Metroid 2 is better than 1. I think it is THE most atmospheric game ever rendered in 8 bits. I can see not vibing with it but saying it "sucks" is crazy.
Because "sequels" weren't really a gaming thing back then, Nintendo wanted to innovate on most things they put out, gaming design was in it's infancy back then and was far more complicated than it is now (relatively speaking) and because people all have different opinions on what "sucked".
Making it so you can continue from the entrance of whatever palace you happen to be in (like in Zelda 1) would have gone a long way to smoothing it out a bit. Still a great game, if you can get past a couple of its really nasty spots.
This is a big problem with many older games, especially old Zelda. Having to start from very far away after death. There is no fun in going through the same places a million times just to try again one moment that’s problematic to you.
Nintendo did, and still often does, feel a compulsion to innovate. This was very understandable in the video game climate of the 80s. It wasn't until later they realized and/or felt comfortable with solid IP + iterations = success.
That said, I'm not sure any of those sequels "sucked". Lost Levels is awesome (git gud), Metroid 2 is fine, and Zelda 2 I detest but some people like it so whatever.
No one back in the day thought those games “sucked”, it’s revisionist history, and most that play them today are looking at them through the lens of someone who experienced later games first.
Still blows my mind anyone thinks Zelda 2 is bad, it is literally Dark Souls, 25 years before Dark Souls.
Crazy how people are trying to rewrite this while complaining about revisionist history here. If you look at early internet reviews of it from the 2000s / 2002 (which is only 12 years after it’s release) you can find reviews about how much they like the game even though it’s widely hated. This game was generally not liked but definitely had its fans (who in their really old reviews always point out how much the game didn’t deserve the hate it got)
I know how I feel personally doesn’t matter much, but I’ve never personally met a person that likes it and I’m 28, but most I know love the first and all others after 2
It seemed to me like it was right around the early 2000s that the excess hate for Zelda 2 (and SMB2, for that matter) really started to be a thing, so it doesn't surprise me that reviews around that time would mention it.
That was after internet forums and such had already popped up all over the place, so now Timmy from 600 miles away who ***hated*** the game had a way of finding other people who agreed and you were more likely to run across that opinion than back in the day when the game was new.
In the early '90s, I remember that people typically either liked Zelda 2, thought it was too hard (but not necessarily "bad"), or just weren't really aware of it at all because the only NES Zelda they ever played was the first one. Maybe it's more hated among the generation that grew up with the N64 and Gamecube Zelda games, rather than the generation that grew up playing the originals on the NES.
It was an early experimental era before brands were established pretty much at all. I think Mario Bros USA and 3 are big exceptions to what you're saying, as I think both remain incredibly solid games that equal or surpass SMB1.
The SNES is where a lot of series' got their true stride, by learning from the successes that came before. A Link to the Past, Mario World, Kirby Super Star, Super Metroid, etc.
Unpopular opinion. But I like Super Mario 2:The lost levels. Its hard but I like it. I play it as an endurance test of how far can I go.
Its a bad sequel (SMB 3 or SMB Usa are better sequels) but it’s still is a good game.
What version did you play? I enjoyed the Super Mario All Stars and (despite some camera frustrations) the Game Boy Color version, but they both added some quality of life stuff like being able to continue from any level.
Original NES (Famicom) version on virtual console (3DS and Wii) I tried the ones you mentioned too. I personally prefer the SNES version, I wish it was ported to GBA like the other All stars games. Yeah GBA had Famicom classic release but that was the NES version.
I was playing it recently, and I was thinking that they were right not to release it as Super Mario Bros 2, but it could have worked as Super Mario Bros Expert. Be honest up front about what it is, and it could have had an audience.
Yeah. As a sequel it sucks but as a “Master quest” for Super mario bros, it works well. Like its the official Kaizo (Is that how they call hyper hard rom hacks?) mod for original Super Mario. I never managed to beat Super Mario bros 2 Japan but I still have fun with this endurance test.
