AVGNsucks' 1st Post

His first post is about the Nerds review on Castlevania 2.

"Anyway, he states that "This game sucks". You're suppose to state your points before saying your final opinion! He's doing it backwards!"

As long as he gives his reasons for saying that Castlevania 2 sucks who cares. There is no law saying that you first have to give reasons and then your opinion.

"He says that Castlevania 1 and 3 are classic Nintendo games. WRONG! These games were made by Konami."

What James was refering to was that Castlevania 1 and 3 were classic games playable on the NES. He wasn't talking about what company that made them.

"He says that "at first it looks like a decent game" How are you judging this? Based on graphics?"

He doesn't literary mean "at first it looks like a decent game" What he really means is that when you start playing through the game it looks like its going to be a good game.

"Then he says that it's a little different from the first. He proceeds to say that's OK, because Zelda 2 and SMB2 were different from the firsts. But then he says this: "but they were all good"." He just doesn't get it. Both Zelda 2 and SMB2 were inferior to their original! SMB2 is barely a Mario game and Zelda 2, well don't get me started."

James just says that Zelda 2 and SMB2 are good, he just gives his opinion on the games. How exactly is that bad? Besides he never says that they were superior to their predecessors, so why did you bring up that "Both Zelda 2 and SMB2 were inferior to their original!" By the way I think you left out a word at the end of your statement.

"He explains how you have to go around and buy stuff. He says it doesn't bother him and it makes it more like an adventure story. Why are you mentioning this?"

I thought James was reviewing a game, isn't that what game reviewers do? They talk about the game and  then give their opinion on it.

"He complains about the going from day to night. The way he words it confuses me. Does he not like it because it's just there. If that's the case, Zelda OoT really sucks. Or does he not like it because of the text telling you it has happened. Would he rather just not know?"

He doesn't like it because the text appears for too long on the screen and it interrupts the gameplay.

"He asks a question. Then he ANSWERS IT! What the hell is the point if you already know the answer. But the sheer stupidity of the question is what makes me mad. He asks "whats the point". It's a gameplay mechanic! A rather good one at that. It makes the game more interesting and keeps it fresh!"


When James asks the question "whats the point" he is not refering to the fact that day turns into night, instead he is refering to why the action itself has to interrupt the gameplay.

" 'Why do you have to die when you fall in the water' First of all, there are many game that you die from the water. It's no big deal. Plus, he may not be able to swim because of heavy equipment like the whip. Besides, who cares? Just pretend it's lava, or even a pit."

James is just wondering why a vampire hunter can be killed by water. Thats actually a good question: "Why is it that someone that goes around hunting vampires isnt able to swim?" Also last time I checked a whip isn't that heavy. 

"He talks about how you have to buy weapons. He mentions that hearts aren't energy in this game, but rather they are money. Well, in the previous games they were weapon power, so it's not anything out of place."

How is it that hearts being used for money not out of place with hearts being used for weapon power.

"But then he complains that you have to stock up on hearts to buy stuff. Yea, you think? He says it doesn't add any difficulty, but explains that if you die you lose your hearts. Well if you're dying, then that leads me to believe it's difficult"

James makes a good point; how exactly does losing your hearts make the game harder? It doesn't. It just makes the game longer and boring. Yes James was dying a lot in the game, but because of the game's already established difficulty. Not because losing hearts was making the game harder.

"It turns to night and the stores are closed. Then he dies on purpose from not using the stairs. First of all, the drawbridge is up on OoT at night. Second, you should have used the stairs, you dumb fuck."

First of all, what does the drawbridge being up on OoT have to do with anything. Second, James died because he missed a jump, not because he didnt want to use the stairs.

"He explains that one of the most annoying things is the pitfalls. He says there's no way to tell that they're there, but then goes on to explain how to tell if they're there. What's he thinking?"

James isnt talking about all the pitfalls just the ones that you can't see. Also let me qoute what james said about the pitfalls "its impossible to tell where these spots are the first time walking through"

"He complains about the lack of boss fights. Who really cares? Moving on."

Usually if your playing a side scroller you expect a boss that the end of each level and by not having them is just a sign of laziness on behalf of the creators.

"He explains how at the end of the level there is an orb. To get past it you don't touch it, but rather throw an oak stake at it. He complains how it's hard to figure out. It's a puzzle game. There's also RPG elements in it. If you talk to people you get clues as to what you are suppose to do."

Clues don't tell you exactly what to do. So even with or without clues its still hard to figure out. Also Castlevania 2 isnt a puzzle game, its an action-adventure game.


"He demonstrates how ... the only way to get through the game is to enter a code."

Let me qoute James again "the only shorter way (not only way) to get through... this game is to use a code"

"He complains that some games have lower case. The thing is, Castlevania 2, doesn't. So what's the point in even mentioning this?"

Again I am going to qoute James, maybe even you paid attention to his review I won't need to do this.
"I hate games like these because... the L's look like I's, 0s look like O's, 5s look like 8s"

"Then he says that the final castle is boring because there is nothing to hurt you. Wait, I thought you wanted an easy game."

When does he say he wants an easy game. He wants a game thats challenging, but possible to play.

"He complains that Dracula looks like the Grim Reaper. I wonder if it ever occurred to him that maybe the enemy wasn't Dracula, but actually was the Grim Reaper."

Okay so he made a mistake, keep in mind that your hero, the Irate Gamer, makes them all the time. If you  want proof here it is:   http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheIrateGamer    http://bahamut.newgrounds.com/news/post/471053
http://irategamersucks.blogspot.com/
"First off, he continues calling him Dracula. Then he goes on to explain a trick that "he discovered himself". Stop bragging, you aren't a video game genius!"

James isnt bragging he is basicly saying "This trick is so easy to figure out that even I can do it"

"He explains that it's too easy just to throw the flames at him. First of all, I thought you wanted an easy game. "Did they even test this shitty game out before they released it". Of course they did, they probably just thought that if you can figure out to use the flames, then go ahead!"

He never wanted an easy game, just a challenging game that is possible to play. Also its called a rhetorical question.

"He says it's useless complaining about a game made in the late 80's or early 90's. Why can't he give an exact year?"

Keep in mind this was James' first review, he it did for fun and he wasn't taking it seriously.

Well thats all I have to say thanks for reading.