lol
So, what you're saying is that one moment you were sitting there, frustrated, just grinding away at your kneeling, wearing a clean (comparatively) pair of underwear, and the next moment you had shit in your pants.
Did you go and change right away, or did you wait until you had a chance to save first? :P
-
Sorry, but people saying that they found how to kneel in one specific spot with a red crystal equiped alone (since no one in the game mention this) can only be lying, lol. It's fuck'n impossible to just figure that alone... I would never finish this game without a guide on that part.
"Oh hey, why don't I equip the red cristal and go crouch on this wall here... hey, wtf is this tornado?"
-
Simon's Quest kicks the shit out of every Castlevania game that isn't called Castlevania (NES) and Super Castlevania IV, so...
Castlevania 3? Rondo? :P
This is gonna sound crazy and condescending (and I assure you I don't mean it that way) but I don't think you can fully appreciate Simon's Quest unless you played it around the time it was released. Sure, nowadays it seems poorly designed and even antiquated in some ways, but back in '88-'89, it was an amazing game, in part because there weren't many like it. Games back then couldn't be made to be beaten in a day. SQ is actually the game that got me into VIDEO GAMES as a whole, so I'm certainly biased. But I still think the game holds up despite its shortcomings.
You definitely need a guide in a couple places, but overall, the game gives you a lot of the information you need to solve it. You just have to try every clue you're given and suss out which ones are real and which are fake. I was able to get through the entire game and only needed help finding Dracula's Castle at the end. I think most of you who think the game sucks just aren't willing to put in the time, which is fine. But don't blame the game for your lack of interest.
I understand your point, and surely it was pretty revolutionary for its time, but you have to admit that despite what it did right, it did so many things wrong. It introduced some great ideas but was just very poorly executed. I lost interest in the game at a point where I was apparently supposed to crouch in front of that lake to reveal the next path. I really tried, but I couldn't get into it. It just didn't make sense.
-
Aside from being a bit obtuse at times (which I will admit is a pain in the ass, but it was a function of the times), what did Simon's Quest do poorly?
-
Docta:
so basically, quality is contingent upon its chronological context? that doesn't really make much sense. if something is good, it is good, and it does not matter when it was made or when it is being received; similarly, if something is bad, the same is true. if something that is bad appears to be good out of ignorance, or because something is not so developed, then that is a matter of misperception or self-deception.
comparatively good does not equal good.
-
Simon's Quest was a great game mudded by bad localization, but it was very ambitious and well designed. Not the black sheep at all (I'm looking at you, Original Adventure)
-
Apparently the dialogue in the Japanese version was just as confusing. But I liked it. It had a cool mood to it.
-
so basically, quality is contingent upon its chronological context? that doesn't really make much sense.
This is wrong. It makes perfect sense. Of course somethin you never played thats 20+ years old wont be as good now as it was when it was new. If youd never played Doom1 when it was new and you went back and played it now youd be like "wtf is this? Why did ppl like this game so much? I dont see what the big deal is?"
Sure CV2 is lacking in the explanation department of things but its also from an era when damn near EVERY game translated for NES was done as a joke by some dude over the course of a single weekend. Dont forget this was back when gaming as a whole wasnt taken seriously at all
-
Castlevania 3? Rondo? :P
Love 'em, but I love SQ more.
And really, "kicks the shit out of them" is pure hyperbole, but I get tired of hearing people spewing crap about the game. It's got some weirdness, but in my opinion criticisms against the tornado bit and such are invalid 'cos everybody knows how to do those parts anyway. I have a hell of a lot of fun playing the game every time that I do, and it never gets tiring, and I've never seen it as poorly designed. To date, no other Castlevania game gives you the open-ended freedom to explore as this game does. It's still linear in a lot of ways, but it makes you feel like you're on an adventure, which is a feeling I've never really gotten from any other games in the series besides the first N64 game.
Dracula's Curse is actually one of my least favorite of the classic Castlevanias. I love it to bits and pieces, but I, IV, II, Rondo, Bloodlines, and X68000 (in that order) are all better, in my mind.
