Egoraptor

[RavveN]

Hey guys...And girls yea...:)

 

I am watching egoraptor for about a year and i really like the way he thinks, he is really great gamer and he sees the best things in games that are almost forgotten or whatever..

 

 

Please check out this video...He is great, watch him...(This is not adviresment) Sorry for bad english :)

I thnk no one still plays these SNES games, and these old platforms. They should not be forgotten, without them there wouldn't be today games...I mean seriously :)

 

-RavveN-

[Vagrant0]

Him and the Angry Videogame Nerd both crap on Castlevania II...

 

But, I liked that game. It was a game I played for hours as a kid because the game took friggin hours. That's the thing they forget when they go looking back at these things with a modern gamer mindset. In the grand scheme of things, and for the time, there were relatively few games released in the US which had that long sort of playability that didn't make you throw the controller across the room in a fit of rage. So, for games 3+ hours long, you were looking at Zelda, Castlevania II, Metroid, and that was about it. Both Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy came later on. Castlevania II also led to the console version of Strider (released later by Konami) having a more Metroid-vania feel to it than the arcade version. Yeah, it's easy to point fingers... But it was made in the early days of consoles, when they were still working out how to make things less linear.

[RavveN]

Him and the Angry Videogame Nerd both crap on Castlevania II...

 

But, I liked that game. It was a game I played for hours as a kid because the game took friggin hours. That's the thing they forget when they go looking back at these things with a modern gamer mindset. In the grand scheme of things, and for the time, there were relatively few games released in the US which had that long sort of playability that didn't make you throw the controller across the room in a fit of rage. So, for games 3+ hours long, you were looking at Zelda, Castlevania II, Metroid, and that was about it. Both Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy came later on. Castlevania II also led to the console version of Strider (released later by Konami) having a more Metroid-vania feel to it than the arcade version. Yeah, it's easy to point fingers... But it was made in the early days of consoles, when they were still working out how to make things less linear.

 

No,no i can't agree with you. This is like basics of WoW. You need stuff to get to another quest, but at the same time there are 500 people on the same quest, and then they make you play about 12 hours a day to finish one friggin quest! And that is not what i want to do all day! That's why i play from now on just solo games...Like Skyrim for instance. I don't have any waitings or requirements i just go and finish up the quest and continue with storyline. Castelvania II was just boring and difficult and dump...And it wasn't really fun when you almost have 100 hearts to buy some important s*** you need! And then just stupid skeleton kills you and you need to grind more goddamn hearts..." I think you might see where am i getting with this, so i don't need to waste any more of my damn time explaining it! " :D

 

-RavveN-

[Vagrant0]

No,no i can't agree with you. This is like basics of WoW. You need stuff to get to another quest, but at the same time there are 500 people on the same quest, and then they make you play about 12 hours a day to finish one friggin quest! And that is not what i want to do all day! That's why i play from now on just solo games...Like Skyrim for instance. I don't have any waitings or requirements i just go and finish up the quest and continue with storyline. Castelvania II was just boring and difficult and dump...And it wasn't really fun when you almost have 100 hearts to buy some important s*** you need! And then just stupid skeleton kills you and you need to grind more goddamn hearts..." I think you might see where am i getting with this, so i don't need to waste any more of my damn time explaining it! " :D

 

-RavveN-

Getting hearts really wasn't ever as much of an issue as they make it seem since there were only a few things you ever had to buy and usually you could get enough just walking from one town to the next. The only place where hearts were really used were when using certain weapons... And you normally only needed those to kill bosses or get access to the next part of the game. Quite frankly, Zelda had more grinding involved what with having to grind money to buy keys, shields, bombs and such for some of the levels.

 

Again, you're looking at it with a modern mindset. Back in the days of the NES, non-linear RPGs were very rare and usually only on computers. Most games at the time were platformers and linear action. The RPG genre itself wasn't even flushed out beyond some tabletop games. Most games of the day had a playtime of about 1-2 hours if the game wasn't designed to drive you on a murderous rampage with glitchy, unforgiving mechanics. And when you only have a handful of potential games to play that you can afford, you tended to play the hell out of them if they didn't cause you to break things or make your parents send you to doctors for your aggression. Grinding and time spent were "good" things in those days.

[RavveN]

No,no i can't agree with you. This is like basics of WoW. You need stuff to get to another quest, but at the same time there are 500 people on the same quest, and then they make you play about 12 hours a day to finish one friggin quest! And that is not what i want to do all day! That's why i play from now on just solo games...Like Skyrim for instance. I don't have any waitings or requirements i just go and finish up the quest and continue with storyline. Castelvania II was just boring and difficult and dump...And it wasn't really fun when you almost have 100 hearts to buy some important s*** you need! And then just stupid skeleton kills you and you need to grind more goddamn hearts..." I think you might see where am i getting with this, so i don't need to waste any more of my damn time explaining it! " :D

 

-RavveN-

Getting hearts really wasn't ever as much of an issue as they make it seem since there were only a few things you ever had to buy and usually you could get enough just walking from one town to the next. The only place where hearts were really used were when using certain weapons... And you normally only needed those to kill bosses or get access to the next part of the game. Quite frankly, Zelda had more grinding involved what with having to grind money to buy keys, shields, bombs and such for some of the levels.

