This game is ASS

Let's be honest, the game was bad. It was interesting because it was unique, but it was pretty bad otherwise. is right that a remake with the same idea would be really, really good to see.

Goonies II was a better game in the same genre on the same console.

IM SUCKING COCK ON THE ROLLERCOCK!

It's basically Zelda 2, but bad

Zelda 2 was shit too. And yes, I'm being serious.

>conflating "this game is bad" with "this game is too hard"
>using an anecdote as an argument
>"zoomers"

Attached: bd8[1].png (1190x906, 178K)

Absolute shit taste
Go push a block onto a button so that you can have your smart puzzle gamer moment

I'm not sure what a remake could really lend to it though. The "puzzles" are bad, the level design is bad, the bosses are bad, and the story is fine but rather basic; no Castlevania game has a particularly good story.
>Zelda 2 was shit too.
Nah.

>No other Nintendo games have had the towns and setting be as bleak and hostile as Castlevania 2 and Zelda 2
Wasted opportunity desu

Attached: 1533860089611.gif (400x300, 370K)

Hey, I like Zelda 2 but 1 was wayyyyyyyy more cryptic than 2.
Honestly though, that's probably a downside to 1 in itself. Zelda 1 was way too cryptic. Zelda 2 at least hints at a lot of the secrets in game.

>I think 3 is worse.
Christ.

Attached: cast him in.gif (400x280, 1.99M)

Attached: 1498864464988.jpg (377x325, 22K)

Original Dark Souls IMO

I'm talking more about a recreation than a remake. As in, keep the same story and theme. Keep the same idea of wandering about the world, the night being dangerous, and diving into dungeons to retrieve parts of Dracula to use and eventually burn. Hell, I'd even leave the chambers that hold the body parts empty, because honestly, that was the creepiest shit you could imagine back then: going through all that trouble, getting to your final goal, and then just... nothing.

However, I'd change pretty much everything smaller than that. Don't have the townsfolk outright lie, make them evasive or unhelpful if you don't want them giving information. Less grinding for hearts just to buy the new whip. Reorganize the map. Remake the dungeons to be more interesting. No crouching on random platforms to progress.

The core idea of Castlevania 2 is good. The implementation is bad. Seeing a remake keep the core idea but implementing it better would be very nice to see.

My point though is that the "core idea" doesn't actually amount to much of interest. It would end up being a completely new game. I'm okay with that, because I wouldn't mind another Castlevania game, but if the end result doesn't have much more in common with Simon's Quest than Symphony of the Night does, what difference does it make if it involves Dracula's body parts? Again, I wouldn't be opposed to it, but it's not like you're rescuing the game from obscurity or faulty execution; you're just making a new game. This is why I do not think it "needs" a remake.

Bloody Tears is NES kino but the game's still not great

Rather than being a huge exploration in a large castle (it's always a large castle) it would involve a linear world left-right with several different castles to explore. Power-ups were mostly purchased or obtained in new towns, as opposed to found in dungeons, and they typically didn't give new travel abilities. They were more lock-and-key and the power-ups that Dracula's body parts game were more useful combat abilities than anything else. I'd say that it would be quite a bit different from SotN if they decided to implement it.