-
Sorry, but people saying that they found how to kneel in one specific spot with a red crystal equiped alone (since no one in the game mention this) can only be lying, lol. It's fuck'n impossible to just figure that alone... I would never finish this game without a guide on that part.
"Oh hey, why don't I equip the red cristal and go crouch on this wall here... hey, wtf is this tornado?"
People can discover things on accident, how do you think folks discovered cheat codes back in the day in games? Wasn't always magazine guys finding these things, gamers found many as well.
-
The 13 Dracula Clues hidden in the mansions and countryside tell you to do these things.
One of them specifically says:
"TO REPLENISH EARTH, KNEEL BY THE LAKE WITH THE BLUE CRYSTAL" (the Veros woods a few screens away from said lake)
And another says:
"WAIT FOR A SOUL WITH A RED CRYSTAL ON DEBORAH CLIFF" (Brahm's Mansion, before you ever reach Deborah Cliff)
And just in case you reached the other part of Deborah Cliff, another of Dracula's Clue books tells you about it:
"AN OLD GYPSY HOLDS THE DIAMOND IN FRONT OF DE-BORAH CLIFF" (in Aljiba, where you get the Garlic/Laurels)
All of these clues are in the Red Books and can be found by HolyWater FireBombing everywhere. In town houses, in the woods, and especially in dead ends in mansions.
-
And you end up throwing holywater in every fucking block in the game. Milon's secret castle's good traditions. *invent*
-
I love throwing the holy water around to find which blocks you can walk on. That, and Milon's Secret Castle rules as well. ;) One of the weirdest games I've ever played, but I have fond memories of playing it as a kid. Couldn't have done it without How to Win at Nintendo Games #2, though. Plus, it paved the way for the much more fun sequel, DoReMi Fantasy: Milon's DokiDoki Adventure, which kicks aaaaaaass.
And another says:
"WAIT FOR A SOUL WITH A RED CRYSTAL ON DEBORAH CLIFF" (Brahm's Mansion, before you ever reach Deborah Cliff)
In regard to this clue, isn't there also one about hitting your head against a rock? It's all pretty cryptic and weird, but it's not like it's impossible to figure things out without a guide. So I call bullshit on the other people in this thread crying bullshit.
-
Egoraptor does reviews? Amazing ;D
His points are all pretty valid, but it makes me realised how fucking impossible it was to finish Castlevania NES.... ghhrhrgghh up yours Death >:(
-
Ahhh EgoRaptor. He nailed it all pretty spot-on.
-
Aside from being a bit obtuse at times (which I will admit is a pain in the ass, but it was a function of the times), what did Simon's Quest do poorly?
One of my biggest complaints is this:
And you end up throwing holywater in every fucking block in the game.
On top of that, the monsters were pretty boring, and the boss fights were awful. If Simon's Quest were able to keep some of the great level design that CV1 had, then that would be great. But the world was just felt a little empty and repetitive. For instance, the mansions really had poor design. They weren't even close to being as visually appealing as the areas in CV1, and the enemy placement just felt boring. When I play through CV1, it feels like every brick, every enemy, and every jump was carefully considered by the designer. Look at level 4 for instance, theres that part where you are on a moving platform while there are bats coming at you, and then at one point you are under those rocks which reduce your mobility, and on top of that there are those merman, at which point you need to jump onto the next ledge and then onto another platform. Those elements all really came together well to make the spot interesting. From what I played of Simon's Quest, there was never really anything like that. It just felt like the mansions and the outdoor areas were just filled with stuff. By all means, its a good game (especially for its time) that introduced some great concepts, but I find that CV1 and 3 (even though I suck at that one) are just more fun to play through and were designed better.
His points are all pretty valid, but it makes me realised how fucking impossible it was to finish Castlevania NES.... ghhrhrgghh up yours Death >:(
CV1 doesn't feel difficult to me anymore. Its strange. I guess I've just played it too much...
-
From what I played of Simon's Quest
...You haven't even played it all? :p How far did you get? Some of those later mansions have super cool designs and are loads of fun to play through. Also, as I mentioned before, the outdoor segments are so great—really makes you feel like you're on a journey.
