Game Debate #46: Zelda II: The Adventure(s) of Link

[Estil | 1,264]

I know I've said this like a broken, eh, mp3 file(?) but it's got among the most underrated graphics on the NES.  No really, it's very nicely detailed, the enemies/Link are good sized, dungeons are well designed with distinctive colors (not in the JP version though), everything's well animated.  Yet I don't recall any source then or now really acknowledging it.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,088]

2 hours ago, Estil said:

I know I've said this like a broken, eh, mp3 file(?) but it's got among the most underrated graphics on the NES.  No really, it's very nicely detailed, the enemies/Link are good sized, dungeons are well designed with distinctive colors (not in the JP version though), everything's well animated.  Yet I don't recall any source then or now really acknowledging it.

I've always thought it was the music that was the most underrated.  I mean, that Temple music?  Damn...

[Estil | 1,264]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Morbis said:

I've always thought it was the music that was the most underrated.  I mean, that Temple music?  Damn...

Nah I figured the music was mostly as iconic as the first Zelda.  Mostly...

[koifish | 555]

Easily an 8 or 9 for me. I will admit though, that from when I first played it in 2004 until I tried it a fifth or sixth time in 2011 or so, I had no idea why people liked it. I think what changed my mind was hearing people describe it as one half of the gameplay that became ocarina of time (in their description, 3d zelda was a fusion dance of Zelda 1 and Zelda 2) that really made me get into it (that, and perhaps having recently finished castlevania made me feel like the two were similar enough to get me interested).

This game is just non-stop intense action and exploration. It's exactly what I like about old games of this nature, and what I also like is that it isn't so fast-paced as to feel like it pushes you to skip mapping; In fact, I love games that encourage/force you to make maps and which don't do it for you. I hate exploration games that treat unknown environments like they are theme park attractions. For some games, like metroid samus returns (the metroid 2 remake), the gameplay is fast enough that it would feel off-balance if you had to stop and draw things out. I think zelda 2 works better toward the path of making map-making not feel like a pace breaker. I will admit though, that I gave up on some of the secrets necessary for progress. I may have done better if I had asked for help or read a manual, but I did not. Alas, I do not pretend to be perfect at games. I just like games that dare me to explore and discover under imminent threat of defeat, and zelda 2 is rock-solid. Easily on my list of top 10 or 20 NES/FC games and one I won't hesitate to recommend, except for newer Zelda fans, as too often they smack of being lightweights who couldn't handle even an easy NES game.

 

  

On 4/22/2021 at 10:04 PM, elprincipe said:

Not a fan. If you're looking for a good NES game in this style, Battle of Olympus is superior in literally every way (and one of the best games around too).

Funny, I don't like Olympus much at all. What makes you say that?

 

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by koifish

[elprincipe | 142]

5 minutes ago, koifish said:

Funny, I don't like Olympus much at all. What makes you say that?

Literally everything about Battle of Olympus is better: the way the game plays, flow, items, secrets, story, graphics, sound, everything. Well, except for the password system which is horrible and a battery would be much preferable, but everything else. I can't understand why anyone would prefer Zelda II to it, personally, other than you play as Link and try to rescue Zelda I guess.

[Sumez | 2,950]

What makes you feel that Battle of Olympus "flows" better?

I like the game, but it's kinda janky. Saying it's better than Zelda II is new to me, but I'll gladly hear it out!

[koifish | 555]

Just now, elprincipe said:

Literally everything about Battle of Olympus is better: the way the game plays, flow, items, secrets, story, graphics, sound, everything. Well, except for the password system which is horrible and a battery would be much preferable, but everything else. I can't understand why anyone would prefer Zelda II to it, personally, other than you play as Link and try to rescue Zelda I guess.

I can't begin to understand your position; You may have to put away your internet hyperbole and be more subjective than rely on the old fashioned figurative literal for me, I tried Olympus only a bit, and deeply disliked the movement and combat. It felt much less flowing than that of Zelda 2. I admit it was probably under an hour's worth of play, however.

[elprincipe | 142]

1 minute ago, koifish said:

I can't begin to understand your position; You may have to put away your internet hyperbole and be more subjective than rely on the old fashioned figurative literal for me, I tried Olympus only a bit, and deeply disliked the movement and combat. It felt much less flowing than that of Zelda 2. I admit it was probably under an hour's worth of play, however.

It's not hyperbole, actually. I do feel all those things are clearly better in Battle of Olympus. The controls are far superior to the sluggish Zelda II, the enemies are more interesting and fun to fight, you don't have the overworld with meaningless battles and instead have distinct areas to explore and find routes to new places, etc.

[LaC | 104]

First game I ever played that I realized I could grind to level up my character and then blast through the palaces.   I spent hours at a time in the same screen over and over getting more and more xp.