 

Again, you're looking at it with a modern mindset. Back in the days of the NES, non-linear RPGs were very rare and usually only on computers. Most games at the time were platformers and linear action. The RPG genre itself wasn't even flushed out beyond some tabletop games. Most games of the day had a playtime of about 1-2 hours if the game wasn't designed to drive you on a murderous rampage with glitchy, unforgiving mechanics. And when you only have a handful of potential games to play that you can afford, you tended to play the hell out of them if they didn't cause you to break things or make your parents send you to doctors for your aggression. Grinding and time spent were "good" things in those days.

 

But if you die while collecting the hearts you lose all of 'em and there is a big chance to die you know? :) I never played Legend of Zelda but i've seen the gameplay and it's not my type of game :/.

 

Ok i don't know how to respond to the second one, because you are clearly older than me , and clearly looks like you know this bettah :)

 

-RavveN-

[Vagrant0]

But if you die while collecting the hearts you lose all of 'em and there is a big chance to die you know?

As opposed to say... Only having three lives to complete the whole stinking game while still having to make the same sorts of jumps and deal with enemies which would respawn the moment their spawning point was off-screen. How is this different from many games now a days that make you drop items or money on death if it isn't an instant game-over? The only real difference is that here, it was a newer gameplay mechanic for the time and it wasn't as well refined as say... Sonic the Hedgehog a few years later. Almost every game for the NES was woefully unforgiving almost to the point of being cruelty to humanity in some cases, but kids still played the hell out of the games because there weren't so many other things begging for their time. When you payed $60 for a cartridge, you usually saw to it that you got your money's worth, even if it was a stinking pile of dog-crap coated in vomit then urinated on by a homeless man with a venereal disease, and then you traded it to your friends for one of their games which wasn't much different, but was different enough to make you spend 30+ hours playing it.

 

People look more favorably on those hundreds of hours learning a level so that you can know exactly where to jump and attack in relation to a pattern than they do walking around grinding even when the two are essentially the same; because there isn't as much of an uphill climb when grinding. That's all there is to it.

[RavveN]

But if you die while collecting the hearts you lose all of 'em and there is a big chance to die you know?

As opposed to say... Only having three lives to complete the whole stinking game while still having to make the same sorts of jumps and deal with enemies which would respawn the moment their spawning point was off-screen. How is this different from many games now a days that make you drop items or money on death if it isn't an instant game-over? The only real difference is that here, it was a newer gameplay mechanic for the time and it wasn't as well refined as say... Sonic the Hedgehog a few years later. Almost every game for the NES was woefully unforgiving almost to the point of being cruelty to humanity in some cases, but kids still played the hell out of the games because there weren't so many other things begging for their time. When you payed $60 for a cartridge, you usually saw to it that you got your money's worth, even if it was a stinking pile of dog-crap coated in vomit then urinated on by a homeless man with a venereal disease, and then you traded it to your friends for one of their games which wasn't much different, but was different enough to make you spend 30+ hours playing it.

 

People look more favorably on those hundreds of hours learning a level so that you can know exactly where to jump and attack in relation to a pattern than they do walking around grinding even when the two are essentially the same; because there isn't as much of an uphill climb when grinding. That's all there is to it.

 

It's like playing Skyrim on Master difficulty with hide armor and 2 iron daggers :/...I mean, it's ok to have a challenge in game so you can play it more time, but difficulty at castelvania II is just abnormal :/

 

Nuff said :)

 

-RavveN-

Edited December 18, 2011 by RavveN

[Vagrant0]

It's like playing Skyrim on Master difficulty with hide armor and 2 iron daggers :/...I mean, it's ok to have a challenge in game so you can play it more time, but difficulty at castelvania II is just abnormal :/

 

Nuff said :)

 

-RavveN-

Try Contra... Seriously.

 

In the grand spectrum of things, Castlevania 1 or 2 are both rather low on the scale for unforgivably difficult . The first one is actually the more difficult of the two, and mostly because of the insane timing and coordination you need.

[RavveN]

It's like playing Skyrim on Master difficulty with hide armor and 2 iron daggers :/...I mean, it's ok to have a challenge in game so you can play it more time, but difficulty at castelvania II is just abnormal :/

 

Nuff said :)

 

-RavveN-

Try Contra... Seriously.

 

In the grand spectrum of things, Castlevania 1 or 2 are both rather low on the scale for unforgivably difficult . The first one is actually the more difficult of the two, and mostly because of the insane timing and coordination you need.

 

Yea it was challening , but Castelvania 2 just dumbs down everything and you get killed more with water or void, than for NPC's, in Castelvania 1 you die mostly by NPC's especially those damn medusa heads! Damn they are unpredictable, but at least i didn't drown in 20 centimeter water :/

 

-RavveN-