Also, how come I never hear people complaining about the invisible pits in the Mega Man games? If people complained about those, I'd think they were crazy and likely video gaming n00bz; I think the same about complaints regarding the invisible pits in Castlevania II—they're the same darn thing, except in Castlevania II you can find out where the pits are ahead of time.
-
It would feel unfair to simply call SQ a horrible game since it has so many cool, original ideas.
-
Also, how come I never hear people complaining about the invisible pits in the Mega Man games?
Because Megaman doesn't spam them, and they're only in one stage of the game. Also Megaman doesn't make you go all the way back and around when you do fall through them. I think Megaman 2 was the only game where there was no visual indicator that that space in the floor was not solid as well.
except in Castlevania II you can find out where the pits are ahead of time.
Use more Bubble Lead.
-
Docta:
so basically, quality is contingent upon its chronological context? that doesn't really make much sense. if something is good, it is good, and it does not matter when it was made or when it is being received; similarly, if something is bad, the same is true. if something that is bad appears to be good out of ignorance, or because something is not so developed, then that is a matter of misperception or self-deception.
comparatively good does not equal good.
Basically Aridale said what I would have said. But if Simon's Quest were to come out today in exactly the form it's in, it would get an unreal amount of hate for being what it is. Because people are lazy and only care about good graphics these days (and I'll admit I'm one of them sometimes.)
One of my biggest complaints is this:
On top of that, the monsters were pretty boring, and the boss fights were awful. If Simon's Quest were able to keep some of the great level design that CV1 had, then that would be great. But the world was just felt a little empty and repetitive. For instance, the mansions really had poor design. They weren't even close to being as visually appealing as the areas in CV1, and the enemy placement just felt boring. When I play through CV1, it feels like every brick, every enemy, and every jump was carefully considered by the designer. Look at level 4 for instance, theres that part where you are on a moving platform while there are bats coming at you, and then at one point you are under those rocks which reduce your mobility, and on top of that there are those merman, at which point you need to jump onto the next ledge and then onto another platform. Those elements all really came together well to make the spot interesting. From what I played of Simon's Quest, there was never really anything like that. It just felt like the mansions and the outdoor areas were just filled with stuff. By all means, its a good game (especially for its time) that introduced some great concepts, but I find that CV1 and 3 (even though I suck at that one) are just more fun to play through and were designed better.
Castlevania and Simon's Quest are two entirely different types of games though. Where Castlevania is an arcade game meant to eat your quarters, SQ is meant to be explored. I think the level design in Simon's Quest is excellent considering the limitations they had at the time. The enemy placement in Simon's Quest is as it is in most of the earlier CV games: it makes sense. Werewolves and skeletons are in the forests, zombies in the towns, armors, gargoyles, and knight skeletons in the mansions, etc.
The difficulty in Simon's Quest isn't in the combat, it's in finding your way, sussing out the clues, finding the items you need. Comparing it to Castlevania is like comparing apples to wolverines. And for the record, it's the ONLY truly non-linear Castlevania game. You can say what you want about the Castle-roids, but you can only go certain places after getting certain things and there's a definite order of progression. In Simon's Quest, you can do just about anything in any order you want with a few exceptions. The only items you truly NEED are the Holy Water, Crystals, Oak Stakes, Dracula's Body parts, and Magic Cross.
-
I love throwing the holy water around to find which blocks you can walk on. That, and Milon's Secret Castle rules as well. ;) One of the weirdest games I've ever played, but I have fond memories of playing it as a kid. Couldn't have done it without How to Win at Nintendo Games #2, though. Plus, it paved the way for the much more fun sequel, DoReMi Fantasy: Milon's DokiDoki Adventure, which kicks aaaaaaass.
In regard to this clue, isn't there also one about hitting your head against a rock? It's all pretty cryptic and weird, but it's not like it's impossible to figure things out without a guide. So I call bullshit on the other people in this thread crying bullshit.
The "HIT YOUR HEAD ON DEBORAH CLIFF TO MAKE A HOLE" is a bogus villager clue.