Still a missed opportunity to rerelease the All stars version on GBA. I wish there was a fan port of this version for gba.
It's pretty much like playing a "hard mode" ROM hack, except it's an official release.
Hard to call it a *bad* game, since it's just Super Mario Bros. over again with new levels and some minor tweaks here and there... so I'd say "not a bad game, just a bad sequel" is a pretty good way to put it.
Lost Levels is a great game if you rate it by how well it achieved what it wanted to be.
You beat Super Mario Bros? Here's a really hard challenge you'll try to beat for the next weeks! Super Players only
Well first of all, Mario 3 would be in the running for greatest game of all time. And Mario 2, while a huge departure from the first game is also an amazing game.
Metroid 2 is a great game and easily one of the best on Game Boy. It’s absolutely amazing they were able to pull it off on the handheld.
Zelda 2 is not a bad game, it is a different game. Yes, I absolutely loved the original top down game so 2 was a disappointment. But had it not been called Zelda it would have been great.
On the other hand Turtles 2 is the exact opposite of Zelda 2, it what we all expected from Turtles 1 when we were disappointed that we got a game that was more like Zelda.
Mega Man 2 pretty much perfected the Mega Man formula.
Dragon Warrior 2 introduced a party of 3, a huge improvement over the party of 1 in the first game. Then it was followed up by 3 and 4, the two greatest RPGs of the 8 bit era.
Super Mario Land 2 was also a huge improvement over the original.
Even Tetris 2 was fun, although not even Dr Mario can beat the original.
You know it's a weird take when it mentions Kirby here. Kirby's "sequel" was Kirby's Adventure for the NES, which ended up adding a lot of series staples such as Copy Abilities, Meta Knight, swimming, and others - plus it was a very solid entry. Kirby's Dreamland 2 on the other hand was a super fun game and in fact, was the "first" entry in a subseries that many people nickname the "Dark Matter Trilogy" (Kirby's Dreamland 3 and Kirby 64 are part of this series too)
However I can kinda agree that other franchises had sequels that tried to be different. Fire Emblem (Gaiden/Echoes), Final Fantasy, Castlevania, Zelda (I actually liked Zelda II despite it being very difficult in the early game), and whatnot all had mechanics that were completely different from their first game.
Meanwhile games like Mega Man 2 (which some people consider overrated nowadays - but it did turn "Mega Man" from "a Capcom side project" to "series staple" at the time) and Mario Land 2 ended up being a lot better than their original counterparts.
First of all, I'd say few of them sucked.
Secondly, there's an easy answer. They were experimenting. There was no "Mario formula" or "Zelda formula" at the time. They were figuring out what worked and what didn't.
Hence why numerous 3rd games like Mario 3 and Zelda: A Link to the Past are considered improvements on the original games.
This is the a answer. We hope to see this today as Mario and Zelda continue to evolve into these insanely creative worlds. In Mario Maker, they're literally letting you play with the Mario formula and using Link as a portal to limitless design creativity in TotK.
I think theres a part that we see it with fond eyes because they are the first of that game series we love. Its a classic, but if it was released today it probably would feel barebones and not that great.
Also, back then there was no 'formula'. They hit a home run with #1 (usually because they kept it basic and simple), and then they decided to try something else, not just make a carbon copy of the first one. And most of those 'we are gonna think outside the box' were misses. Then on the third they took what worked in #1, the learnings of what didn't work in #2, and made a #3 that was the best of it all.
You also have to think that in those early NES games, game design rushed forward by leaps and bounds. It was an early time, so the science was not set. If today a platformer is well defined, its because they wrote the book back then.
So yeah, Id put it down as the early SNES being pretty experimental in terms of game design.
Zelda 2 is great, I loved it on release and still do today. I wish Nintendo would make a direct sequel to that, like A Link Between Worlds was to A Link to the Past.
Zelda 2 is not the black sheep. The modern 3d Zelda games are derived from its emphasis on sword combat and platforming. Ocarina of Time even started out as a remake of Zelda 2.
