Zelda II - Why all the hate?

[Baloo]

As I sit here playing through Zelda II on my NES for the very first time after owning the game for years now (And subsequently cursing at my TV for its difficulty), I wonder: Why is Zelda II most hated amongst Zelda fans? The game is a challenge and not in the same style of gameplay as the original, but I think this is a game just as compelling as the original when it comes to gameplay, depth, and overall fun. The graphics are great as well, and the music is good too, if not as memorable.

Anyone else here a fan of Zelda II?

[bangtango]

No hate here. It was and still is my favorite Zelda game. Loved the music, loved the environment of the palaces and loved talking to people in the towns.

I do think the side-scrolling, higher difficulty, cheap deaths, difficult enemies, three lives and experience points systems were all big factors in the lukewarm opinions about Zelda II today.

At the time, though, it was well received and didn't it still sell a shitload of copies, even being named as a catalyst for a (phantom) "chip shortage" Nintendo used to talk about during that time period?

[dap9984]

I love this game :) I admit I wasn't a fan of it until I sat down one day and played all the way through it. My appreciation for it's insane difficulty is at a new level and has become one of my favorite NES games. The game starts off pretty difficult which makes it hard to want to get into. But once you start leveling up and you find that Hammer (oh God, the pain) then the game is quite fun! I think I might try and beat again here soon :)

[jimpoleshuk]

I think that the second one was too much like a platformer with it primarily side scrolling. It just didn't have the charm of the first one. It would appear that Nintendo thought that too, subsequent Zeldas were top view until 3D became available.

[TonyTheTiger]

I think Zelda II would get more love if it weren't so damn annoying. Losing experience from being hit, the way ambushes work, the distance you have to travel and how uninteresting the world map is, etc. It's the little things that really bog it down and make the game much harder and more tedious than it needs to be. And it's long.

It's just not worth putting up with all the bullshit to find the somewhat enjoyable game underneath when there are so many better entries in the series.

[jimpoleshuk]

It's just not worth putting up with all the bullshit to find the somewhat enjoyable game underneath when there are so many better entries in the series.

Well put, there's a good game in there but you do have to put up with some BS to find it

[kupomogli]

This is my favorite game in the Zelda series and also one of the most enjoyable platformers out there. Like someone else said, it's a difficult game at the start and only gets harder the further into it you get. Death Mountain is everyone's least favorite part of the game, but I've always through it was pretty manageable.

I think that the main reason that most people don't like it is because it's not your standard Zelda type. A lot of Zelda fans now probably played the later Zelda titles, and Zelda 2 being the only game in the series with different gameplay isn't liked as much because of just that. It's not what they're used to playing as a Zelda title. I could be wrong, but that's probably the reason.

[TonyTheTiger]

I actually think it gets more love because it's a Zelda title. If it were some random NES Adventure RPG like Faxanadu, Hydlide, or whatever I doubt it would have nearly as many fans. It being a Zelda game is what drives a lot of people to actually stick it out and put up with the BS.

[Suikoman444]

I think the hate stems mostly from the difficulty. This is, at the moment, the only Zelda game I have not beaten yet, other than the Game and Watch one. I've made it to Death Mountain, but just have so much trouble there. I imagine it would be very off-putting to the Zelda fan who might die only a handful of times in an entire playthrough.

[Cobra Commander]

I beat this game when I was 11. I guess gamers these days can't handle that kind of a challenge.

[bangtango]

I beat this game when I was 11. I guess gamers these days can't handle that kind of a challenge.

I used to beat it soundly when I was in my NES "zone" between ages 10-14 or so. Used to play NES several hours a day most of the week. I can still beat it today, but it is more difficult to me than it used to be.

Maybe ten years ago, I remember reading a Zelda retrospective in a really popular publication (probably Game Informer or EGM) and they wrote a couple paragraphs about Zelda II, one of which was something like:

"To this day, still arguably the most difficult in the Zelda series, if you can master Zelda II, then consider yourself a pretty good gamer."

