Just finished Zelda 2 (Thoughts)

I recently played through this whole entire game for the second time, I remember beating it oh so many years ago as a kid back before the internet came along, so back then I didn't have a thing called gamefaqs to help me out like I do now, replaying it again now I ask myself "How the hell did I even manage to do this back then?" Let alone get past Death Mountain for that matter.

Anyways, point being of this thread is I'd like to hear some of your thoughts and opinions of this game, I think it's sorta interesting to hear people's thoughts about this game considering it differed oh so much from the previous Zelda.

I'll start off by stating my thoughts:

I found myself liking the game while playing it, but I just couldn't bring myself to loving it, mainly because after a few seconds of liking it something would happen to frustrate me or annoy me, everything from the annoying enemies to being able to be hit still while posing with an item that you had just picked up. Not to mention the enemies that drain your EXP when they hit you (Specially those eyeball things you encounter on the path to The Great Palace).

Now before I wind up sounding negative, I'll state this very quickly, I did however find the gameplay and all pretty advanced for it's time and it really was a good adventure game, I loved being able to walk around the overworld and go to various towns of Hyrule. I also liked the looks of the palaces, even if most of them were just colored differently. Another thing that I did like that hasn't been in a Zelda game since, the ability to level up Link. I thought it was pretty interesting but at the same time Zelda isn't supposed to be an RPG, so I see why they haven't used it again. Magic was pretty cool too and definetly came in handy. (Specially Shield)

One other complaint that I have is Link's sword is much too short, it was almost like he was using a butter knife. I find myself having to get very close to the enemy to be able to dish out damage but in doing that I usually get hit and take damage myself. The beam also was pretty much useless, as it deflects off of most of the enemies (Ironknuckle, etc)

In closing: I thought Zelda 2 could have been a damn good game, but the difficulty and frustration kinda brings it down, not to mention when you get game over instead of starting you off at the entrance of the palace, it makes you go all the way back to the beginning. Don't get me wrong, I do like a challenge but this game was just a little too challenging and at times unfair.

I recently played through this whole entire game for the second time, I remember beating it oh so many years ago as a kid back before the internet came along, so back then I didn't have a thing called gamefaqs to help me out like I do now, replaying it again now I ask myself "How the hell did I even manage to do this back then?" Let alone get past Death Mountain for that matter.

Anyways, point being of this thread is I'd like to hear some of your thoughts and opinions of this game, I think it's sorta interesting to hear people's thoughts about this game considering it differed oh so much from the previous Zelda.

I'll start off by stating my thoughts:

I found myself liking the game while playing it, but I just couldn't bring myself to loving it, mainly because after a few seconds of liking it something would happen to frustrate me or annoy me, everything from the annoying enemies to being able to be hit still while posing with an item that you had just picked up. Not to mention the enemies that drain your EXP when they hit you (Specially those eyeball things you encounter on the path to The Great Palace).

Now before I wind up sounding negative, I'll state this very quickly, I did however find the gameplay and all pretty advanced for it's time and it really was a good adventure game, I loved being able to walk around the overworld and go to various towns of Hyrule. I also liked the looks of the palaces, even if most of them were just colored differently. Another thing that I did like that hasn't been in a Zelda game since, the ability to level up Link. I thought it was pretty interesting but at the same time Zelda isn't supposed to be an RPG, so I see why they haven't used it again. Magic was pretty cool too and definetly came in handy. (Specially Shield)

One other complaint that I have is Link's sword is much too short, it was almost like he was using a butter knife. I find myself having to get very close to the enemy to be able to dish out damage but in doing that I usually get hit and take damage myself. The beam also was pretty much useless, as it deflects off of most of the enemies (Ironknuckle, etc)

In closing: I thought Zelda 2 could have been a damn good game, but the difficulty and frustration kinda brings it down, not to mention when you get game over instead of starting you off at the entrance of the palace, it makes you go all the way back to the beginning. Don't get me wrong, I do like a challenge but this game was just a little too challenging and at times unfair.

SNESRadio

The interesting thing about Zelda 2 is that its the most different of the series and remains that way through out the years. It still stands out due to having some very very different gameplay mechanics as opposed to the rest of the series. Though I do find it oddly appealing while it is a flawed game. Your right it had more of an RPG mechanic as opposed to otehr games in the series, though I would say Zelda 2 is an interesting look at game design. Why? Just because it had many of the same developers that have and will be involved in the series, the game itself is just seems to be an experiment at trying something different out of the norm. Ido agree with your complaints, to me its a flawed Experiment but an interesting one. I would say on the other end of the spectrum would be Simons Quest which to me again is an experiment but a failed one.