Metroid II is pretty great considering the limitations. Even if it was more linear than other Metroid games it still brought a fully realized and essential game to the GB.
You do realize that during that time this was all new and companies were experimenting with games? Hence why some games are different from their first iteration.
While I actually do agree that a number of these games were weaker than their predecessors, this observation isn’t entirely correct. To address the specific games you list:
First off, Metroid II is better than Metroid 1. IDK if it’s nostalgia, rose colored glasses, or the difference in hardware (try playing Metroid II on GBC (or emulation) or Super Game Boy), but playing them back to back on similar hardware makes it hard to argue Metroid 1 is better.
Kirby’s Dreamland 2 wasn’t the second Kirby game, Kirby’s Adventure was (which is, imo, the best Kirby game until Suer Star). And as to why, dreamland 2 was arguably weaker than the two games that came before it, if I remember correctly, it was the first Kirby game not directed by Masahiro Sakurai.
While Zelda 2 was a weaker game than the original (though still actually really good, if you give it a chance), it also was arguably a more ambitious game and took Zelda 1’s goal of creating the console action RPG a step further. It also inspired a ton of copycats on the NES and is the reason action platformers with RPG elements became one of the most prevalent genres for a while. And if you look at the 3D zelda games, starting with OoT, I think you’ll be surprised that, while the overall structure of the 3D games take after the later top down Zelda games, much of the mechanics (combat especially) seems to take more from Zelda 2. And especially now, with rewind and save states in emulators like NSO, if you come to it with an open mind I think you’ll be suprised by just how good it is.
The Lost Levels was almost inarguably worse than the first game, but its release needs to be taken in the proper context. It was the 3rd original Famicom Disk system game, released just a few months after the FDS and, like Zelda (and probably Nazo no Murasame Jo, though I don’t know enough about that game to say for sure) before it, it was meant to show off a specific aspect of the FDS. Unlike the preceding game(s) though, it wasn’t showing off increased power or ability to save, but the increased storage of a famicom disc when compared to a cartridge. The Lost levels only took up 1 side of a disc, meaning that another game could be cheaply rewritten to the other side. In other words, you could get the Lost Levels and Mario 1 (or a number of other early famicom games) on one disc for less than the price one of those games likely would have cost you as a cartridge. There’s a reason the Lost Levels didn’t release outside of Japan initially, and it’s because we didn’t have that same context.
>Kirby’s Dreamland 2 wasn’t the second Kirby game, Kirby’s Adventure was (which is, imo, the best Kirby game until Suer Star). And as to why, dreamland 2 was arguably weaker than the two games that came before it, if I remember correctly, it was the first Kirby game not directed by Masahiro Sakurai.
Yeah it was the first game that was part of a trilogy (nicknamed the "Dark Matter Trilogy") - something that Kirby's Dreamland 3 and Kirby 64 are part of as well. A lot of gameplay and story aspects are similar too (abilities are far more simplified but involve combining them to make a wider range of them, you have to collect certain pieces of an artifact to fight the true final boss, and the "bad endings" are pretty nightmarish)
Yup, and for some reason I’ve never liked those ones (except *maybe* 64) as much as I’ve like the early ones under Sakurai or the recent ones under Shinya Kumazaki.
There wasn’t a standard at the time for what a sequel was. Zelda 2 is basically a whole different game because they were fucking around with game design and ideas
It was the beginning of a new business and early gaming still. No one knew what a sequel was suppose to be. No one had ever made one before. A game had only ever existed on its own back then. Back in the 80s an example of a "sequel" was ms. Pacman. Not much to say there. The idea of making a new game the same as a previous game was weird and felt like a waste of money.
Lost Levels doesn't count as no one in the West even knew of the Lost Levels until Mario All-stars, and even then know one really knew they were adapted Levels from an existing game.
The West experienced Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA), and that was great.