[Sunnyvale]

IMHO, the hate has its roots in the release of Zelda II. Any of you other greybeards remember the 'microchip shortage' that kept it off the shelf for an extra year +? (strange how other games got cranked out then. I guess Zelda uses mystical chips?) Damn game was in my strategy guide, but I didn't see it for a year or so later. After all that wait n hype, it was pricey ($60-80, if memory serves). And like so many other hyped-up things, it had some mammoth expectations to live up to. I know that has nothing to do with side scroller complaints, but that game has never had a day it wasn't in the crosshairs. After 25 years of people bitching about it, it became part-n-parcel of 'gamer-geek' opinion.

[skaar]

Zelda II is amazing.

If you can't handle it, go play Farmville.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'd rather Wonderboy Monster Land or Dragon's Trap thanks. Better games that do the same thing without the fuss. I don't dislike Adventure of Link, more like "meh". It is the only Nintendo console Zelda game I'm fine owning ports of and not the original. I haven't decided on Spirit Tracks yet, but it's not looking favorable either. The NES-Mini GBA cart and GC Collection disk is more than enough Zelda 2 for me.

Error still rules, regardless.

[Cobra Commander]

Zelda II is amazing.

If you can't handle it, go play Farmville.
I've never done this before, but....THIS ^^^

[Boltorano]

Zelda II was the 3rd game in the series that I played, after A Link to the Past and Link's Awakening, and I actually did enjoy it for a while.

I probably would have finished it to if it weren't for having to restart at the same place whenever you loaded your save.

[DDCecil]

I love Zelda II. Ever since my parents rented it for me back in 1988 as a surprise, I've always enjoyed it. Today, it and Link's Awakening are the only 2 in the series I can go back to and not get bored within 5 minutes.

[Zing]

And it's long.

I recently replayed through both with zero outside help and the second game was a significantly shorter play-through. The over world is basically a map screen, and the dungeons take about the same amount of time as in the first game.

[cynicalhat]

its not that hard of a game people. seriously. beat the first palace, slog through death mountain using some good old fashioned platforming skills and get the downward thrust. then grab the hammer, grab a few extra pieces of life and beat palace 2 and on. Cake. oh yeah and beat the aligators by "duck n' slicing". jump over the only red one you don't meet one step up and take your lumps and love it.

:ass:

[Zing]

I probably would have finished it to if it weren't for having to restart at the same place whenever you loaded your save.

What the…

The only place that takes more than a couple minutes to walk to is the final palace. If you avoid the random encounters (easily done by following the roads), it probably takes the same amount of time to walk to a dungeon in the second game as in the first! Maybe less time!

My mind is seriously blown. Is this what "Halo checkpoints" have done to newer gamers?

[skaar]

Found this today, been enjoying watching them:

http://speeddemosarchive.com/Zelda2.html#UPaDa

[Boltorano]

What the…

The only place that takes more than a couple minutes to walk to is the final palace. If you avoid the random encounters (easily done by following the roads), it probably takes the same amount of time to walk to a dungeon in the second game as in the first! Maybe less time!

My mind is seriously blown. Is this what "Halo checkpoints" have done to newer gamers?

I've never played Halo actually, and strangely enough I finished Final Fantasy on the NES around the same time I was playing Zelda II (1994 or so), so I was no stranger to grinding or games that felt like a chore at times. For some reason Zelda II just felt all the more worse in the regard.

[TonyTheTiger]

I love how poor design choices get so easily justified with the completely irrelevant argument "new gamers suck." It falls apart from every angle. It is the always fail worthy argument from age (old=good), it's begging the question (assuming that it's new gamers who are the ones who dislike it), and most of all it's a blatant red herring (diverting the issue to new/young gamers).

It's really like going "I could try to defend the game for what it is and the specific design choices within but look at all this other stuff over there!"

It really doesn't matter who likes or doesn't like having to walk back to where you were after loading a save, or that Link's sword is so short, or that the experience system works the way it does. If you're going to try to justify it working the way it does then you can't do that by presuming it's obviously good and then attacking some other issue, presuming that issue is the reason people have a contradictory opinion.

It's just a pet peeve of mine because this happens a lot, especially with old RPGs. Somebody inevitably attacks the existence of random battles and/or grinding and a popular response is something along the lines of "new gamers can't handle anything anymore." What if everything worked this way? "Man, sure glad dentists use Novocaine these days." "Psh, modern society is so coddled."

[heybtbm]

Zelda II is amazing.

If you can't handle it, go play Farmville.