[QUOTE="SNESRadio"]

I recently played through this whole entire game for the second time, I remember beating it oh so many years ago as a kid back before the internet came along, so back then I didn't have a thing called gamefaqs to help me out like I do now, replaying it again now I ask myself "How the hell did I even manage to do this back then?" Let alone get past Death Mountain for that matter.

Anyways, point being of this thread is I'd like to hear some of your thoughts and opinions of this game, I think it's sorta interesting to hear people's thoughts about this game considering it differed oh so much from the previous Zelda.

I'll start off by stating my thoughts:

I found myself liking the game while playing it, but I just couldn't bring myself to loving it, mainly because after a few seconds of liking it something would happen to frustrate me or annoy me, everything from the annoying enemies to being able to be hit still while posing with an item that you had just picked up. Not to mention the enemies that drain your EXP when they hit you (Specially those eyeball things you encounter on the path to The Great Palace).

Now before I wind up sounding negative, I'll state this very quickly, I did however find the gameplay and all pretty advanced for it's time and it really was a good adventure game, I loved being able to walk around the overworld and go to various towns of Hyrule. I also liked the looks of the palaces, even if most of them were just colored differently. Another thing that I did like that hasn't been in a Zelda game since, the ability to level up Link. I thought it was pretty interesting but at the same time Zelda isn't supposed to be an RPG, so I see why they haven't used it again. Magic was pretty cool too and definetly came in handy. (Specially Shield)

One other complaint that I have is Link's sword is much too short, it was almost like he was using a butter knife. I find myself having to get very close to the enemy to be able to dish out damage but in doing that I usually get hit and take damage myself. The beam also was pretty much useless, as it deflects off of most of the enemies (Ironknuckle, etc)

In closing: I thought Zelda 2 could have been a damn good game, but the difficulty and frustration kinda brings it down, not to mention when you get game over instead of starting you off at the entrance of the palace, it makes you go all the way back to the beginning. Don't get me wrong, I do like a challenge but this game was just a little too challenging and at times unfair.

TheTrueMagusX1

The interesting thing about Zelda 2 is that its the most different of the series and remains that way through out the years. It still stands out due to having some very very different gameplay mechanics as opposed to the rest of the series. Though I do find it oddly appealing while it is a flawed game. Your right it had more of an RPG mechanic as opposed to otehr games in the series, though I would say Zelda 2 is an interesting look at game design. Why? Just because it had many of the same developers that have and will be involved in the series, the game itself is just seems to be an experiment at trying something different out of the norm. Ido agree with your complaints, to me its a flawed Experiment but an interesting one. I would say on the other end of the spectrum would be Simons Quest which to me again is an experiment but a failed one.

I agree with you about it being a failed experiment, it could have been great if they had worked out those few flaws and bugs. If the game were to be made with today's technology it probably would be a very good game, damn good actually. I kinda hope that does happen one day, but with the reputation Zelda 2 has I highly doubt it will happen.

But of course if they did stick with the Zelda 2 concept then we wouldn't have had the best Zelda game of them all, A Link to the Past.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="SNESRadio"]

I recently played through this whole entire game for the second time, I remember beating it oh so many years ago as a kid back before the internet came along, so back then I didn't have a thing called gamefaqs to help me out like I do now, replaying it again now I ask myself "How the hell did I even manage to do this back then?" Let alone get past Death Mountain for that matter.

Anyways, point being of this thread is I'd like to hear some of your thoughts and opinions of this game, I think it's sorta interesting to hear people's thoughts about this game considering it differed oh so much from the previous Zelda.

I'll start off by stating my thoughts:

I found myself liking the game while playing it, but I just couldn't bring myself to loving it, mainly because after a few seconds of liking it something would happen to frustrate me or annoy me, everything from the annoying enemies to being able to be hit still while posing with an item that you had just picked up. Not to mention the enemies that drain your EXP when they hit you (Specially those eyeball things you encounter on the path to The Great Palace).

Now before I wind up sounding negative, I'll state this very quickly, I did however find the gameplay and all pretty advanced for it's time and it really was a good adventure game, I loved being able to walk around the overworld and go to various towns of Hyrule. I also liked the looks of the palaces, even if most of them were just colored differently. Another thing that I did like that hasn't been in a Zelda game since, the ability to level up Link. I thought it was pretty interesting but at the same time Zelda isn't supposed to be an RPG, so I see why they haven't used it again. Magic was pretty cool too and definetly came in handy. (Specially Shield)

One other complaint that I have is Link's sword is much too short, it was almost like he was using a butter knife. I find myself having to get very close to the enemy to be able to dish out damage but in doing that I usually get hit and take damage myself. The beam also was pretty much useless, as it deflects off of most of the enemies (Ironknuckle, etc)

In closing: I thought Zelda 2 could have been a damn good game, but the difficulty and frustration kinda brings it down, not to mention when you get game over instead of starting you off at the entrance of the palace, it makes you go all the way back to the beginning. Don't get me wrong, I do like a challenge but this game was just a little too challenging and at times unfair.