The "WAIT FOR A SOUL WITH A RED CRYSTAL ON DEBORAH CLIFF" is a true clue. You may ask yourself "How do I wait?" but then you'll remember that in the lake with the other crystal, you also had to press down and... wait.
So you would instinctively press down and wait, and behold! A soul, in the form of a twister.
-
The "HIT YOUR HEAD ON DEBORAH CLIFF TO MAKE A HOLE" is a bogus villager clue.
The "WAIT FOR A SOUL WITH A RED CRYSTAL ON DEBORAH CLIFF" is a true clue. You may ask yourself "How do I wait?" but then you'll remember that in the lake with the other crystal, you also had to press down and... wait.
So you would instinctively press down and wait, and behold! A soul, in the form of a twister.
Jorge is so passionate about this only because in real life that's his preferred method of transportation.
And I love how you lay that out with such passion, as if finding it is the most blatantly obvious thing in the world. :D
-
Has anyone ever tried this? I did and I'm surprised that none of the developers caught on: Don't bother using the Blue crystal. Just get the red crystal instead and use it on both the lake and the cliff. They both work.
-X
-
yeah all the crystals do somethin new and the same thing the one before em did. The red crystal will show the invis platform in the first mansion too
-
Jorge is so passionate about this only because in real life that's his preferred method of transportation.
And I love how you lay that out with such passion, as if finding it is the most blatantly obvious thing in the world. :D
Oh if only we could really use Red Crystals and Recorder Flutes to Tornado-Warp in real life...
-
Jorge is so passionate about this only because in real life that's his preferred method of transportation.
And I love how you lay that out with such passion, as if finding it is the most blatantly obvious thing in the world. :D
Actually that's how I found the tornado the first time too. After using the blue crystal at the lake, I pretty much started using crystals at every dead end just to see what would happen. I was pretty happy when I tried it at the cliff and it worked 8)
-
I am the only one who deosnt like how this guy is screaming trough the review?? >:( Maybe i dont have a sense of humor but whatever.
And yeah, i agree that you just cant finish this game on your own. I remember playing it and if i went to the far left, there was this wall i couldnt jump over, and if i headed to the far right, there was a giant lake i coudlnt get past either. I also recall an empty mansion. I later discovered how it was but come on, how were kids supossed to figure that out??
PD: Someone should tell the AVGN that he isnt funny.
-
This is wrong. It makes perfect sense. Of course somethin you never played thats 20+ years old wont be as good now as it was when it was new. If youd never played Doom1 when it was new and you went back and played it now youd be like "wtf is this? Why did ppl like this game so much? I dont see what the big deal is?"
Not quite.
I pre-empted this kind of sentiment in my original post:
" if something that is bad appears to be good out of ignorance, or because something is not so developed, then that is a matter of misperception or self-deception."
The perception of things not aging well is a matter of our ignorance, of us not knowing any better, not of the actual quality of the thing itself being any different. Upon completion, a game does not change; and it is intrinsically the factors held within the game that determine its objective quality, and with those remaining a constant, the variable thus becomes our perception of those traits, of those factors. Something that is legitimately good will always be so: something that is not, will not.
Actual quality stands the test of time, and those who actual search for that quality instead of seeking out only the most superficial of traits will be able to appreciate games like the first Castlevania just as much now as they would have back in the day.
Basically Aridale said what I would have said. But if Simon's Quest were to come out today in exactly the form it's in, it would get an unreal amount of hate for being what it is. Because people are lazy and only care about good graphics these days (and I'll admit I'm one of them sometimes.)
And the issue here is that you're conflating popular opinion for somethings innate sense of quality.
-
I am the only one who deosnt like how this guy is screaming trough the review?? >:( Maybe i dont have a sense of humor but whatever.
Got me to chuckle.
He's very passionate about his......uhh......everything.
-
Someone should tell the AVGN that he isnt funny.
I'll leave that task for someone with a crappy sense of humor. ;) I freagin' love the guy—buy all the DVDs, watch and love all the latest episodes, watch all the non-Nerd stuff like his movie reviews, other short films, and all that, anxiously anticipating the AVGN movie he's writing, and so on. Can't get enough of the guy.