 

 

 

 

[WhyNotZoidberg | 585]

Easy 10 for me. I liked the orginal and I loved the sequel. The world felt so alive with all the towns and people to speak with. I didn't read or speak english in the days so figuring everything out by trial and error felt super rewarding. The combat system is the same: super hard to get the hang of but once you get good it becomes second nature.

My favorite OST in the series, too. 

I watch runners race randomizer as often as I can. Love the game.

[koifish | 555]

15 minutes ago, elprincipe said:

It's not hyperbole, actually. I do feel all those things are clearly better in Battle of Olympus. The controls are far superior to the sluggish Zelda II, the enemies are more interesting and fun to fight, you don't have the overworld with meaningless battles and instead have distinct areas to explore and find routes to new places, etc.

The best I can is say to agree to disagree before further play. My experience doesn't say anything similar to yours on controls/enemies, but it's only that much. I pointed out the overused internet lingo specifically because ultimately, matters of whether one likes or dislikes certain aspects of a game are entirely boiled down to subjective taste, whereas your original posturing made the common online gaff of asserting that one's own feelings must in fact be universally accepted truths.  We can go nowhere with a games discussion when one enters the conversation with a mind already made up.

[koifish | 555]

15 minutes ago, WhyNotZoidberg said:

Easy 10 for me. I liked the orginal and I loved the sequel. The world felt so alive with all the towns and people to speak with. I didn't read or speak english in the days so figuring everything out by trial and error felt super rewarding. The combat system is the same: super hard to get the hang of but once you get good it becomes second nature.

My favorite OST in the series, too. 

I watch runners race randomizer as often as I can. Love the game.

Zelda 2 randomizer sounds hard as hell. Maybe someday when I want to suffer again

[elprincipe | 142]

2 minutes ago, koifish said:

The best I can is say to agree to disagree before further play. My experience doesn't say anything similar to yours on controls/enemies, but it's only that much. I pointed out the overused internet lingo specifically because ultimately, matters of whether one likes or dislikes certain aspects of a game are entirely boiled down to subjective taste, whereas your original posturing made the common online gaff of asserting that one's own feelings must in fact be universally accepted truths.  We can go nowhere with a games discussion when one enters the conversation with a mind already made up.

LOL - well, if you need a disclaimer, everything I ever post that is subjective is my opinion (obviously) and yours can and does vary

[koifish | 555]

13 minutes ago, elprincipe said:

LOL - well, if you need a disclaimer, everything I ever post that is subjective is my opinion (obviously) and yours can and does vary

It's more in response to the general trend than to any one person. What I have been recently inspired to do is to dig under the skin, so to speak, and see if I can learn more from people by attempting to dismantle various common styles of posting that I've seen online over the years. By poking into comments I hope to learn more about why people feel the way that their posts suggest. It's about challenging something that I myself did too often over the years: Asserting that because I thought something, others must be wrong or corrected to see my way of reasoning. Increasingly I find that to be more trouble than it's worth, and so I like to try and push on these kinds of posts in order to gain further insight.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,523]

If there's one thing I've learned in this life, it's that no one has ever been successfully corrected on the internet 

[Dr. Morbis | 2,088]

5 hours ago, elprincipe said:

you don't have the overworld with meaningless battles and instead have distinct areas to explore and find routes to new places, etc.

I love both games, but I have to say, the lack of an overworld in Olympus is what holds it back, in my estimation, from being a true top contender for top 10 best games on the NES.  Knowing where you are and how all the different areas interconnect is incredibly confusing at the outset, if you're going in blind without a walkthrough.  So, as it sits, Olympus is "merely" a top 100 for me...

[Estil | 1,264]

6 hours ago, LaC said:

First game I ever played that I realized I could grind to level up my character and then blast through the palaces.   I spent hours at a time in the same screen over and over getting more and more xp.

Yeah the US didn't get Final Fantasy until 1990 (and those stupid quitters didn't bring over FF2 and FF3...or FF5 for that matter :P) and I don't think even the first Dragon Quest/Warrior game came out for what, another year or two?

[rdrunner | 422]

10/10 - When I think of the NES library, it almost always begins with the two gold carts.  I love all the early Zelda games, and The Adventure of Link is no exception.

This game has it all.  Expansive world to explore (for it's time), epic musical score, origin of several mainstay Zelda concepts (towns, magic meter, "real" sword fights).

And yet, funny how the internet messes with people's opinions.  This game was almost universally liked when it first came out.  Then we reach the 21st century and everyone's a critic.

Some thoughts on common modern gripes:

It's not "too hard".  In fact I believe that the challenge is one of its stronger points.  Okay, so what if we all got killed in Death Mountain the first few times?  If 10-year-old me could beat this game with a little practice, it can't be that bad.

It doesn't have to be like the other Zelda games.  I actually like that it does some unique things.  Honestly, I keep looking for more games that use the same ideas (closest NES games are Battle of Olympus and Faxanadu, but why not more?).