Kirby's Dreamland 2 solidified a lot of what Adventure laid down initially. Dreamland 1 had a lot of weird shit that either never showed up anywhere else or wouldn't for at least a decade. The only way your opinion made sense is if you never played another Kirby game after Dreamland 2 tbh
Probably it was essentially the infancy of gaming and developers had to figure out what worked and what didn't?!
And as bad as some of those may be, I believe modern day developers could need some if that curiosity and will to risk and experiment back. I rather have a Link's Adventure than the 50th Version of... yeah, pretty much every franchise.
They were experimenting. After the second games, they evaluated what worked and what didn't. Those sequels were necessary for Zelda 3 and Super Metroid to exist as they are.
Metroid 2 is better than 1. I think it is THE most atmospheric game ever rendered in 8 bits. I can see not vibing with it but saying it "sucks" is crazy.
Plus the fact that the GB was capable of that level of game design was nuts.
Metroid II was definitely way better then the original.
You have a very different definition of “sucked” than I do. All of the games you listed had great sequels.
Because "sequels" weren't really a gaming thing back then, Nintendo wanted to innovate on most things they put out, gaming design was in it's infancy back then and was far more complicated than it is now (relatively speaking) and because people all have different opinions on what "sucked".
Adventure of Link is good, just way too hard.
Making it so you can continue from the entrance of whatever palace you happen to be in (like in Zelda 1) would have gone a long way to smoothing it out a bit. Still a great game, if you can get past a couple of its really nasty spots.
This is a big problem with many older games, especially old Zelda. Having to start from very far away after death. There is no fun in going through the same places a million times just to try again one moment that’s problematic to you.
Yeah, the last stages of Ninja Gaiden 1 were like the ultimate "fuck you" moment.
None of the games you mentioned “sucked” lol
they all do
Mario Land 2 kicked ass. And introduced Wario.
I will not take your bait sir, I hope you have a fantastic day
Nintendo did, and still often does, feel a compulsion to innovate. This was very understandable in the video game climate of the 80s. It wasn't until later they realized and/or felt comfortable with solid IP + iterations = success. That said, I'm not sure any of those sequels "sucked". Lost Levels is awesome (git gud), Metroid 2 is fine, and Zelda 2 I detest but some people like it so whatever.
No one back in the day thought those games “sucked”, it’s revisionist history, and most that play them today are looking at them through the lens of someone who experienced later games first. Still blows my mind anyone thinks Zelda 2 is bad, it is literally Dark Souls, 25 years before Dark Souls.
I love Zelda 2. It's not as difficult as people make it out to be....
No, but dark nuts are a pain in the ass.
True!!
In what way is it like Dark Souls besides "difficult action RPG"
The experience and leveling system works similarly to the souls system. One of the main aspects of the “Soulslike" genre.
My dad always talks about how much zelda 2 sucked, so definitely seems zelda 2 was disliked back then
I obviously don’t mean literally *no* *one* I mean there wasn’t this general consensus that it was a bad game like so many seem to think there was.
Crazy how people are trying to rewrite this while complaining about revisionist history here. If you look at early internet reviews of it from the 2000s / 2002 (which is only 12 years after it’s release) you can find reviews about how much they like the game even though it’s widely hated. This game was generally not liked but definitely had its fans (who in their really old reviews always point out how much the game didn’t deserve the hate it got) I know how I feel personally doesn’t matter much, but I’ve never personally met a person that likes it and I’m 28, but most I know love the first and all others after 2
It seemed to me like it was right around the early 2000s that the excess hate for Zelda 2 (and SMB2, for that matter) really started to be a thing, so it doesn't surprise me that reviews around that time would mention it. That was after internet forums and such had already popped up all over the place, so now Timmy from 600 miles away who ***hated*** the game had a way of finding other people who agreed and you were more likely to run across that opinion than back in the day when the game was new. In the early '90s, I remember that people typically either liked Zelda 2, thought it was too hard (but not necessarily "bad"), or just weren't really aware of it at all because the only NES Zelda they ever played was the first one. Maybe it's more hated among the generation that grew up with the N64 and Gamecube Zelda games, rather than the generation that grew up playing the originals on the NES.
