Zelda II - Why all the hate?

[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.

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.

[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

[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.