SNESRadio

The interesting thing about Zelda 2 is that its the most different of the series and remains that way through out the years. It still stands out due to having some very very different gameplay mechanics as opposed to the rest of the series. Though I do find it oddly appealing while it is a flawed game. Your right it had more of an RPG mechanic as opposed to otehr games in the series, though I would say Zelda 2 is an interesting look at game design. Why? Just because it had many of the same developers that have and will be involved in the series, the game itself is just seems to be an experiment at trying something different out of the norm. Ido agree with your complaints, to me its a flawed Experiment but an interesting one. I would say on the other end of the spectrum would be Simons Quest which to me again is an experiment but a failed one.

I agree with you about it being a failed experiment, it could have been great if they had worked out those few flaws and bugs. If the game were to be made with today's technology it probably would be a very good game, damn good actually. I kinda hope that does happen one day, but with the reputation Zelda 2 has I highly doubt it will happen.

But of course if they did stick with the Zelda 2 concept then we wouldn't have had the best Zelda game of them all, A Link to the Past.

Yeah your absolutely right. It would be interesting to see a Zelda with 2D side scrolling elements and done with some of the same mechanics, I am sure it would not have the issues that Zelda 2 had. And yes I agree with you 100% about Link to the Past, it is the best Zelda game. I love it far more then I do Ocarina of Time, as I find Link to the Past, to be a perfect game in my opinion, and a game that has aged well for as old as it is.

Zelda 2 is one of my favorite Zelda titles. Difficulty aside, the game is fantastic and vastly underrated.

Exactly what I'm saying, difficulty aside Zelda 2 is a pretty good game. Interesting concept too, specially for a Zelda game. But as I've said before, had they stuck with that we wouldn't have gotten a Link to the past, so I suppose it did pay off in the end. Considering I replay and rebeat that game yearly, lol. And back then when I first beat Zelda 2 it was on the NES itself, my good ol' top loader which I still have to this day. I just remember liking renting Zelda 2 mainly for it's golden cart, which I thought was the coolest thing ever back then.

I played through zelda 2 as a kid, I had to be 7 or 8 at the time. I remember getting to the final palace, but I could never beat it. I recently bought a copy on the Wii's VC and played through it again and finally beat it.

I remember having nightmares about that red screen of death and gannon's laugh, I seriously hated that lol.

I liked the 2D style gameplay and I thought the controls worked well. The difficultly though, I don't even know how I didn't break a controller playing the game as a kid. Its one of those games where the difficulty grows on you and you eventually get through all the difficult parts without too much of a problem after a few deaths. I never felt it was cheap, just a serious test to my gaming skills.

Compared to first zelda and the SNES zelda, it was a very different take on the series. Personally I enjoyed it as a kid and playing through it 16 years later.

a lot of people diss this game but i absolutely loved it back then and still. do...

a lot of people diss this game but i absolutely loved it back then and still. do...

KBFloYd

Its not as bad as People say it is. I agree with you, though it is very flawed. As I said earlier its no Simon's Quest, where Simon's Quest to me was something similiar it was an experiment, but that experiment just went horribly wrong. Zelda 2 to me is flawed, but not failed...its playable which is alot to say. Simons Quest to me is not.....

Zelda 1 was obviously better. But Zelda 2 is still a great game that belongs near the top of the best NES games list. I feel the same way about Super Mario Bros. 2 (U.S.). Two very underrated games, simply because they were different.

Zelda 1 was obviously better. But Zelda 2 is still a great game that belongs near the top of the best NES games list. I feel the same way about Super Mario Bros. 2 (U.S.). Two very underrated games, simply because they were different.

Emerald_Warrior

I actually agree with you for once. The problem people have with Super Mario Bros 2 is that its not technically a Mario game, but a reskinned Mario game, wiht the original being Doki Doki Panic. However, whatever it originally was does not matter. It is still a very fun game, and only gets hate for its unconventional origins. Alot of the people who complain as well tend to forget that games of that timed were reskinned quite a bit. Another example of this was Yo Noid, a game using the Dominos Pizza mascot. The game originally was called Kamen No Ninja Hanamaru in Japan, and was a Ninja game and had nothing to do with the noid.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Zelda 1 was obviously better. But Zelda 2 is still a great game that belongs near the top of the best NES games list. I feel the same way about Super Mario Bros. 2 (U.S.). Two very underrated games, simply because they were different.