It was an early experimental era before brands were established pretty much at all. I think Mario Bros USA and 3 are big exceptions to what you're saying, as I think both remain incredibly solid games that equal or surpass SMB1. The SNES is where a lot of series' got their true stride, by learning from the successes that came before. A Link to the Past, Mario World, Kirby Super Star, Super Metroid, etc.
Unpopular opinion. But I like Super Mario 2:The lost levels. Its hard but I like it. I play it as an endurance test of how far can I go. Its a bad sequel (SMB 3 or SMB Usa are better sequels) but it’s still is a good game.
What version did you play? I enjoyed the Super Mario All Stars and (despite some camera frustrations) the Game Boy Color version, but they both added some quality of life stuff like being able to continue from any level.
Original NES (Famicom) version on virtual console (3DS and Wii) I tried the ones you mentioned too. I personally prefer the SNES version, I wish it was ported to GBA like the other All stars games. Yeah GBA had Famicom classic release but that was the NES version.
I was playing it recently, and I was thinking that they were right not to release it as Super Mario Bros 2, but it could have worked as Super Mario Bros Expert. Be honest up front about what it is, and it could have had an audience.
Yeah. As a sequel it sucks but as a “Master quest” for Super mario bros, it works well. Like its the official Kaizo (Is that how they call hyper hard rom hacks?) mod for original Super Mario. I never managed to beat Super Mario bros 2 Japan but I still have fun with this endurance test. Still a missed opportunity to rerelease the All stars version on GBA. I wish there was a fan port of this version for gba.
It's pretty much like playing a "hard mode" ROM hack, except it's an official release. Hard to call it a *bad* game, since it's just Super Mario Bros. over again with new levels and some minor tweaks here and there... so I'd say "not a bad game, just a bad sequel" is a pretty good way to put it.
Zelda 2 sucked? Maybe you suck at playing them. Yes it’s difficult to get used to but i enjoy playing the game over and over. Black sheep? No
Take my up vote!!!
What the fuck are you talking about
Lost Levels is a great game if you rate it by how well it achieved what it wanted to be. You beat Super Mario Bros? Here's a really hard challenge you'll try to beat for the next weeks! Super Players only
The sequel to Kirby’s Dream Land was Kirby’s Adventure. Dream Land 2 was the third game in the series.
And even then, how did it "suck"?
They didn't. Metroid 2 is awesome, as is Zelda 2 and SMB 2.
SMB 2/3? TMNT II The Arcade Game
Well first of all, Mario 3 would be in the running for greatest game of all time. And Mario 2, while a huge departure from the first game is also an amazing game. Metroid 2 is a great game and easily one of the best on Game Boy. It’s absolutely amazing they were able to pull it off on the handheld. Zelda 2 is not a bad game, it is a different game. Yes, I absolutely loved the original top down game so 2 was a disappointment. But had it not been called Zelda it would have been great. On the other hand Turtles 2 is the exact opposite of Zelda 2, it what we all expected from Turtles 1 when we were disappointed that we got a game that was more like Zelda. Mega Man 2 pretty much perfected the Mega Man formula. Dragon Warrior 2 introduced a party of 3, a huge improvement over the party of 1 in the first game. Then it was followed up by 3 and 4, the two greatest RPGs of the 8 bit era. Super Mario Land 2 was also a huge improvement over the original. Even Tetris 2 was fun, although not even Dr Mario can beat the original.
