Zelda II - Why all the hate?

[Sunnyvale]

Rambo was a decent game. It was just finding where to go was the problem. There were too many pathways that lead into a dead end or taking others would just lead you back to an old location. Sometimes when taking one pathway it would disappear so you wouldn't be able to take that pathway back, meaning you had no choice but to go back through several screens you've probably traversed a few times through already.

The only other problem was it had the same music over and over and over. I mean the main theme isn't too bad, honestly, but when you hear it 99% of the game, then it does start to get a little annoying.

I enjoyed Rambo as a kid, it's a little tedious now. As for the 8-bit ear-torture... Zelda 1 was the same way. Mute that POS and put on some Def Leppard was my strategy in the lated 80's. Used to fall asleep w that music stuck in my head...

[vintagegamecrazy]

I just can't wrap my head around all the Zelda II hate that comes out here. It is simply put my favorite NES game of all time. I got it in 1993 by accident and my dad and I had no idea what to do in it but we slowly figured it out and both finished the game with only a few random game mags for help along with an Atlas. Those were good times fore sure!

[old man]

The thing about Battle of Olympus is that it plays almost exactly like Zelda II. I would bet money they game is either a hack or huge portions of Zelda II code was used for it.

[Aussie2B]

The thing about Battle of Olympus is that it plays almost exactly like Zelda II. I would bet money they game is either a hack or huge portions of Zelda II code was used for it.

Extremely unlikely.

In fact, the games play quite a bit different. Zelda II has much more depth to its combat system. It's more of a "dueling" game seeing you're mostly in 1-on-1 fights, and many of the enemies are very good at blocking and take multiple hits. Battle of Olympus is more your standard adventure game combat fare - walk up to the enemy and stab it, with it dying in a hit or two.

[ccovell]

The thing about Battle of Olympus is that it plays almost exactly like Zelda II. I would bet money they game is either a hack or huge portions of Zelda II code was used for it.

Zelda II is a clear product of its time, which is why I don't like it so much personally. Influenced by the smash hit DragonQuest (and Hydlide, obviously) for its overhead sections, hit points, etc., and influenced by Japanese PC hits Xanadu & Romancia -- which were big hits at the time -- for its side-scrolling sections.

Battle of Olympus (announced in mid-1987) merely followed this wave of side-scrolling RPGs along with Sorcerian, Ys III, Fire Bam... lots of others.

[XYXZYZ]

Zelda II is one of my favorite video games, in my top 5 for sure. Admittedly a lot of my love for Zelda II may come from my imagination as a kid, it certainly did have an "adventure" feel to it... I really enjoyed plugging away at it every day, exploring Hyrule trying to find all the secrets and gradually powering up Link along the way. I like the combination of building up your character by finding items like heart containers, and using experience points to improve your stats. It added a strategy element to the game (never put the crystal in the statue when you're close to raising a level!).

Looking back at it now, I do find it rather disappointing that Link only uses the same sword attack through the whole game, it would be cool if there were more items to use like the boomerang, magic wand and hookshot you find in other Zelda games.

And a lot of the "faults" people are complaining about here are just elements of the game, you can either figure out how to work with them or you can't, I call that process learning how to play the game. Some times it's worth the effort for you, sometimes it's not. I didn't like Battle of Olympus very much because the controls seemed a little flaky to me, but I think I'll give that game another look. I also thought Ys III was a terrible game when I first played it, but now I'm giving it another chance (on the PC Engine) and I find it to be a pretty solid game once you get the hang of it!

[j_factor]

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?

Sorry for the late reply, but yes, absolutely, I didn't like that aspect of the game at all. Lots of games have you learn special abilities, but when they're very basic moves with no apparent reason as to why you couldn't do it in the first place, I find it rather annoying.

[NE146]

And a lot of the "faults" people are complaining about here are just elements of the game, you can either figure out how to work with them or you can't,

EXACTLY. Zelda 2 is actually one of my all time favorite games (and believe me, I've played a lot of them) and many of the so called "faults" of the game people talk about turns out to be intentional parts of it's design and gameplay. Figuring out how to deal with them and/or take advantage of them is part of the game once you put in your time in. e.g. maxing out your attack to Level 8 early in the game, etc.

There is one mentioned "fault" that I would semi-agree with. And that's losing all your experience points when you get a game over. That's can be a real bummer if you don't have a lot of time to invest in playing. While the solution is to max out on 1-ups for the end run, personally I say just play it in an emulator with savestates, and that takes care of that problem.

[Gentlegamer]

Zelda II was the first new NES game I ever owned. I received it as a gift in spring 1989 to go with my NES I received the preceding Christmas. I distinctly remember having my choice of games, and it was narrowed down to Super Mario Bros. 2 or Zelda II. I chose Zelda II, and never regretted it.