TheTrueMagusX1

I actually agree with you for once. The problem people have with Super Mario Bros 2 is that its not technically a Mario game, but a reskinned Mario game, wiht the original being Doki Doki Panic. However, whatever it originally was does not matter. It is still a very fun game, and only gets hate for its unconventional origins. Alot of the people who complain as well tend to forget that games of that timed were reskinned quite a bit. Another example of this was Yo Noid, a game using the Dominos Pizza mascot. The game originally was called Kamen No Ninja Hanamaru in Japan, and was a Ninja game and had nothing to do with the noid.

though it is very flawed. TheTrueMagusX1

how is it flawed?

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Zelda 1 was obviously better. But Zelda 2 is still a great game that belongs near the top of the best NES games list. I feel the same way about Super Mario Bros. 2 (U.S.). Two very underrated games, simply because they were different.

SNESRadio

I actually agree with you for once. The problem people have with Super Mario Bros 2 is that its not technically a Mario game, but a reskinned Mario game, wiht the original being Doki Doki Panic. However, whatever it originally was does not matter. It is still a very fun game, and only gets hate for its unconventional origins. Alot of the people who complain as well tend to forget that games of that timed were reskinned quite a bit. Another example of this was Yo Noid, a game using the Dominos Pizza mascot. The game originally was called Kamen No Ninja Hanamaru in Japan, and was a Ninja game and had nothing to do with the noid.

Yeah they were back in those days. Mainly because we did not have the information flow as we do these days. I will say I have played Kamen No Ninja Hanamaru and I find it to be just a better game than Yo Noid actually....

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"] though it is very flawed. KBFloYd

how is it flawed?

For one its not a bad game, I will go on record to say it is. Though many of the reason I think it is flawed were listed by SNESRadio. I find it flawed such as the game simply just being overly cheap at times, and the sword reach was a bit clunky. The game was also a bit overly cryptic at the same time, which imo was the only flaw that I found in the Original Legend of Zelda(Thats why Nintendos powerline number grew so popular because of that one game). I also found enemy placement to be a bit ridicilous. Thats my opinion though....

it was way too hard for me, when I was a kid and even now after recently re-purchasing it for the VC. props to anyone who can actually beat it. the highlight for me is always the classic line 'I am error'

I hate Zelda 2. Well not the game itself, more the cartridge.

I had beaten death mountain and was very close to finishing the game, and guess what? I turned on my NES while the game wasn't put in completely properly for some reason and it restarted my save.

Not sure if I'm going to go back to it anymore.

it was way too hard for me, when I was a kid and even now after recently re-purchasing it for the VC. props to anyone who can actually beat it. the highlight for me is always the classic line 'I am error'

orion_52

The difficulty is way overrated in this game. Just find a good spot near a town where there are the boomerang enemies and grind it out for half an hour to an hour depending on how high level you feel you should be or so and you'll be ready to take on the game.

yea the whole game is a breeze for me too,.

UNTIL.. the last palace... you dont know yet..

I am very fond of this game. I would actually put this game in my top 30 games of all time and it is probably my third to favorite NES game.

I guess many people would disagree with me but I really only find two flaws in this game. The first flaw is how some things you are supposed to figure out with little to no help at all such as finding the last town in the forest or going through the wall in the fifth palace. The second flaw is how difficult the final palace is. The rest of the game is fairly difficult, but the final palace is a bit over the top. Defeating Shadow Link at the starting temple after beating the sixth palace would have been a much preferable way to end the game IMO.

i still havent beat the NES zeldas yet and ive had that game for 20 yrs

i still cant beleive i still cant beat it after all these years

how did you beat it after so long? without a strategy guide?

Zelda 2 is my favorite in the series after Link to the Past. I love the music in 2, and I love the overhead exploration/side-scrolling action combo. But I have a streak for loving unpopular sequels (SM2, Simon's Quest), ususally because they turn out to do something that the rest of the series never does again.

Zelda 2 is my favorite in the series after Link to the Past. I love the music in 2, and I love the overhead exploration/side-scrolling action combo. But I have a streak for loving unpopular sequels (SM2, Simon's Quest), ususally because they turn out to do something that the rest of the series never does again.

NEStorianPriest

I personally donot see how one can like Simons Quest. It is a broken unmitiaged mess, however fault can also be placed upon the translators for puting the clues in the game in engrish as well. Thats just me I suppose....

I enjoyed it because they tried something different, no matter how "flawed" the end result. Like watching John Carpenter movies from the 70s and 80s- they were imaginitive and iconoclastic low budget films that weren't perfect, but were highly enjoyable.

I enjoyed it because they tried something different, no matter how "flawed" the end result. Like watching John Carpenter movies from the 70s and 80s- they were imaginitive and iconoclastic low budget films that weren't perfect, but were highly enjoyable.

