You know what? Zelda II: Adventure of Link is a Bad Game.

[Duff Ostrich]

I tried. I really did. I put quality time into this game. And yet, it beat me. I give up.

It's not that I couldn't make progress, because I did, but my problem was wanting to start over after every single stupid game over.

You see, I absolutely hate cheap deaths. I can come to terms with deaths that are my own fault. I die a whole heck of a lot in Team Fortress 2 when I play online because I suck. I died a lot in Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels; in fact, I must have died hundreds of times before I finished that game, but my deaths were not unfair. For the former game, doing better means becoming more comfortable with the FPS controls and the being better at communicating with my allies. For the latter game, doing better involves pattern memorization and twitch reflexes.

But Zelda II? No, the arbitrary ways with which I die are not my fault. Whether its enemies jumping through bridges, or stupidly difficult enemies that can hit me if I get close enough to hit them, or slimes that jump at me when I try to jump from one platform to another, I cannot get around these types of deaths, and I'm sick and tired of it.

Why is this game bad? Let me count the ways:

1. Link's sword is too short to use effectively.

2. Magic is a brilliant feature, but you do not get enough of it, and the invaluable shield magic wears off after entering a new room.

3. Remember how the original Legend of Zelda shed the arcade trappings that plagued many NES games and made them worse for it? This game takes a step backwards by giving Link lives, and punishing him for losing all of his lives by emptying his experience bar and throwing him all of the way back to the first room in the game. Making the trek back to your current position can take a long time, and can exaust your resources to the point that you just hope to stay alive long enough to reach the next village.

4. Learning curve. Darknuts, initially very powerful enemies that just waste you, are nothing like what you will face. The enemies are better than you, and there are simply too many to fight. Especially later in the game.

5. Grinding. This is needed for doing well in Zelda II, and that kind of BS belongs in Dragon Quest. The Zelda franchise can play around with RPG elements if they wish, but they should stay far away from the pitfalls.

This is all very disappointing, because Zelda II really has vision. It aspires for greatness, and the game is just overflowing with Nintendo's penchant for invention and creativity. This is why, above all, I tried so hard to play it. I really wanted to to be one of those snobby Zelda elitists who tells all of the noobs who put down this game that they just simply don't understand it.

But this time the general consensus is correct, and I hate to say it. I most certainly do undertand Zelda II, and it is because of this understanding that I know that this is a game with great spirit and extremely poor playability.

Am I wrong? I hope I am, and so the greater part of my intent with this post is to see if there is any way I can be convinced otherwise. Have I missed something?

[Ϲharlie]

Slimes will generally jump off the platform they're on if you let them be for a moment. Or you could just use the downward thrust and kill them as you jump over. Grinding was never a problem for me, either. I just go with what I get, and it's never caused me any trouble.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

I've never play this game so I wouldn't know what your talking about...

[Chalis]

It's hard. It's the 'black sheep' of the series. At least the gaming got better afterwords, amirite?

[Celice]

I've been meaning to play it again, it's such a good game. And make it into Fire Emblem 2.0 >.>

[Hanz]

I've never play this game so I wouldn't know what your talking about...

Don't post then, it doesn't add anything to the thread.

[Starwolf_UK]

and punishing him for losing all of his lives by emptying his experience bar and throwing him all of the way back to the first room in the game.

From what I recall saving the game had the same effect...the emptying of the EXP bar at least. One thing that could have made the game worse though...passwords ;)

I've been meaning to play it again, it's such a good game. And make it into Fire Emblem 2.0 >.>

So will it be Volke's Quest then since it can't be any of the FE lords due to the Sword bveing the size of a pocket knife (I know its a "feature" to prevent Link from having greater reach than his enemies).

While we've on about Zelda 2 here is a video most people have problably seen already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWagcUQtUWI

It shows shome of the differences between the NES and Famicom editions of the game. The NES had less PINs on the cartridge slot (inventing region locking*) incuding the better sound ones removed. These were stuck into the (never used) expansion port at the bottom :( But the NES version had a slightly different EXP tree and some modified graphics (this was pretty usual).

*-NOA couldn't afford to have consumers getting games years earlier (they controled release dates and supply for games like crazy) and cheaper.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Starwolf_UK

[Neko Arc Chaos]

I honestly love this game. At first I really didnt, but then I got past the first temple.