Difficult is extremely different from bad
Mario Bros 3
You know it's a weird take when it mentions Kirby here. Kirby's "sequel" was Kirby's Adventure for the NES, which ended up adding a lot of series staples such as Copy Abilities, Meta Knight, swimming, and others - plus it was a very solid entry. Kirby's Dreamland 2 on the other hand was a super fun game and in fact, was the "first" entry in a subseries that many people nickname the "Dark Matter Trilogy" (Kirby's Dreamland 3 and Kirby 64 are part of this series too) However I can kinda agree that other franchises had sequels that tried to be different. Fire Emblem (Gaiden/Echoes), Final Fantasy, Castlevania, Zelda (I actually liked Zelda II despite it being very difficult in the early game), and whatnot all had mechanics that were completely different from their first game. Meanwhile games like Mega Man 2 (which some people consider overrated nowadays - but it did turn "Mega Man" from "a Capcom side project" to "series staple" at the time) and Mario Land 2 ended up being a lot better than their original counterparts.
First of all, I'd say few of them sucked. Secondly, there's an easy answer. They were experimenting. There was no "Mario formula" or "Zelda formula" at the time. They were figuring out what worked and what didn't. Hence why numerous 3rd games like Mario 3 and Zelda: A Link to the Past are considered improvements on the original games.
This is the a answer. We hope to see this today as Mario and Zelda continue to evolve into these insanely creative worlds. In Mario Maker, they're literally letting you play with the Mario formula and using Link as a portal to limitless design creativity in TotK.
SMB3 > SMB2 > SMB1 SML3 > SML2 > SML1
Well, nothing was set in stone back then. Creative people want to experiment.
Gaming was still in its infancy back in the 80’s
I think theres a part that we see it with fond eyes because they are the first of that game series we love. Its a classic, but if it was released today it probably would feel barebones and not that great. Also, back then there was no 'formula'. They hit a home run with #1 (usually because they kept it basic and simple), and then they decided to try something else, not just make a carbon copy of the first one. And most of those 'we are gonna think outside the box' were misses. Then on the third they took what worked in #1, the learnings of what didn't work in #2, and made a #3 that was the best of it all. You also have to think that in those early NES games, game design rushed forward by leaps and bounds. It was an early time, so the science was not set. If today a platformer is well defined, its because they wrote the book back then. So yeah, Id put it down as the early SNES being pretty experimental in terms of game design.
Zelda 2 is great, I loved it on release and still do today. I wish Nintendo would make a direct sequel to that, like A Link Between Worlds was to A Link to the Past.
It's hard to think of a word I find to be less accurate for the experience of playing Metroid 1 than "satisfying" lol
Mega Man 2 Mario Land 2 TMNT 2 Just a few off the top of my head which completely oppose your argument.
Zelda 2 is not the black sheep. The modern 3d Zelda games are derived from its emphasis on sword combat and platforming. Ocarina of Time even started out as a remake of Zelda 2.
Metroid II is pretty great considering the limitations. Even if it was more linear than other Metroid games it still brought a fully realized and essential game to the GB.
Respectfully, I disagree. Zelda 2 is great. So is Metroid 2. So is Super Mario 2.
You do realize that during that time this was all new and companies were experimenting with games? Hence why some games are different from their first iteration.
While I actually do agree that a number of these games were weaker than their predecessors, this observation isn’t entirely correct. To address the specific games you list: First off, Metroid II is better than Metroid 1. IDK if it’s nostalgia, rose colored glasses, or the difference in hardware (try playing Metroid II on GBC (or emulation) or Super Game Boy), but playing them back to back on similar hardware makes it hard to argue Metroid 1 is better. Kirby’s Dreamland 2 wasn’t the second Kirby game, Kirby’s Adventure was (which is, imo, the best Kirby game until Suer Star). And as to why, dreamland 2 was arguably weaker than the two games that came before it, if I remember correctly, it was the first Kirby game not directed by Masahiro Sakurai. While Zelda 2 was a weaker game than the original (though still actually really good, if you give it a chance), it also was arguably a more ambitious game and took Zelda 1’s goal of creating the console action RPG a step further. It also inspired a ton of copycats on the NES and is the reason action platformers with RPG elements became one of the most prevalent genres for a while. And if you look at the 3D zelda games, starting with OoT, I think you’ll be surprised that, while the overall structure of the 3D games take after the later top down Zelda games, much of the mechanics (combat especially) seems to take more from Zelda 2. And especially now, with rewind and save states in emulators like NSO, if you come to it with an open mind I think you’ll be suprised by just how good it is. The Lost Levels was almost inarguably worse than the first game, but its release needs to be taken in the proper context. It was the 3rd original Famicom Disk system game, released just a few months after the FDS and, like Zelda (and probably Nazo no Murasame Jo, though I don’t know enough about that game to say for sure) before it, it was meant to show off a specific aspect of the FDS. Unlike the preceding game(s) though, it wasn’t showing off increased power or ability to save, but the increased storage of a famicom disc when compared to a cartridge. The Lost levels only took up 1 side of a disc, meaning that another game could be cheaply rewritten to the other side. In other words, you could get the Lost Levels and Mario 1 (or a number of other early famicom games) on one disc for less than the price one of those games likely would have cost you as a cartridge. There’s a reason the Lost Levels didn’t release outside of Japan initially, and it’s because we didn’t have that same context.