NEStorianPriest

You have a valid point, I see what your saying. But I just find the game was far too broken to enjoy though. Though your reason for enjoying it are understandable as that it is different, and imo still different(To me it does not fit the definition of Metroidvania). You and I have had our heated disagreements in the past, I will say you have a good reason for enjoying this game. Me this game frustrated me over and over in the early days, and even to this day I find it unplayable, but thats just me. Though Zelda 2 I can say I enjoy even though that game is flawed...

Zelda 2 is my favorite in the series after Link to the Past. I love the music in 2, and I love the overhead exploration/side-scrolling action combo. But I have a streak for loving unpopular sequels (SM2, Simon's Quest), ususally because they turn out to do something that the rest of the series never does again.

NEStorianPriest

Ha. I love Castlevania II, as well. And I'm a Zelda 2 fan. I also like SMB 2. The odd-ducks of all 3 series are great games in their own right, they just get crap for straying from the formula.

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

Zelda 2 is my favorite in the series after Link to the Past. I love the music in 2, and I love the overhead exploration/side-scrolling action combo. But I have a streak for loving unpopular sequels (SM2, Simon's Quest), ususally because they turn out to do something that the rest of the series never does again.

Emerald_Warrior

Ha. I love Castlevania II, as well. And I'm a Zelda 2 fan. I also like SMB 2. The odd-ducks of all 3 series are great games in their own right, they just get crap for straying from the formula.

Castlevania 2 did not get crap for being different. It got crap for being a cryptic, overly broken game.....Castlevania 2 also suffered from a bad english translation, which did not help as well. The heart system was utterly broken as well as that hearts at times were rare so you could buy the better items. There were the invisible holes that were on platforms. Dracula was ridicilously easy, the night and day system was broken and more annoying. Sure its different, but its a broken unmitigated mess....I donot mind Different as I do like Zelda 2 and SMB2, but while those games had flaws, they were actually playable. Simons Quest was something those two games were not, it was broken. Thats why it gets crap....

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

Zelda 2 is my favorite in the series after Link to the Past. I love the music in 2, and I love the overhead exploration/side-scrolling action combo. But I have a streak for loving unpopular sequels (SM2, Simon's Quest), ususally because they turn out to do something that the rest of the series never does again.

TheTrueMagusX1

Ha. I love Castlevania II, as well. And I'm a Zelda 2 fan. I also like SMB 2. The odd-ducks of all 3 series are great games in their own right, they just get crap for straying from the formula.

Castlevania 2 did not get crap for being different. It got crap for being a cryptic, overly broken game.....Castlevania 2 also suffered from a bad english translation, which did not help as well. The heart system was utterly broken as well as that hearts at times were rare so you could buy the better items. There were the invisible holes that were on platforms. Dracula was ridicilously easy, the night and day system was broken and more annoying. Sure its different, but its a broken unmitigated mess....I donot mind Different as I do like Zelda 2 and SMB2, but while those games had flaws, they were actually playable. Simons Quest was something those two games were not, it was broken. Thats why it gets crap....

I think broken is a little extreme to say about it. Broken would mean the game is unplayable. I beat the game just fine, and long before there was internet or strategy guides. It may not be in the same flavor as Castlevania 1 or 3, but it's not broken.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

Ha. I love Castlevania II, as well. And I'm a Zelda 2 fan. I also like SMB 2. The odd-ducks of all 3 series are great games in their own right, they just get crap for straying from the formula.

Emerald_Warrior

Castlevania 2 did not get crap for being different. It got crap for being a cryptic, overly broken game.....Castlevania 2 also suffered from a bad english translation, which did not help as well. The heart system was utterly broken as well as that hearts at times were rare so you could buy the better items. There were the invisible holes that were on platforms. Dracula was ridicilously easy, the night and day system was broken and more annoying. Sure its different, but its a broken unmitigated mess....I donot mind Different as I do like Zelda 2 and SMB2, but while those games had flaws, they were actually playable. Simons Quest was something those two games were not, it was broken. Thats why it gets crap....

I think broken is a little extreme to say about it. Broken would mean the game is unplayable. I beat the game just fine, and long before there was internet or strategy guides. It may not be in the same flavor as Castlevania 1 or 3, but it's not broken.

I say the design is broken, so thus the game is broken. There were also several strategy guides for that game that were in the internet. I remember there being tons of generic tip and strategy books for the NES. I also consider the game unplayable, as that is why I never touch it. Sure its controls are responsive but having flaws such as the pointless day and night mechnaic which did nothign to add to the game but just hinder you, the overly cryptic aspects such as having to take a crystal to a random spot that is not really anything special to progress in the game, the money mechanic where you had to get hearts and the hearts were hard to come by at times, and also the broken invisible platforms to me is a game rife with broken design. If you enjoy it, power to you, but to me its a low point in the Castlevania series. I give them credit for trying something a bit different, but the execution is what ultimatley matters, and the execution was poor to say the least.