[Le Communard]

5. Grinding. This is needed for doing well in Zelda II, and that kind of BS belongs in Dragon Quest. The Zelda franchise can play around with RPG elements if they wish, but they should stay far away from the pitfalls.

Bad example. The good Dragon Quests probably have the least grinding of any game in their subtype--it's part of the essential Dragon Quest character that they be very well balanced and true grinding and powerleveling, beyond a few isolated incidents, are never needed to finish it.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Admrial Daala

[General Spoon]

I love this game. I never did beat Dark Link...and then I lost the cartidge (GBA).

Its fun. Don't try and expect it to be like other Zelda games. That just doesn't work.

Slightly off-topic, but I'd like to see Error in another Zelda game.

[Rodykitty]

You see, I absolutely hate cheap deaths. I can come to terms with deaths that are my own fault. I die a whole heck of a lot in Team Fortress 2 when I play online because I suck. I died a lot in Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels; in fact, I must have died hundreds of times before I finished that game, but my deaths were not unfair.

Be unfair back. It's what gaming is about: Being a conqueror, not a fair player. People will call anything well designed unfair these days.

But Zelda II? No, the arbitrary ways with which I die are not my fault. Whether its enemies jumping through bridges, or stupidly difficult enemies that can hit me if I get close enough to hit them, or slimes that jump at me when I try to jump from one platform to another, I cannot get around these types of deaths, and I'm sick and tired of it.

When an enemy jumps through a bridge and it looks like it may hit you with a fireball... STOP MOVING AND BLOCK THE FIREBALL. If it is coming behind you, same thing. The bridges require something called patience.

For the slimes on platforms, there is no excuse for getting hit by them. Just let them come and they'll fall to their deaths. It's a really humourous way for them to die.

Stupidly difficult enemies are exactly why Zelda II is a great game, because they require actual tactics to beat. There is a trick to beating them easily, but even then you have to be careful.

Zelda II is one of the best games ever. I will not let people defile it.

[Celice]

So will it be Volke's Quest then since it can't be any of the FE lords due to the Sword bveing the size of a pocket knife (I know its a "feature" to prevent Link from having greater reach than his enemies).

Maybe there's be the Falchion as a pickup after a boss, giving longer reach :o

Slightly off-topic, but I'd like to see Error in another Zelda game.

There's a ROM hack that places him as the main character. A bit of a parody though more than a full game--can't recall if the levels and the like were also modified, or if it was mostly text.

[Superbus]

But consider that the "Good" Dragon Quests came out with IV and later. 1988, Dragon Quest II came out, I believe, so grinding was still the norm.

Adventures of Link to me is an acquired taste. Is it as good as other Zelda games? Not really. But it is a bad game? Well, the original poster certainly put forth a strong point, but for 1988, the gameplay, in my estimation, was actually solid.

It's a lot like Simon's Quest: Nintendo wanted to try something new, it didn't work out like intended, but a small group of players are still dedicated.

[Le Communard]

But consider that the "Good" Dragon Quests came out with IV and later.

Actually, I would say that III was the first good Dragon Quest. But that's really just a matter of opnion.

1988, Dragon Quest II came out, I believe, so grinding was still the norm.

You have a point, and I would agree with it had he talked specifically about the early Dragon Quest titles, however, no such specification was made and I belive my point stands.

The fact remains, though, that that really only is semantic games--your point is taken.

EDIT: Good heavens, that post is tortuous.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Admrial Daala

[Duff Ostrich]

Bad example. The good Dragon Quests probably have the least grinding of any game in their subtype--it's part of the essential Dragon Quest character that they be very well balanced and true grinding and powerleveling, beyond a few isolated incidents, are never needed to finish it.

I apologise then, I was just picking a random popular RPG. I have no real experience with the DQ series.

I love this game. I never did beat Dark Link...and then I lost the cartidge (GBA).

Its fun. Don't try and expect it to be like other Zelda games. That just doesn't work.

Slightly off-topic, but I'd like to see Error in another Zelda game.

The thing is, I really liked how so many of the 'good' parts of this game were incorporated later in the series. Magic is one the Zelda II enthusiasts usually bring up, and they have a good point. It wasn't perfect, but it was a step in the right direction.

The music is also underrated and very catchy. The overworld theme grew on me over time, and the dungeon theme is just completely awesome.

The enemy designs are also really varied and awesome. I'm pretty sure the Lizalfos debuted in this game, and that is a point that deserves recognition.

Be unfair back. It's what gaming is about: Being a conqueror, not a fair player. People will call anything well designed unfair these days.