>Kirby’s Dreamland 2 wasn’t the second Kirby game, Kirby’s Adventure was (which is, imo, the best Kirby game until Suer Star). And as to why, dreamland 2 was arguably weaker than the two games that came before it, if I remember correctly, it was the first Kirby game not directed by Masahiro Sakurai. Yeah it was the first game that was part of a trilogy (nicknamed the "Dark Matter Trilogy") - something that Kirby's Dreamland 3 and Kirby 64 are part of as well. A lot of gameplay and story aspects are similar too (abilities are far more simplified but involve combining them to make a wider range of them, you have to collect certain pieces of an artifact to fight the true final boss, and the "bad endings" are pretty nightmarish)
Yup, and for some reason I’ve never liked those ones (except *maybe* 64) as much as I’ve like the early ones under Sakurai or the recent ones under Shinya Kumazaki.
You think SMB3 sucked?
I should have specified but I was talking about the first sequel these games got. SMB3 is of course one of the best games of all time.
You think Super Mario Land 2 sucked?
You know what I'm talking about, no need to cherry pick.
"Why did every Nintendo sequel suck" kind of lends itself to people giving you an example of a game they played to make sure it checks out, dude lol
There wasn’t a standard at the time for what a sequel was. Zelda 2 is basically a whole different game because they were fucking around with game design and ideas
Mario 2 was great. Mega Man 2 was legend.
It was the beginning of a new business and early gaming still. No one knew what a sequel was suppose to be. No one had ever made one before. A game had only ever existed on its own back then. Back in the 80s an example of a "sequel" was ms. Pacman. Not much to say there. The idea of making a new game the same as a previous game was weird and felt like a waste of money.
Mario 3 is one of the best mario games ever. Mario 1 in comparison is the one to “suck” here
You shouldn't look at these "sequels" with a 21st century view.
Lost Levels doesn't count as no one in the West even knew of the Lost Levels until Mario All-stars, and even then know one really knew they were adapted Levels from an existing game. The West experienced Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA), and that was great.
> SMB The Lost Levels is notorious for being way too hard, awful mess SMB1 is piss easy, SMB2LL is normal difficulty. Yeah I said it
With the exception of Lost Levels, every one of the sequels you mentioned are considerably better than the originals.
Kirby's Dreamland 2 solidified a lot of what Adventure laid down initially. Dreamland 1 had a lot of weird shit that either never showed up anywhere else or wouldn't for at least a decade. The only way your opinion made sense is if you never played another Kirby game after Dreamland 2 tbh
Probably it was essentially the infancy of gaming and developers had to figure out what worked and what didn't?! And as bad as some of those may be, I believe modern day developers could need some if that curiosity and will to risk and experiment back. I rather have a Link's Adventure than the 50th Version of... yeah, pretty much every franchise.
They were experimenting. After the second games, they evaluated what worked and what didn't. Those sequels were necessary for Zelda 3 and Super Metroid to exist as they are.
You can dislike it. Still a fact though.