I still have that original copy of Zelda II (with box and manual, still have the NES, too).

Zelda II being different from the original didn't strike me as odd back then. It seemed normal, and fit into the "pattern" of Super Mario Bros. 2 and Castlevania II offering something different.

Posters have mentioned Battle of Olympus - that's a great game! I actually think I liked it better, mostly because it had more "secrets," which is something I love in video games.

I remember Death Mountain being really tough, but the hardest part in my memory was going to the last palace. I believe the background looks like a big wooden fence and there's tons of enemies and projectiles to dodge, each doing big damage.

I just realized I haven't played Zelda II through in 20 years! I think it's time I dust off my NES cart and relive the adventure of Link!

[Koa Zo]

Last I played through the Adventure of Link was probably in 2006 on Gamecube.

As someone else mentioned in this thread, I was trying for a no-miss clear.
On my best attempt I hit a slime on a bridge and got knocked back into lava for an instant death. Good challenging fun. Brilliant design. Some people just can't get it.

[Coptur]

You should watch AVGN's Zelda 2 video. It sums up everything there is to say about the game.

http://cinemassacre.com/2010/08/04/a...nture-of-link/

[kupomogli]

You should watch AVGN's Zelda 2 video. It sums up everything there is to say about the game.

http://cinemassacre.com/2010/08/04/a...nture-of-link/

Most of which is "it's hard."

[j_factor]

It's not really that hard. Its flaws are more annoyances than true difficulty.

[spongerob]

I remember Death Mountain being really tough, but the hardest part in my memory was going to the last palace. I believe the background looks like a big wooden fence and there's tons of enemies and projectiles to dodge, each doing big damage.

Bingo. That fence part wasn't easy but you could master it. However, you weren't getting through there without taking at least a couple of hits and life in this game is precious and you needed every bit for the last palace (which is stupidly difficult, and not in a good way). The worst part about the fence area is you have to just keep backtracking and trudging through it over and over.

[Berserker]

Whether the difficulty is intentional or not, it's still rewarding when you surmount it. I can stand back and see what I perceive to be design flaws but as a player, I like the fact that you face the hatchet monsters before you get the downward thrust. I don't think I'd like the game as much if it were designed properly.

[bangtango]

There is one mentioned "fault" that I would semi-agree with. And that's losing all your experience points when you get a game over. That's can be a real bummer if you don't have a lot of time to invest in playing.

One of the more irrelevant flaws actually. All it does is make Zelda II one of dozens of good to great video games which "punish" you for dying. If you aren't losing your experience points when you die in a game, you just lose your points/score, progress, power-ups, gold, etc.

[skaar]

One of the more irrelevant flaws actually. All it does is make Zelda II one of dozens of good to great video games which "punish" you for dying. If you aren't losing your experience points when you die in a game, you just lose your points/score, progress, power-ups, gold, etc.

I was fine with losing the EXP. Just meant I had to be careful, and not risk tough areas until I spent that EXP.

It's called a freaking penalty. Toughen up and overcome. Or, Farmville.

[Icarus Moonsight]

At least you didn't loose all your stuff and had to go back to where you died to retrieve it all. They hadn't concocted deviousness of that scale yet.

Nude reclaim runs get the adrenaline thumping.

[bangtango]

I was fine with losing the EXP. Just meant I had to be careful, and not risk tough areas until I spent that EXP.

It's called a freaking penalty. Toughen up and overcome. Or, Farmville.

Dragon Warrior was much worse, considering you lost half your gold if you died. As bad as the grinding was to reach the next experience level, you also did a hell of a lot of grinding to acquire the several thousand gold coins needed to buy some of the "better" armors and swords in the game. All of which became useless when you acquired the Erdrick's Armor, Erdrick's Sword, etc.

You'd spend hours amassing the gold needed to acquire the best sword and shield you could buy in a shop only to use it for an hour or so before acquiring Erdrick's Armor/Sword at NO cost.

[PresidentLeever]

Extremely unlikely.

In fact, the games play quite a bit different. Zelda II has much more depth to its combat system. It's more of a "dueling" game seeing you're mostly in 1-on-1 fights, and many of the enemies are very good at blocking and take multiple hits. Battle of Olympus is more your standard adventure game combat fare - walk up to the enemy and stab it, with it dying in a hit or two.

Or it would have if you couldn't just use the 'jump and hit them in the face'-trick or the downthrust once you get it. Don't really have to duel any enemies except for some blue knights and bird knights after that.
BoO makes up for simpler combat with better graphics, and much better dialogue. Everyone has something useful to say and it doesn't take them 10+ seconds to say it.