When an enemy jumps through a bridge and it looks like it may hit you with a fireball... STOP MOVING AND BLOCK THE FIREBALL. If it is coming behind you, same thing. The bridges require something called patience.

For the slimes on platforms, there is no excuse for getting hit by them. Just let them come and they'll fall to their deaths. It's a really humourous way for them to die.

Stupidly difficult enemies are exactly why Zelda II is a great game, because they require actual tactics to beat. There is a trick to beating them easily, but even then you have to be careful.

Zelda II is one of the best games ever. I will not let people defile it.

No, that's the point. Zelda II is BADLY designed. I already went over this: One, the lives system are an archaic old standby that only belongs in arcade games (not adventure games). And two, throwing you all of the way back to the beginning of the game and forcing you to trek your way through slogs of unnecessary (and arbitrary) battles and caves and the like are bad game design.

That, and the combat sucks due to Link having such a short sword. If it were longer, I could better appreciate some of the subtleties of the system.

If the slimes (are they officially Gels or Zols? I never remember...) suicide themselves, then that's something that's nice to know.

I am not a stranger to difficult games. I love tough platformers. That is, when the platforming is actually good like it is in SMB Lost Levels and Ghosts and Goblins. But you see, Link's so big that it feels clunky. It's harder to dodge enemy fire in this game than it is in Castlevania for the NES. And Simon's no acrobat. Neither is Arthur.

All of the games I have mentioned are renowned for their difficulty and their quality. And I love them. I've beaten two of them on my own (Lost Levels and G&G), and I've finished Castlevania with a friend before. I let him take Dracula.

Of course, Zelda II isn't strictly a platformer; being an adventure game with RPG influences.

There is difficulty due to good design and difficulty due to bad design. The games I mentioned are the former, games like Ninja Gaiden are borderline, and my argument is that Adventure of Link is the latter. I think I've been reasonable.

[Celice]

Actually, I would say that III was the first good Dragon Quest. But that's really just a matter of opnion.

You have my vote on that case (DQIII on SF, please get translated quickly...).

[Superbus]

No, that's the point. Zelda II is BADLY designed. I already went over this: One, the lives system are an archaic old standby that only belongs in arcade games (not adventure games). And two, throwing you all of the way back to the beginning of the game and forcing you to trek your way through slogs of unnecessary (and arbitrary) battles and caves and the like are bad game design.

By your account, no game made before 1992 is good, then.

[Le Communard]

I apologise then, I was just picking a random popular RPG. I have no real experience with the DQ series.

No apologies are necessary. It was nothing personal.

You have my vote on that case (DQIII on SF, please get translated quickly...).

Wait, whats this about translation you're talking about? I'm curious.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Admrial Daala

[Celice]

The Super Famicom remake, which is basically the same as the GameBoy Color remake, only tons better looking and sounding (if memory servs, it came out after DQVI, graphic detail included). Only thing the Gameboy Color game has over it is the bonus dungeon.

The current translation project is just about finished, from what the project leader says, but has more interesting things to concentrate on at the moment :(

[Ϲharlie]

From what I recall saving the game had the same effect...the emptying of the EXP bar at least.

At least Link would retain his levels in the NA version. In the JP version, all of his levels would be set to match his lowest.

[Le Communard]

The Super Famicom remake, which is basically the same as the GameBoy Color remake, only tons better looking and sounding (if memory servs, it came out after DQVI, graphic detail included). Only thing the Gameboy Color game has over it is the bonus dungeon.

The current translation project is just about finished, from what the project leader says, but has more interesting things to concentrate on at the moment :(

Hmmm... I was weaned on the GBC version, but this might be interesting to check out even then. Do you perchance have some linkage?

Edited December 9, 2008 by Admrial Daala

[Zeldafreak007]

Ocarina of Time for the fucking win.

[Destiny Hero]

Yeah. It will literally take five or sixhours of grinding to get ONE "heart".

Worst freaking game ever. Screw Zelda II. Give me Superman 64.

[Ϲharlie]

Five or six hours? It has never taken me that long to get any sort of level-up in Zelda II.

[Celice]

I never even remember having to grind in this game, only the damned Death Mountain breaking up what little flow I got out of the game

Hmmm... I was weaned on the GBC version, but this might be interesting to check out even then. Do you perchance have some linkage?

Here's the translation thread... I'm not sure if you wanted gameplay footage or something though .-.