-
I'll leave that task for someone with a crappy sense of humor. ;) I freagin' love the guy—buy all the DVDs, watch and love all the latest episodes, watch all the non-Nerd stuff like his movie reviews, other short films, and all that, anxiously anticipating the AVGN movie he's writing, and so on. Can't get enough of the guy.
Got an unhealthy little overly-obsessive crush there, huh?
-
Not quite.
I pre-empted this kind of sentiment in my original post:
" if something that is bad appears to be good out of ignorance, or because something is not so developed, then that is a matter of misperception or self-deception."
The perception of things not aging well is a matter of our ignorance, of us not knowing any better, not of the actual quality of the thing itself being any different. Upon completion, a game does not change; and it is intrinsically the factors held within the game that determine its objective quality, and with those remaining a constant, the variable thus becomes our perception of those traits, of those factors. Something that is legitimately good will always be so: something that is not, will not.
Actual quality stands the test of time, and those who actual search for that quality instead of seeking out only the most superficial of traits will be able to appreciate games like the first Castlevania just as much now as they would have back in the day.
And the issue here is that you're conflating popular opinion for somethings innate sense of quality.
I agree with what you're saying here. Part of why I think Simon's Quest isn't as revered now is in part because the audience has changed. I think people are less willing to give a potentially great game a chance if it doesn't "cut to the chase" fast enough for them, whereas back in the day, the game industry wasn't what it is now, designers had a lot of limitations as far as file size and such went, and so they had to do what they could with what they had to work with.
That said, I don't really understand some of the criticisms in the video. Color palette?? Really? Can we grasp at straws and fail to understand the game any further?
Btw, Giz, is that you? O_o
Drunk post-edit
-
Got an unhealthy little overly-obsessive crush there, huh?
Unhealthy and obsessed because I like his output? Wha'? Now, if I were sneaking into his house and sniffing the skidmarks on his undies, that would be unhealthy and obsessive.
HOLY SHIT, YOU BUY AND PLAY CASTLEVANIA GAMES AND TALK ABOUT IT ON A MESSAGE BOARD AND YOUR USERNAME IS THAT OF A SONG FROM THE SERIES. LITTLE UNHEALTHY AND OBSESSED, AREN'TCHA?
;)
But to answer your question: yes.
-
I don't remember hearing many bad things about CVII up until the Nerd reviewed it, and now I never hear anything good about it. (Not to assume that the Nerd influenced everyone's perception about the game, but I just don't ever remember it being so unliked beforehand...same could be said for me discovering the infamy of Zelda II, I guess.) I've thought the game definitely had flaws, but that just adds to the charm, in a way.
What I mean is that like in the mansions, as an example: they just seem like these big open areas of space, with a few dozen creatures, right? They're so empty. But I always kind of liked that, because it just added to the mood of the game...they were these eerie, abandoned mansions that were in as much decay as the rest of the cursed land. And that's what made the castle ruins so awesome to go through at the end, too.
But that brings me to my big disagreement with this guy: the color palette. He sounded like he hated it, but I preferred the color palette of Simon's Quest over the first game. It was drearier and more drab, but wasn't that the point? It seemed to represent a cursed land pretty well. One of the later wooded parts of the game (can't remember its name) was one of my favorite areas: the red grass and trees, the lava pools, and the black sky made it look like hell on earth. And the caves, the mansions, the graveyard...just about everything seemed to kind of convey a feeling of dread. I thought the color palette did a better job of telling a story in this game than the first one did.
-
CV2 had a fantastic overall atmosphere. It still holds up well today IMHO.
The locations, music, colors, story and just the FEEL of the game were pretty ahead of it's time. It's definately a classic.
-
CV2 had a fantastic overall atmosphere. It still holds up well today IMHO.
The locations, music, colors, story and just the FEEL of the game were pretty ahead of it's time. It's definately a classic.
Being a classic doesn't make it any better. All the criticisms on the video were valid.
If people can get past that, yeah, it's a great game.