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

Castlevania 2 did not get crap for being different. It got crap for being a cryptic, overly broken game.....Castlevania 2 also suffered from a bad english translation, which did not help as well. The heart system was utterly broken as well as that hearts at times were rare so you could buy the better items. There were the invisible holes that were on platforms. Dracula was ridicilously easy, the night and day system was broken and more annoying. Sure its different, but its a broken unmitigated mess....I donot mind Different as I do like Zelda 2 and SMB2, but while those games had flaws, they were actually playable. Simons Quest was something those two games were not, it was broken. Thats why it gets crap....

TheTrueMagusX1

I think broken is a little extreme to say about it. Broken would mean the game is unplayable. I beat the game just fine, and long before there was internet or strategy guides. It may not be in the same flavor as Castlevania 1 or 3, but it's not broken.

I say the design is broken, so thus the game is broken. There were also several strategy guides for that game that were in the internet. I remember there being tons of generic tip and strategy books for the NES. I also consider the game unplayable, as that is why I never touch it. Sure its controls are responsive but having flaws such as the pointless day and night mechnaic which did nothign to add to the game but just hinder you, the overly cryptic aspects such as having to take a crystal to a random spot that is not really anything special to progress in the game, the money mechanic where you had to get hearts and the hearts were hard to come by at times, and also the broken invisible platforms to me is a game rife with broken design. If you enjoy it, power to you, but to me its a low point in the Castlevania series. I give them credit for trying something a bit different, but the execution is what ultimatley matters, and the execution was poor to say the least.

I'm getting that you didn't like it because it was harder.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

I think broken is a little extreme to say about it. Broken would mean the game is unplayable. I beat the game just fine, and long before there was internet or strategy guides. It may not be in the same flavor as Castlevania 1 or 3, but it's not broken.

NEStorianPriest

I say the design is broken, so thus the game is broken. There were also several strategy guides for that game that were in the internet. I remember there being tons of generic tip and strategy books for the NES. I also consider the game unplayable, as that is why I never touch it. Sure its controls are responsive but having flaws such as the pointless day and night mechnaic which did nothign to add to the game but just hinder you, the overly cryptic aspects such as having to take a crystal to a random spot that is not really anything special to progress in the game, the money mechanic where you had to get hearts and the hearts were hard to come by at times, and also the broken invisible platforms to me is a game rife with broken design. If you enjoy it, power to you, but to me its a low point in the Castlevania series. I give them credit for trying something a bit different, but the execution is what ultimatley matters, and the execution was poor to say the least.

I'm getting that you didn't like it because it was harder.

The game was not harder, it was just broken. I like hard games, I donot like broken games. Castlevania 2 was not really that hard, being overly cryptic is not hard, but bad game design. Falling through invisible holes like those is bad design. Castelvania 2 is a broken unmitigated mess of a game, and difficulty has nothing to do with its short comings.

Games like Super Contra, Master Blaster Ninja Gaiden(Though it in some places had bad design choices) the Original SMB, Draculas Curse, or numerous other NES games were legitmatley hard, and were either superbly designed or had a few flaws, but were legitmatley flawed. There is a difference between hard and broken. Simons Quest IMO is broken. Again if You enjoy it fine, but I detest the game for it just being a mess. And again let us place blame upon the translators of the game. That translation was a mess as well and did not help the cryptic nature of the game. If it had a some what competent trnaslation it would have slavaged some of the game.

I do also recall being on your ignore list, due to me being so called irrational....what happened?

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

I say the design is broken, so thus the game is broken. There were also several strategy guides for that game that were in the internet. I remember there being tons of generic tip and strategy books for the NES. I also consider the game unplayable, as that is why I never touch it. Sure its controls are responsive but having flaws such as the pointless day and night mechnaic which did nothign to add to the game but just hinder you, the overly cryptic aspects such as having to take a crystal to a random spot that is not really anything special to progress in the game, the money mechanic where you had to get hearts and the hearts were hard to come by at times, and also the broken invisible platforms to me is a game rife with broken design. If you enjoy it, power to you, but to me its a low point in the Castlevania series. I give them credit for trying something a bit different, but the execution is what ultimatley matters, and the execution was poor to say the least.

TheTrueMagusX1

I'm getting that you didn't like it because it was harder.

The game was not harder, it was just broken. I like hard games, I donot like broken games. Castlevania 2 was not really that hard, being overly cryptic is not hard, but bad game design. Falling through invisible holes like those is bad design. Castelvania 2 is a broken unmitigated mess of a game, and difficulty has nothing to do with its short comings.