The RPG elements are NOT a grind.  It's possible to play the whole thing without farming for exp.  Assuming you actually accept upgrades when available, each area can be beaten with whatever stats you may have.  It helps to time upgrades around boss fights so you can maximize the palace statue bonuses.  And no, I don't leave them for later.  Too much hassle.

Long story short, Zelda 2 is easily one of my favorite NES games.  I can't imagine the Zelda series or the NES library without it!

[WhyNotZoidberg | 585]

8 hours ago, rdrunner said:

Honestly, I keep looking for more games that use the same ideas (closest NES games are Battle of Olympus and Faxanadu, but why not more?).

Rygar and Clash at Demonhead come to mind.

[Sumez | 2,950]

There's a recent thread dedicated to the same question. Granted, the title isn't very telling  

 

 

[a_profile_name | 230]

On 4/28/2021 at 6:34 AM, rdrunner said:

If 10-year-old me could beat this game with a little practice, it can't be that bad.

I couldn't even get through death mountain without save states in my 20s....

Still, I realize this is a very good game.

[asmikace | 68]

I gave it a 6 but maybe I should have gave it a 7 instead. There are quirks that haven’t aged well on the game like the life system and having to make long treks when resuming a save file but the game is unique and has some solid stuff to it. I manage to beat it on my actual copy but been wanting to replay it on a modded version that irons some of the issues if anyone can suggest 
 

I should have gave it a 7 for having one of the best dungeon music in a Zelda game.

[fcgamer | 4,723]

I first played this one back around 1999 or 2000, as a teenager. Great game, at the time I think I liked it slightly better than the first game, which I also had first played around the same time.

The game is tough but fair, like most games of the era. Play it a few times and you quickly adjust to what the game expects of you.

Rated it around an 8 or 9, voted 9 for the poll.

[Link | 2,709]

 

On 4/23/2021 at 3:38 PM, Kguillemette said:

Anyone ever beat shadow link without using the trick?

I have, but BITD. Not sure I could tell you how aside from the battle tips I mentioned earlier; and many tries, which was more tolerable then, in no small part because of how much less time things take in the NES era of gaming if you really know what you’re doing. Not that I did then, but rather that not knowing in those days would mean a ten minute fight at best, but much longer now when games typically have more recovery options and fewer time limits.  

[Link | 2,709]

I only vaguely remember replying to this thread before, but I’ll try in more depth now. I feel like I must. LoZ is my favorite series (common) and II is my favorite game in it (uncommon, if you listen to all internet chatter). And I have claimed the hero’s name here. So, while I hesitate to give any game 10/10, because I feel no game deserves “everyone should play it” — we are all different people — Zelda II indeed is my personal GOAT. There are close contenders and some came later and are more advanced, but this is still the one.

I’ll start with old-school Nintendo Power style of rating different aspects (but not numerically, because obviously I’m going all 5s, ) and see if I have more to say after that. Hope I don’t.

The controls are stellar. elprincipe says the game is “sluggish”, which is just about the last word I would use to describe it. Everything is very tight to me. I can handle this game like a boss, and that’s not something I would say often. 

The sound is excellent. Every effect is strong and makes sense to convey strike, victory, damage — for or against, etc. You hit an enemy - you hear it. You enter a scene - you hear it. 
The musical score is gorgeous throughout. It could be improved by having more themes. It it a little bit weak by modern standards. As a product of its time though, counting the title screen, Dark Link battle, and end credits, I think it has ten themes, which is a lot. Certainly many more than Zelda 1, with a more repetitive soundtrack. 

The graphics rely heavily on tiles. This was an elegant solution at the time. And everything was clear. While repeated textures were obvious, they made sense then, and despite higher resolution they’re still common in modern games. To this day I feel that the way you can see a Leever 

in the dark before you get the candle if you pay attention is masterful.

Following that category, game design. Nintendo to this day hypes the way they educate about the game world by pointing to the first level of SMB1; I feel like Zelda 2 takes that kind of idea to another level. Things are more complex, but we are still before a period of time-wasting tutorials. Much like the first game and like Breath of the Wild, you can go anywhere and explore, even if it’s dangerous with your current abilities. That kind of freedom has not always been considered by Nintendo, with much detriment to certain entries like Skyward Sword. And you can always flee a fight or charge ahead. Later (N64 and after) entries to the series have turned certain enemies into annoying puzzles, rather than combat opponents. None of that is here. 

Finally, replayability. For me Zelda 2 has it in spades. It’s easy to jump into. It doesn’t take long to begin making progress, yet it has enough challenge to keep things interesting. And creativity is allowed. You can approach things in a variety of ways,  when it comes to upgrades as shown by different advice given ITT, or by how you choose to explore the world. This is one of my most replayed games, and whether I start over immediately after finishing or load it up fresh years later, it’s consistently been a game that is epic and challenging, yet easy to grasp at any time.