Agreed.

Love Zelda II. I like it better than the original. Always have.

[Berserker]

It is a hard game, and it does have some poor design choices. The most egregious one to my mind is the hammer quest.

You need the hammer to progress in the game, and the hammer is in Death Mountain, which is filled with these awful hatchet monsters. There's no way to block their attack (at that point), and they back up when you try to jump over them. The only way to really kill them without getting your ass handed to you is to use the downward thrust... which is in a town you need the hammer to get to.

That's a design error. Yes, you can eventually master the exact timing between their attacks, but that happens over a long period of time and usually with repeated playthroughs. It's a design error.

Having said all that, I love it regardless. It's one of my favorite NES games. It has its lumps, but there's just something about the fluidity of the gameplay in particular that keeps me coming back to it. If I ever got a serious inclination to make video games, one of the first things I think I'd make would be a Zelda II with roguelike elements. Same gameplay, different overworld/dungeon maps on every playthrough. That would make me one happy gamer.

[sheath]

Zelda II is the only Zelda game with real action gameplay, once you learn it the game is easy, until you learn it the game is hard. Subsequently, Zelda II is the only Zelda game I actually enjoy.

[skaar]

There's no way to block their attack (at that point), and they back up when you try to jump over them. The only way to really kill them without getting your ass handed to you is to use the downward thrust... which is in a town you need the hammer to get to.

That's a design error. Yes, you can eventually master the exact timing between their attacks, but that happens over a long period of time and usually with repeated playthroughs. It's a design error.


See, I disagree. I think that you learn to FEAR the axe guys at that point - they only really give you two (maybe three) dark red ones you HAVE to go through to get to the hammer - and they're set up like minibosses. The orange ones are no challenge.

Once you have downthrust there is nothing more to fear from this enemy and they lose their effectiveness - bouncing off a head or two feels more like a triumph after you've had to fight without the option.

I really need to look now and see if he played Zelda II on Gamecenter CX.

[heybtbm]

It is a hard game, and it does have some poor design choices. The most egregious one to my mind is the hammer quest.

You need the hammer to progress in the game, and the hammer is in Death Mountain, which is filled with these awful hatchet monsters. There's no way to block their attack (at that point), and they back up when you try to jump over them. The only way to really kill them without getting your ass handed to you is to use the downward thrust... which is in a town you need the hammer to get to.

That's a design error.

I got around this by grinding. It was the first game where I recognized that killing a bunch of minor monsters would pay off later by leveling up and making me borderline invincible. At the time I thought I was a genius.

[heybtbm]

One other thing, Zelda 2 gave us one of the best Zelda music pieces of all time...

http://youtu.be/gBgFH27e4Dk

[spongerob]

Don't expect Zelda I and Zelda II probably won't disappoint you. I enjoy it to this day. It's different, and came after a game everyone loved. The hate is almost guaranteed in a situation like that.

I just hate the psychotically difficult final areas. Some of those dungeons are just flat out unfair. It'd be one thing if that was the whole MO of the game, or if I was eased into it, but you go from easy, easy, easy, easy, OMG MIND FUCKINGLY IMPOSSIBLE in one dungeon.

Still...love it though. Even with some of the most dull, boring grinding ever.

[Wraith Storm]

I used to play Zelda II at my cousins house when I was younger. I loved it then and I love it now.

Back in 2001 my friend and I each bought our own copies of Zelda II. We played through the game simultaneously. We would call one another and ask where the other was and it provided motivation for me to keep playing so I could beat it first. :)

The game is certainly harder than other Zelda games but regardless it is my favorite of the series. I love the experience system and how you can actually cast spells. To me it is a perfect blend genres and is a "true" action RPG.

I will say I am surprised to see so many people having issues (or at least hating on) getting the hammer at Death Mountain. I don't remember myself or my friend having problems there. Sure, it is a complex maze of caves and quite a long stretch but I enjoyed the challenge. I always considered it a fairly iconic section of the game. I don't remember it being any harder or easier than any other part the game.

[spongerob]

One other thing, Zelda 2 gave us one of the best Zelda music pieces of all time...

http://youtu.be/gBgFH27e4Dk

Agreed. I love this.