Games like Super Contra, Master Blaster Ninja Gaiden(Though it in some places had bad design choices) the Original SMB, Draculas Curse, or numerous other NES games were legitmatley hard, and were either superbly designed or had a few flaws, but were legitmatley flawed. There is a difference between hard and broken. Simons Quest IMO is broken. Again if You enjoy it fine, but I detest the game for it just being a mess. And again let us place blame upon the translators of the game. That translation was a mess as well and did not help the cryptic nature of the game. If it had a some what competent trnaslation it would have slavaged some of the game.

I do also recall being on your ignore list, due to me being so called irrational....what happened?

Well I haven't seen your (ahem) youtube fans helping you argue your case lately so I decided I'd give you another shot.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

I'm getting that you didn't like it because it was harder.

NEStorianPriest

The game was not harder, it was just broken. I like hard games, I donot like broken games. Castlevania 2 was not really that hard, being overly cryptic is not hard, but bad game design. Falling through invisible holes like those is bad design. Castelvania 2 is a broken unmitigated mess of a game, and difficulty has nothing to do with its short comings.

Games like Super Contra, Master Blaster Ninja Gaiden(Though it in some places had bad design choices) the Original SMB, Draculas Curse, or numerous other NES games were legitmatley hard, and were either superbly designed or had a few flaws, but were legitmatley flawed. There is a difference between hard and broken. Simons Quest IMO is broken. Again if You enjoy it fine, but I detest the game for it just being a mess. And again let us place blame upon the translators of the game. That translation was a mess as well and did not help the cryptic nature of the game. If it had a some what competent trnaslation it would have slavaged some of the game.

I do also recall being on your ignore list, due to me being so called irrational....what happened?

Well I haven't seen your (ahem) youtube fans helping you argue your case lately so I decided I'd give you another shot.

Well when you ignored me I was the only one debating you. And to be honest I donot need fanboys to help me argue my case anyway. If you donot agree with me, i am not changing my opinion nor will I chance yours. Now a question this, name one redeeming factor in Simons Quest? I want to know what you like about it, bcaues I hate the game(The only good thing from that game is Bloody Tears) but aside from that, why do you like it? I am very curious

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

I'm getting that you didn't like it because it was harder.

NEStorianPriest

The game was not harder, it was just broken. I like hard games, I donot like broken games. Castlevania 2 was not really that hard, being overly cryptic is not hard, but bad game design. Falling through invisible holes like those is bad design. Castelvania 2 is a broken unmitigated mess of a game, and difficulty has nothing to do with its short comings.

Games like Super Contra, Master Blaster Ninja Gaiden(Though it in some places had bad design choices) the Original SMB, Draculas Curse, or numerous other NES games were legitmatley hard, and were either superbly designed or had a few flaws, but were legitmatley flawed. There is a difference between hard and broken. Simons Quest IMO is broken. Again if You enjoy it fine, but I detest the game for it just being a mess. And again let us place blame upon the translators of the game. That translation was a mess as well and did not help the cryptic nature of the game. If it had a some what competent trnaslation it would have slavaged some of the game.

I do also recall being on your ignore list, due to me being so called irrational....what happened?

Well I haven't seen your (ahem) youtube fans helping you argue your case lately so I decided I'd give you another shot.

ROFL!!!

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

The game was not harder, it was just broken. I like hard games, I donot like broken games. Castlevania 2 was not really that hard, being overly cryptic is not hard, but bad game design. Falling through invisible holes like those is bad design. Castelvania 2 is a broken unmitigated mess of a game, and difficulty has nothing to do with its short comings.

Games like Super Contra, Master Blaster Ninja Gaiden(Though it in some places had bad design choices) the Original SMB, Draculas Curse, or numerous other NES games were legitmatley hard, and were either superbly designed or had a few flaws, but were legitmatley flawed. There is a difference between hard and broken. Simons Quest IMO is broken. Again if You enjoy it fine, but I detest the game for it just being a mess. And again let us place blame upon the translators of the game. That translation was a mess as well and did not help the cryptic nature of the game. If it had a some what competent trnaslation it would have slavaged some of the game.

I do also recall being on your ignore list, due to me being so called irrational....what happened?

TheTrueMagusX1

Well I haven't seen your (ahem) youtube fans helping you argue your case lately so I decided I'd give you another shot.

