http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/pixels-and-bits/14307-The-Sophomore-Slump-in-Video-Gaming-Mario-Castlevania-and-Zelda-
So the Escapist is running this article, and frankly it's a giant load of shit. Not one of these sequels is actually worse than the original, they're just different (although honestly, in what world are people saying Mario 2 was an worse than Mario 1? Realistically they're about on the same level)
But I really hate this shit. Simon's Quest isn't a bad sequel, it's an ungraceful sequel. Sure it was cryptic, but a lot of games were back then. They were called "Nintendo Power" games, they were games you needed a subscription to Nintendo Power to figure out all the secrets (remember these games are from a time before the internet). No one gives shit to the first Zelda for being overly cryptic. Honestly, I played that game without a walkthrough when I was 17 years old and I couldn't figure out shit. No but because the AVGN rattled on and on about how bad it was, everyone accepts it as an inferior game. Honestly, I would welcome a modernized version of Castlevania 2. Symphony of the Night's did the same god damn thing, y'all love it so much.
As for Zelda 2, it's the same thing. It was different, but it was by no means bad. Honestly, I don't see why they don't revisit that style of gameplay. Give Link his basic controls from smash, dungeon crawling, basic RPG elements, that would be pretty dope. But no, because it was kind of cryptic and hard everyone just writes it off like it's a bad game.
And who thinks Mario 2 was a bad sequel? First of all, remember back when that came out. We had no idea the lost levels was even a thing, for all we knew as kids Mario 2 was a direct sequel to Mario. Secondly, Mario 2 was amazing! It was weird and different, it introduced many of the characters that would become Mario canon like Birdo, the Ninji, and Shy Guys. It's boss fights were more interesting and harder to complete than just running past Bowser. I won't deny Mario 3 was superior, but in no way was Mario 2 inferior to Mario 1.
Seriously, not only does this article suck from a written point of view, it's completely wrong. What do you guys think?
So the Escapist is running this article, and frankly it's a giant load of shit. Not one of these sequels is actually worse than the original, they're just different (although honestly, in what world are people saying Mario 2 was an worse than Mario 1? Realistically they're about on the same level)
But I really hate this shit. Simon's Quest isn't a bad sequel, it's an ungraceful sequel. Sure it was cryptic, but a lot of games were back then. They were called "Nintendo Power" games, they were games you needed a subscription to Nintendo Power to figure out all the secrets (remember these games are from a time before the internet). No one gives shit to the first Zelda for being overly cryptic. Honestly, I played that game without a walkthrough when I was 17 years old and I couldn't figure out shit. No but because the AVGN rattled on and on about how bad it was, everyone accepts it as an inferior game. Honestly, I would welcome a modernized version of Castlevania 2. Symphony of the Night's did the same god damn thing, y'all love it so much.
As for Zelda 2, it's the same thing. It was different, but it was by no means bad. Honestly, I don't see why they don't revisit that style of gameplay. Give Link his basic controls from smash, dungeon crawling, basic RPG elements, that would be pretty dope. But no, because it was kind of cryptic and hard everyone just writes it off like it's a bad game.
And who thinks Mario 2 was a bad sequel? First of all, remember back when that came out. We had no idea the lost levels was even a thing, for all we knew as kids Mario 2 was a direct sequel to Mario. Secondly, Mario 2 was amazing! It was weird and different, it introduced many of the characters that would become Mario canon like Birdo, the Ninji, and Shy Guys. It's boss fights were more interesting and harder to complete than just running past Bowser. I won't deny Mario 3 was superior, but in no way was Mario 2 inferior to Mario 1.
Seriously, not only does this article suck from a written point of view, it's completely wrong. What do you guys think?