[treismac]

I actually think it gets more love because it's a Zelda title. If it were some random NES Adventure RPG like Faxanadu, Hydlide, or whatever I doubt it would have nearly as many fans. It being a Zelda game is what drives a lot of people to actually stick it out and put up with the BS.

I agree. For all we know in North America, Zelda II was originally some Doki Doki Panic game in Japan that got the Super Mario Bros. 2-esque makeover to get more sales.

[kainemaxwell]

I think the hate stems mostly from the difficulty. This is, at the moment, the only Zelda game I have not beaten yet, other than the Game and Watch one. I've made it to Death Mountain, but just have so much trouble there. I imagine it would be very off-putting to the Zelda fan who might die only a handful of times in an entire playthrough.

Never got past the final bosses either. Trying to get through Death Mountain even at the end was too annoying and tedious.

[Berserker]

See, I disagree. I think that you learn to FEAR the axe guys at that point - they only really give you two (maybe three) dark red ones you HAVE to go through to get to the hammer - and they're set up like minibosses. The orange ones are no challenge.

Oh, and fear them I did. The orange ones are no challenge now, but initially I found it pretty difficult to get the timing down. But yeah, at least when you run from those guys it's not all flyin' hatchets up the ass.

Have you gotten the hammer without the candle yet? That's when you know you play this game too much.

[Aussie2B]

I think Zelda II would get more love if it weren't so damn annoying. Losing experience from being hit, the way ambushes work, the distance you have to travel and how uninteresting the world map is, etc. It's the little things that really bog it down and make the game much harder and more tedious than it needs to be. And it's long.

But... I beat the game for the first time just a few months ago, and I did so over a few days of casual playing. o_O It's not remotely a long game. Frankly, I didn't encounter any of the problems you're stating here. Not all of the enemies drain EXP and those that do aren't a big problem (and anyone complaining about anything to do with the level up system needs to man up because it was actually changed to be made easier than the Japanese original). I don't even know what you mean about "ambushes" (unless you're just complaining about battles on the world map, which are usually easy to avoid). The distance to travel on the world map is miniscule. It's set up in such a way that you're always acquiring new items that let you skip past what you did before. It probably doesn't take more than a minute to walk from Zelda to the final segment of the game once you have the items to do so. In fact, I'd say the game is very streamlined, the opposite of bogged down and tedious. It's structured in such a way that you're always moving forward at a good clip.

Anyway, overall I think the game is good. I'd probably rank the first four Zelda games all roughly on par because each serves its own unique purpose, so it just comes down to what type of game experience you crave at any particular moment. I do like like other adventure games more than the Zelda series, though.

[wingzrow]

It was different. That scares and anger people.

Case in point, majora's mask, wind waker, final fantasy 12, breath of fire dragon quarter, chrono cross.

It's mostly an RPG thing.

[spongerob]

It was different. That scares and anger people.

Case in point, majora's mask, wind waker, final fantasy 12, breath of fire dragon quarter, chrono cross.

It's mostly an RPG thing.

So true. The populous fears change. At least the Japanese are open about it and embrace the fact they're comfortable with what they know. We pretend to want innovation and new shit but when we get it, we just want The Old Feeling again.

[TonyTheTiger]

But... I beat the game for the first time just a few months ago, and I did so over a few days of casual playing. o_O It's not remotely a long game. Frankly, I didn't encounter any of the problems you're stating here. Not all of the enemies drain EXP and those that do aren't a big problem (and anyone complaining about anything to do with the level up system needs to man up because it was actually changed to be made easier than the Japanese original). I don't even know what you mean about "ambushes" (unless you're just complaining about battles on the world map, which are usually easy to avoid). The distance to travel on the world map is miniscule. It's set up in such a way that you're always acquiring new items that let you skip past what you did before. It probably doesn't take more than a minute to walk from Zelda to the final segment of the game once you have the items to do so. In fact, I'd say the game is very streamlined, the opposite of bogged down and tedious. It's structured in such a way that you're always moving forward at a good clip.

Just because the EXP drain isn't incredibly devastating doesn't mean it isn't annoying. Just because the level system is easier than the Japanese version can just as easily mean the Japanese version was worse as it could mean the American version is "wussified." Just because battles are easy to avoid doesn't mean it isn't stupid design.

All of that isn't especially relevant to what makes the game good. At best it just proves the game isn't so bad.