Well when you ignored me I was the only one debating you. And to be honest I donot need fanboys to help me argue my case anyway. If you donot agree with me, i am not changing my opinion nor will I chance yours. Now a question this, name one redeeming factor in Simons Quest? I want to know what you like about it, bcaues I hate the game(The only good thing from that game is Bloody Tears) but aside from that, why do you like it? I am very curious

I loved the free roaming world. I loved the action-RPG elements that it had. I loved that it had more than one castle. And I loved the money aspect of it. All those things made for a more satisfying experience when you finished the game. The night & day thing was annoying, not because it was a bad idea, but because when it changed from night to day the entire game would freeze for a second, totally taking you out of your element. But you spent more time in the castles, anyways.

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

The game was not harder, it was just broken. I like hard games, I donot like broken games. Castlevania 2 was not really that hard, being overly cryptic is not hard, but bad game design. Falling through invisible holes like those is bad design. Castelvania 2 is a broken unmitigated mess of a game, and difficulty has nothing to do with its short comings.

Games like Super Contra, Master Blaster Ninja Gaiden(Though it in some places had bad design choices) the Original SMB, Draculas Curse, or numerous other NES games were legitmatley hard, and were either superbly designed or had a few flaws, but were legitmatley flawed. There is a difference between hard and broken. Simons Quest IMO is broken. Again if You enjoy it fine, but I detest the game for it just being a mess. And again let us place blame upon the translators of the game. That translation was a mess as well and did not help the cryptic nature of the game. If it had a some what competent trnaslation it would have slavaged some of the game.

I do also recall being on your ignore list, due to me being so called irrational....what happened?

Emerald_Warrior

Well I haven't seen your (ahem) youtube fans helping you argue your case lately so I decided I'd give you another shot.

ROFL!!!

This coming from some one who gets hypersensitive over anything I disagree with.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

Well I haven't seen your (ahem) youtube fans helping you argue your case lately so I decided I'd give you another shot.

Emerald_Warrior

Well when you ignored me I was the only one debating you. And to be honest I donot need fanboys to help me argue my case anyway. If you donot agree with me, i am not changing my opinion nor will I chance yours. Now a question this, name one redeeming factor in Simons Quest? I want to know what you like about it, bcaues I hate the game(The only good thing from that game is Bloody Tears) but aside from that, why do you like it? I am very curious

I loved the free roaming world. I loved the action-RPG elements that it had. I loved that it had more than one castle. And I loved the money aspect of it. All those things made for a more satisfying experience when you finished the game. The night & day thing was annoying, not because it was a bad idea, but because when it changed from night to day the entire game would freeze for a second, totally taking you out of your element. But you spent more time in the castles, anyways.

The money aspect would of been fine, if it was done correctly. The hearts did not come often enough and were sometimes rare....Night and Day served no purpose accept unneccesarily hinder you....

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="NEStorianPriest"]

Well I haven't seen your (ahem) youtube fans helping you argue your case lately so I decided I'd give you another shot.

TheTrueMagusX1

ROFL!!!

This coming from some one who gets hypersensitive over anything I disagree with.

I'm not sensitive. I just don't like it when I see you bullying people over a few video game facts, and a girl no less. Which is the event you were referring to. And what in the heck does that have to do with what he's talking about anyways? You using your YouTube fanboys to create a Gamespot account with 1 or 2 posts only on their accounts, which are posts that only back you up in some ridiculous video game argument?

...and it seems I'm not the only one around here you've been rude to. Hmm.

[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

ROFL!!!

Emerald_Warrior

This coming from some one who gets hypersensitive over anything I disagree with.

I'm not sensitive. I just don't like it when I see you bullying people over a few video game facts, and a girl no less. Which is the event you were referring to. And what in the heck does that have to do with what he's talking about anyways? You using your YouTube fanboys to create a Gamespot account with 1 or 2 posts only on their accounts, which are posts that only back you up in some ridiculous video game argument?

...and it seems I'm not the only one around here you've been rude to. Hmm.

I donot bully people I simply correct or disagree with facts. Its you being sensitive. As for the other accounts why do you bring them up? I have not seen them nor have they, so you should learn a thing or two about letting things go. Its called being blunt call it what you will, but whatever you say. As for them being a girl, if I donot agree with them, I donot agree. Gender, race and all that donot matter. I donot agree with them I donot agree. Funny considering too not to long ago you yourself got rude with a female user....funny huh, and I can clearly point that out to you if you wish.

My comment was "ROFL!". Your was an entire paragraph in response to that. Who needs to let go?

My comment was "ROFL!". Your was an entire paragraph in response to that. Who needs to let go?

Emerald_Warrior

Actually I am not bringing up the Illusion of Gaia Thread, you are...I am over it. I have not brought up that disagreement once, you have though on several occasions and not just in this thread. You need to learn that people are going to be blunt over the internet, and not letting somethign go as that trifle argument is silly. So please again elaborate more about Simons Quest....