I guess the skull should be the only brick that remains.

The brutal blitzkrieg on the 'cinematic platformer' cannot be stopped

I haven't played PoP 2, so I won't argue about that, but I've played the original PoP a lot when I was a kid and you're completely missing the point. PoP was a cinematic platform, not an arcade game. This simply because PCs were not able to run that kind of stuff, back in the early '90s. PoP was a puzzle game, period. All that ranting about responsiveness, reaction time and whatever doesn't make much sense. Given that, granted: PoP 2 was a frustrating game. I remember a friend of mine had it and, although the cave entrance could be open by stepping on the stones in the correct order (no need to be a genius to figure it out), later on you'll face a skeleton on a suspended bridge. The skeleton is immortal and the bridge will crumble shortly after you step on it. No margin for trial, no online walkthrough back then, you either knew how to deal with it or you were dead. First PoP had an immortal skeleton too, but there were no crumbling bridge and you'll eventually realize you could just make it fall into a pit. Moreover, only because you're playing PoP 2, it doesn't necessarily mean you're an expert of the first game. My friend stopped playing there but, even so, you're still missing the point: that's a puzzle game, not an arcade. Randomly running and jumping everywhere doesn't prove anything, except you don't understand this is Prince of Persia, not Super Mario.

This one was way more irritating than the original. At least the original gave you a general idea of what you were doing wrong.

You should try the SNES port, unlike the great version of the first game it's broken and for some reason it runs at a higher speed

Games from this era sucked so bad. They all play like the 12 days of christmas AKA repeat everything up to this point and get slightly ahead then do it again. Games should really just be one cohesive experience with minimal repetition unless youre something like geometry dash or whatever

I like how the way people viewed difficulty in video games has done a complete 180 and now any game that is mildly challenging in some way immediately gets compared to dark souls and leads to another month long tedious discussion about accessibility in gaming.

Just wanted to give a quick, reminder of all the questions I have for your Q&A video. 1: When I look at a game that I might be interested in, I found that a lot of the times, even when I look up reviews and other info about a certain game, if I haven't played the game myself, I could come across reviews that praises the game, like it's "The best thing ever" I still can't tell wether thoes reviewers are right about the game or not, so the question is. Do you think I should allways, watch reviews first, not just your reviews but other poeple's aswell, before I consider purchasing any game? 2: I know you've said in the past that you hate grinding in video games, but why is that fine in a game like, Stardew Valley and not other game genres? I am curious. 3: Do think the, Duke nukem franchise is truly dead or will there ever be another game?

I can't wait to hear your thoughts about the trilogy. I like all three games, although I can certainly admit that they had their flaws.

Darn you gonna review Sands of time trilogy eventually?

gotta give it to it though the graphics are absolutely majestic.

Yay 🎉

Ma I remember this game. I thought I was stupid but no, it is just a bad game all around and it gets much worse later. Those f***ing flying heads...bah.

also you are complaining about intentional design choices which is like complaining about super meat boy being a difficult game... something for you to think about before publishing these kind of videos.