See, that's what I've been saying. If I bring up a game that has an actual flaw (let's imagine a glitch that can corrupt your save file) the mere fact that said issue is "easy to avoid" or "only happens once or twice" or "is easily corrected with X, Y, Z" does not absolve it of being a flaw.

It's kind of like if I order a burger and it comes to me with a little bit of mold on the bun. And then if I bring it up I'm told, "At least it wasn't a big cockroach." I never understood the style of defending a game by pointing out how "not bad" the flaws are as a way of justifying their presence. If you're going to justify their presence then tell me why it's good that it's structured like that, not tell me "it could be worse."

Why is it good that some enemies drain experience? Why is it good that loading a save puts you in a completely different place from where you saved (attributable to Zelda in general)? Why is it good that enemies simply pop up on the map and charge at you?

[Hep038]

So true. The populous fears change. At least the Japanese are open about it and embrace the fact they're comfortable with what they know. We pretend to want innovation and new shit but when we get it, we just want The Old Feeling again.


Japan is so awesome and America is so lame.:roll:

[RP2A03]

This thread reminds me that I need to make another attempt at a no death completion.

[spongerob]

Japan is so awesome and America is so lame.:roll:

It might be lame both ways.

[Aussie2B]

Just because the EXP drain isn't incredibly devastating doesn't mean it isn't annoying. Just because the level system is easier than the Japanese version can just as easily mean the Japanese version was worse as it could mean the American version is "wussified." Just because battles are easy to avoid doesn't mean it isn't stupid design.

All of that isn't especially relevant to what makes the game good. At best it just proves the game isn't so bad.

See, that's what I've been saying. If I bring up a game that has an actual flaw (let's imagine a glitch that can corrupt your save file) the mere fact that said issue is "easy to avoid" or "only happens once or twice" or "is easily corrected with X, Y, Z" does not absolve it of being a flaw.

It's kind of like if I order a burger and it comes to me with a little bit of mold on the bun. And then if I bring it up I'm told, "At least it wasn't a big cockroach." I never understood the style of defending a game by pointing out how "not bad" the flaws are as a way of justifying their presence. If you're going to justify their presence then tell me why it's good that it's structured like that, not tell me "it could be worse."

Why is it good that some enemies drain experience? Why is it good that loading a save puts you in a completely different place from where you saved (attributable to Zelda in general)? Why is it good that enemies simply pop up on the map and charge at you?

My point wasn't in justifying flaws but in stating that those problems don't exist in the first place. The game isn't long. The EXP drain from enemies isn't annoying. The world map isn't cumbersome to travel. And I don't even know what you'd want out of the world map battles. Would you rather them be like normal random battles in an RPG where you can't avoid them at all? Would you rather them be 100% avoidable? Would you rather them not be there at all so the overworld is just barren? I think they made the best choice. When they appear, you can see them and you have a good chance of avoiding them if you're skillful. Plus there are ways to make them not show up at all. That's good game design. The other things don't really make the game good or bad, they just "are". When I think about the game's positive and negative aspects, stuff like EXP drain doesn't even cross my mind, seeing as the game gives out plenty of EXP.

[TonyTheTiger]

If those are non-issues why are they there in the first place? Seems pretty extraneous and haphazard then, doesn't it? "Just because" doesn't strike me as especially good design. That's a lose or draw situation, which you never want to be in. At best it doesn't hurt anything. At worst it does.

[skaar]

I'm kind of amused by the amount of times "design flaw" is being tossed around.

Everyone's a critic.

http://cdn.wg.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Critic-Main-600x314.jpg

[dap9984]

I do like like other adventure games more than the Zelda series, though.
I see what you did there :)

And I forget to state in my previous post but others have already stated it, but it was such a big change from the original that people feared and despised it. Then on top of it being so difficult from the get go, I can see why people didn't care for it. But if you give it a chance, it's actually an awesome game.

[TonyTheTiger]

I think the whole "it's different" is too easy an excuse, though. Mario 2 was also very different, being a totally unrelated game and all. And while it does get its fair share of criticism, it isn't nearly as divisive as Zelda II. I don't think simply being different is the reason. And some games end up garnering incredible praise when they break from tradition. Castlevania: SoTN? Metroid Prime?