-
Btw, Giz, is that you? O_o
:>
-
I am a fan of all three of the NES games. Though Castlevania II was flawed in many respects I think it does get too much of a bad rap. If the game had been done like Zelda II (and the record is still broken) it would have been excellent. Also it could have had more of the elements of the first and the third game. I think the game is not a bad game but more like a bastard child that was unjustly neglected and the designers of the game should have had their testicles stuffed in the NES and slammed shut but who would want to do that job. In my opinion this is what is great about the three NES games.
Castlevania I
epic atmosphere
great color palette
subtle and creepy music
well placed dramatic effects (i.e, music placement for levels, enemies popping out of nowhere, music fading out as you encounter boss)
excellent climax (Dracula is a bitch of a challenge)
pitfalls and platforming
timer
enemy movement
player animation
player control (I like the control, it's not too free so it is a challenge)
Castlevania II
epic opening
music
RPG and leveling up elements
day and night transition (FYI, Ninja Gaiden for the NES had a similar transition from level to level for rendering backgrounds and sprites).
great atmosphere
puzzle elements
epic final boss encounter (albeit not much of a fight)
cool ending
new enemies
open world
Castlevania III
color palette
new bosses
level scrolling
new comrades
multiple paths
great music (Japanese version)
boss fights
I hope someone someday somehow does a hack with the elements from all three of these games. It would be fan fucking tastic.
-
Unhealthy and obsessed because I like his output? Wha'? Now, if I were sneaking into his house and sniffing the skidmarks on his undies, that would be unhealthy and obsessive.
HOLY SHIT, YOU BUY AND PLAY CASTLEVANIA GAMES AND TALK ABOUT IT ON A MESSAGE BOARD AND YOUR USERNAME IS THAT OF A SONG FROM THE SERIES. LITTLE UNHEALTHY AND OBSESSED, AREN'TCHA?
;)
But to answer your question: yes.
As long as we're in agreement
-
I am a fan of all three of the NES games. Though Castlevania II was flawed in many respects I think it does get too much of a bad rap. If the game had been done like Zelda II (and the record is still broken) it would have been excellent. Also it could have had more of the elements of the first and the third game. I think the game is not a bad game but more like a bastard child that was unjustly neglected and the designers of the game should have had their testicles stuffed in the NES and slammed shut but who would want to do that job. In my opinion this is what is great about the three NES games.
I hope someone someday somehow does a hack with the elements from all three of these games. It would be fan fucking tastic.
Why does EVERY CV game have to be the same? Why can't Simon's Quest just be enjoyed for what it is? If you don't like it, then just don't play it. Simon's Quest is fine the way it is.
-
A lot of early NES sequels were done to be different from the first game because developers thought people wouldn't want to play the same game over and over. They turned out wrong, but games like Zelda II, Castlevania II, the American Super Mario Bros. 2, and so on are interesting experiments. There's a reason why they're so different and not just rehashes of the first game in their respective series, and gosh darn it, I love 'em for that reason. Even Mega Man 2 changed a number of things, though not as drastically, and more improved upon the formula, which became the staple for all following games.
-
A lot of early NES sequels were done to be different from the first game because developers thought people wouldn't want to play the same game over and over. They turned out wrong, but games like Zelda II, Castlevania II, the American Super Mario Bros. 2, and so on are interesting experiments. There's a reason why they're so different and not just rehashes of the first game in their respective series, and gosh darn it, I love 'em for that reason. Even Mega Man 2 changed a number of things, though not as drastically, and more improved upon the formula, which became the staple for all following games.
I loved Zelda II since it was the first time and only time the series ever delved into a more RPGish experience with leveling up and such. Can't say i like Megaman 2 that much, sure it's a great game with an amazing soundtrack but personally I loved 3 the most out of all of them. Either way I believe Simon's Quest was certainly a unique experience that made the players think of what they had to do. I feel that it isn't too different from Metroid, that game didn't tell you what to do either and there wasn't too many indications on where to use items. You could just bump into a wall that SEEMS like a dead end but little did you know that using a bomb might reveal a hidden path, one that seemed to blend with all the other wall tiles making it hard to find. Same idea with simons quest and....dammit I love games that do that for some reason XD. I suppose it's because I just like games that make you explore and experiment to beat it.