I've occasionally referred to these games as the Trilogy of Betrayal, because they were sequels to incredibly, insanely successful games that ended up being incredibly, insanely different from their predecessors. As a child, it was kind of difficult not to feel cheated by these games that used an incredibly popular brand to make you buy something that you were not at all expecting.
At the time you played these games, were you excited, enjoyed, and satisfied? Or were you annoyed and frustrated?
Looking back today - do you consider any of them classics? Do you consider any of them terrible? Which holds up the best today?
A brief recap of each game:
Zelda 2 - went from being an overhead adventure game to some weird hybrid sidescroller/RPG with random encounters and an XP system for character progression. Had towns full of NPCs that you interacted with. You kinda went from feeling like a badass adventurer with a sword to this piddly little guy with a 4" dagger. The difficulty curve was rough and the random encounters were pretty annoying when all you really wanted to do was explore and find the next dungeon.
Castlevania 2 - went from a level-based action-platformer to a very rough, primitive version of Metroidvania. You collected and equipped different items, but progression wasn't really through the acquisition of new abilities. Had a day/night system that mostly just proved annoying. Like Zelda 2, you could visit towns, buy stuff from vendors, and get progression clues from NPCs. The game is notorious for its "There's no way you could have figured that out without a guide" secrets, though it's been so long I'm not sure how prevalent it really was. Like Metroid 1 before it, the game probably would have benefitted from an in-game map feature.
Super Mario Brothers 2 - probably the least radical re-imagining of a franchise, but still a pretty big departure from its predecessor. As far as I can recall, it's the only Mario game where you can't kill enemies by jumping on them -- you have to pick stuff up and throw it at them. Platforming felt kinda secondary to puzzle solving and throwing stuff. It had a cast of multiple player-characters that was interesting, though. The art design was top-notch and while it was incredibly different from Mario 1 its off-the-wall nature kinda felt natural given the Mario wackiness that the first game established.
At the time you played these games, were you excited, enjoyed, and satisfied? Or were you annoyed and frustrated?
Looking back today - do you consider any of them classics? Do you consider any of them terrible? Which holds up the best today?
A brief recap of each game:
Zelda 2 - went from being an overhead adventure game to some weird hybrid sidescroller/RPG with random encounters and an XP system for character progression. Had towns full of NPCs that you interacted with. You kinda went from feeling like a badass adventurer with a sword to this piddly little guy with a 4" dagger. The difficulty curve was rough and the random encounters were pretty annoying when all you really wanted to do was explore and find the next dungeon.
Castlevania 2 - went from a level-based action-platformer to a very rough, primitive version of Metroidvania. You collected and equipped different items, but progression wasn't really through the acquisition of new abilities. Had a day/night system that mostly just proved annoying. Like Zelda 2, you could visit towns, buy stuff from vendors, and get progression clues from NPCs. The game is notorious for its "There's no way you could have figured that out without a guide" secrets, though it's been so long I'm not sure how prevalent it really was. Like Metroid 1 before it, the game probably would have benefitted from an in-game map feature.
Super Mario Brothers 2 - probably the least radical re-imagining of a franchise, but still a pretty big departure from its predecessor. As far as I can recall, it's the only Mario game where you can't kill enemies by jumping on them -- you have to pick stuff up and throw it at them. Platforming felt kinda secondary to puzzle solving and throwing stuff. It had a cast of multiple player-characters that was interesting, though. The art design was top-notch and while it was incredibly different from Mario 1 its off-the-wall nature kinda felt natural given the Mario wackiness that the first game established.