[Icarus Moonsight]

Growth is a major factor when I think Zelda. That organic growth, emulated so well by others in the series, is missing from Adventures of Link. They put it out in numbers as EXP instead of the narrative holistically sewing the seeds of your future accomplishments.

Since the game runs on the numbers with a drive toward action, a rougelike/action-platformer could be a great remake path. I'd love to see the game get a remake if it makes the game more integrated and less jarring to play.

[spongerob]

I think the whole "it's different" is too easy an excuse, though. Mario 2 was also very different, being a totally unrelated game and all. And while it does get its fair share of criticism, it isn't nearly as divisive as Zelda II. I don't think simply being different is the reason. And some games end up garnering incredible praise when they break from tradition. Castlevania: SoTN? Metroid Prime?

You can cite examples both ways. Reality is, gamers are illogical and are just big spoiled babies sometimes. And Zelda gamers are extremely outspoken and fanatical.

[exit]

One other thing, Zelda 2 gave us one of the best Zelda music pieces of all time...

http://youtu.be/gBgFH27e4Dk

When I remember playing Zelda II until I reached the first palace just to hear that theme, I was rather young (5 or 6) and couldn't really get any further than that anyway.

[Aussie2B]

If those are non-issues why are they there in the first place? Seems pretty extraneous and haphazard then, doesn't it? "Just because" doesn't strike me as especially good design. That's a lose or draw situation, which you never want to be in. At best it doesn't hurt anything. At worst it does.

They exist in the game for the purpose of adding depth. It would be a simpler games without those things. They're so minor, though, that that's why I say they just "are" rather than being good or bad.

I think the developers did consider what things could be annoying and aimed to make a game that offered a good challenge while still being consistently fun. That's why the level up system was altered for the US, and that's why they broke their normal rule of "start back at Zelda" for the final dungeon.


I see what you did there :)

Hah, unintentional Zelda pun, nice. :)

[retroman]

No hate on my end...I like Zelda 2 a lot, its not one of my favorite Zelda games or Nes game for that matter, but I did enjoy it with BS and all

[Sunnyvale]

You can cite examples both ways. Reality is, gamers are illogical and are just big spoiled babies sometimes. And Zelda gamers are extremely outspoken and fanatical.

How is it illogical to buy a $200 game when you have a 360 w emulation capabilities?

[scaryice]

You need the hammer to progress in the game, and the hammer is in Death Mountain, which is filled with these awful hatchet monsters. There's no way to block their attack (at that point), and they back up when you try to jump over them. The only way to really kill them without getting your ass handed to you is to use the downward thrust... which is in a town you need the hammer to get to.

You don't need the hammer to get the downstab. You can skip the last cave and walk around to the right.

[kupomogli]

And some games end up garnering incredible praise when they break from tradition. Castlevania: SoTN? Metroid Prime?

You previously mentioned how it's not fair saying games then are more difficult then and that's why people don't like them. Bringing up SotN reminds me of how many newer Castlevania fans express how they don't like the older games because the difficulty.

You know how many times I've seen people state that they bought Dracula X Chronicles since it came with SotN as an unlockable, and that they don't like the main game because it's "too hard?" Dracula X Chronicles is ridiculously easy. Probably the easiest classic Castlevania title.

So difficulty does turn people away from games. I dislike almost all shmups because I'm terrible at the genre. I like some older ones, but the further on we progress the more ridiculous they get in difficulty.

[Bloodreign]

I have no hate for Zelda II at all, the only thing I hated about the original 2 games are how easy it was to lose saved data. Other than that a friend who had both, let's just say I'd borrow Zelda II from him much more than Zelda 1. Needless to say it took me many years to get myself my own copy (years after buying the original, still have it in a sort of good condition box), but I'm glad I have it again.

I didn't beat the second one nearly as fast as I did the original game, not until years later when a friend had a copy, Thunderbird was my wall. But I finally broke through that wall, got to the final battle, beat the game, played through most of the second quest, but never got a chance to get through it. Your stats didn't reset in the second quest, but you had to get the items all over again, made the game feel immensely easier earlier in the game, but balanced out later in the game.

[Edmond Dantes]

I like Zelda II. Not one of my favorite games but when I sit down to play it I find it addictive and can't stop until it's over.

[Greg2600]

Never liked it, still don't. Way too aggravating to keep getting stuck in those useless mini-fights when you're wandering the level.

[bangtango]

My point wasn't in justifying flaws but in stating that those problems don't exist in the first place. The game isn't long. The EXP drain from enemies isn't annoying. The world map isn't cumbersome to travel. And I don't even know what you'd want out of the world map battles. Would you rather them be like normal random battles in an RPG where you can't avoid them at all? Would you rather them be 100% avoidable? Would you rather them not be there at all so the overworld is just barren? I think they made the best choice. When they appear, you can see them and you have a good chance of avoiding them if you're skillful. Plus there are ways to make them not show up at all. That's good game design. The other things don't really make the game good or bad, they just "are". When I think about the game's positive and negative aspects, stuff like EXP drain doesn't even cross my mind, seeing as the game gives out plenty of EXP.

I fully agree. Considering some enemies give you over 100 experience points and many enemies give you 20 or more, a drain of just a few points from a handful of enemies isn't a big deal.

I am surprised nobody complained about some of the items being useless, but it is a good thing they didn't since the first Legend of Zelda also had a few useless items :roll:

[bangtango]

Why is it good that loading a save puts you in a completely different place from where you saved (attributable to Zelda in general)?

Probably because that was par for the course in the era. It was the 1980's. With a few possible exceptions, I'm pretty hard pressed to name 8-bit console games which used a save battery and allowed you to resume your progress exactly where you had left off during your prior sitting.

You didn't have the widely established norm of checkpoints, autosaves, resuming right where you left off, etc. during that era of console gaming.

As for the combat system or experience point comments, which I didn't bother requoting, they were ideas that might not have necessarily worked perfectly in the finished product but the developers didn't know for sure until they tried them.

[eskobar]

Zelda II is one of my favorite games of the saga ....

Back in '89 many people wasn't as obssesive with a "series" of any videogame as they are now. Many good games are hated because they deviate from a certain aspect of design, gameplay or even music being different than previous releases.

I loved Zelda II from the first TV ads that aired on México from C. ITOH ... Getting the game was a bit hard but when i had the chance to open the box and touch that beautiful gold cart, I WAS AMAZED !!!!!!!.

The original Zelda was impressive and I think it was great that Nintendo focused on giving a great gameplay experience even if they did in a different way. The music is BRILLIANT, the gameplay is very tight, it works the way it was designed ...

... the first thing that I noticed was that the game required real skill to be played, unlike the original, that had no real challenge to your fingers, hehehehe. And loved the LEVEL UP system because it had a freedom not present in the original ... The towns were a great addition that ... same for the hidden ones, jejejeje. I spent some time traveling on woods to find hidden spots and loved the caves and its rewards.

The enemies were very well designed, all of them had a weakspot to be avoided or to kill them. The battles with the KNIGHTS were EPIC, I had PERFECT timing in my jumps and the possition of my shield .... it was beautiful to see a well fought battle.

It was a bit difficult, but not a insane or cheap difficult; you had a great control and even the super jump if you need extra help .... loved the way brigdes destroyed after you stepped on them.

Had a great time with the game, it was an action driven quest but it didn't feel dumb, it had the intelligence of the original Zelda. It was a pleasure to play such gem.

[j_factor]

I don't like Zelda II but it has nothing to do with it being "different", as I didn't like the first one that much either. The random battles are weird and jarring. I think it would've been a lot better if they'd ditched the overworld entirely, along with the random battles. That's what Ys III did, and I consider that a much better example of a side-scrolling action-RPG.

I don't like how the game saves your level, but not the amount of experience you had. I don't like the heart containers and magic containers -- it's like the game can't decide whether it wants to be experience-based or not. I don't like how you have to "learn" things like the downward stab. It's not like it's a spell or anything; what exactly is Link learning? I also don't like the method for learning spells, and I find the fetch quests boring.

[bangtango]

I don't like how you have to "learn" things like the downward stab. It's not like it's a spell or anything; what exactly is Link learning? I also don't like the method for learning spells.

Can I assume you also were less than pleased with NES Double Dragon in which Billy Lee had to "learn" how to do an uppercut, an elbow and a sitdown punch?

[spongerob]

How is it illogical to buy a $200 game when you have a 360 w emulation capabilities?

Dunno dude, dunno

[Icarus Moonsight]

Can I assume you also were less than pleased with NES Double Dragon in which Billy Lee had to "learn" how to do an uppercut, an elbow and a sitdown punch?

Master System version, yet again. NES should have been called Single Dragon. LOL

Solo play the NES becomes more varied and interesting, though it takes a bit of time to get there.
2P co-op is a no brainer for SMS and the NES 2P was horrid.

[bangtango]

Master System version, yet again. NES should have been called Single Dragon. LOL

Solo play the NES becomes more varied and interesting, though it takes a bit of time to get there.
2P co-op is a no brainer for SMS and the NES 2P was horrid.

Actually, those moves in NES Double Dragon that you had to earn were among the original video game "unlockables" before they became known as "unlockables." That game was a true trendsetter and it didn't even know it. LOL

Getting back to Zelda II, one notable feature that nobody mentioned so far is that fact that some of the magic containers and heart containers are damn near impossible to find without either some help (via tips) or good old fashioned dumb luck (you just happen to walk over the right piece of land).

[chrisballer]

I don't hate Zelda II, but I am not a big fan. When the first Zelda game came out it was such a new and for me an awesome experience that I think anything that would of followed it up next would have been criticized.

[old man]

I actually think it gets more love because it's a Zelda title. If it were some random NES Adventure RPG like Faxanadu, Hydlide, or whatever I doubt it would have nearly as many fans. It being a Zelda game is what drives a lot of people to actually stick it out and put up with the BS.

*cough*battleofolympus*cough*

I liked zelda II, but I hated the leveling up with experience points. I would have much rather it had a been more like metroid in that sense. Where you gain abilities and strength through finding power ups. The dungeons were awesome though. I think they're the best side scrolling mazes ever devised. I would love to see a new side scrolling zelda, but only if the developers were capable of making side scrolling dungeons as good or better than zelda II's.

[skaar]

Honestly, I never really thought of it as a Zelda game when I was a kid. It was an adventure game. Faxanadu didn't have nearly as smooth controls, but I played through that one too. Battle of Olympus I shall need to check out.

[kupomogli]

You see the same people who dislike Zelda 2 praise Battle of Olympus yet Battle of Olympus sucks balls compared to Zelda 2. With Zelda 2, it's pretty obvious where you need to go. Battle of Olympus requires an immense amount of backtracking through the few areas in the game because you happen to get a certain item but you have no idea where it works until you happen to run across that location. Time to go back to every area you couldn't progress through until you find the correct location to use the item.

Then people want to complain about grinding for hearts on Castlevania 2? Wait until you have to grind for the currency on Battle of Olympus.

[Aussie2B]

If you pay attention to the clues in Battle of Olympus, you should know exactly where to go and what to do. Unlike NPCs in other NES games, they're actually pretty useful and coherent. I wrote down the clues as I played the game and marked them off as I completed what they referred to, so I didn't need any outside help nor did I have to wander in order to stumble across an objective.

Zelda II, Battle of Olympus, and Faxanadu are all good games. I'm sure it is true that Zelda II gets extra attention for being a Zelda game, but I'd say that they all deserve attention.

[PresidentLeever]

Pretty sure I've ragged on Zelda 2 here before. It was good for its time, sure, but it has not aged well. Lucky for me it's not the only game of its kind (I love sidescrolling action adventure), and several games have improved upon the formula to the point where I don't feel like ever going back to play Zelda 2 again.

[peeingas]

The only problem I have with the game is when people call it "The Adventures of Link"

[dap9984]

Honestly, I never really thought of it as a Zelda game when I was a kid. It was an adventure game. Faxanadu didn't have nearly as smooth controls, but I played through that one too. Battle of Olympus I shall need to check out.
I always thought Faxanadu was a really good game. I never finished it but from what I did play, I really enjoyed it. For some reason, I never thought about it being like Zelda II but I definitely see it now. lol I'll have to check out Battle of Olympus. Any other games out there like these on the NES? I love this style which is probably why I loved Zelda II.....after I got the hammer :P

[Blitzwing256]

3 pages of zelda 2 talk and not a single mention of rambo for the nes? really?

i'm disapointed.