King Aquamentus
09-02-2015, 10:19 AM
IF ALL ELSE FAILS: Top Ten things about Zelda II that really did suck
by King Aquamentus
September 2, 2015
So recently, Zelda II seems to have become a bit more popular, mostly due to people who once disregarded it (and the original) now going back to try and get into the history of the series. This is the game that fans infamously referred to as the "black sheep" of the series, sometimes as the only generic piece of information they even knew about it (despite Chris Farley not making a single appearance in the whole game.)That said, it's nice to see that even Zelda II is getting something of a second chance with the newer fans, many of whom see it a good but difficult game, worthy of a challenge.
Zelda II really did have some issues, though. Some of them don't necessarily affect the game itself, but still flaw it in ways that hurt the overall package. What kind of things exactly? Well...
10: The Production Was Drastically Rushed.
The first Zelda game debuted in Japan in February of 1986, and was so successful that Nintendo demanded a sequel be made immediately. Less than a year later (January 1987 to be precise), Zelda II also debuted in Japan. Then, in August, North America finally got its hands on... ...Zelda 1.
That's right: The sequel was developed so quickly, The original game still wouldn't be on a cartridge for another seven months. That's ridiculous, considering that Zelda games nowadays have a notorious track record for never meeting deadlines: Ocarina of Time took so long to release, some people thought "The Legend of Zelda" was a new franchise in 1998. Twilight Princess took so long that it ended up getting released on two different generations of Nintendo consoles at once. So, the idea of developing major Zelda games rapid-fire like that sounds unthinkable. Then again, Nintendo did have to learn not to do it from somewhere: The end result was unrefined and felt more like a beta than a finished game. In fact, by the Zelda II came out on a cartridge in September of 1988, so much had been changed that it felt less like a port or localization and more like an updated remake. For the most part, this only really affects the original Disk version, although being so rushed does mean the game ran into other problems, and that's why I'm putting this at the bottom of the list. Its not actually a flaw in the game itself, but it opened the door to many real ones.
9: Most of Zelda 1's Endgame Is Irrelevent.
Plotwise, Zelda II mostly takes everything you thought you were doing in the first game and throws it out the window, which wouldn't be terrible if it weren't a direct sequel. You still have the Triforce of Wisdom and the Triforce of Power, but Ganon's forces are so strong, he might as well still be alive. What's more, the princess from the previous game is only a Zelda by law, and that her sleeping ancestor is the one you *really* need to focus on saving. The princess from the first game is so unimportant that she isn't mentioned at all in either game or instruction manual. She just completely disappears from the story. So really, there was no point in saving her. "What about running her kingdom", you ask? Yeah, about that... apparently Hyrule Kingdom consists entirely of the original game's overworld, while Zelda II's overworld is a greater country. So literally, she rules over a handful of old people in caves. That's what you were saving in the first game. Cheers!
8: Be The Raddest Kid On The Block With Nintendo Power
Awwww yeeaaahh. Nothing can stop you when you've got the latest issue of NINTENDO POWER, and Issues 4 and 5 were chock full of necessary information for beating this game. Information that, come to think of it... couldn't actually be found in the game itself. Now, I know what you're thinking: Japan didn't have Nintendo Power, right? Of course not, that's what Famitsu was for.
Son of a... !!!
7: The Game Was Actually Quite Linear
As far as free-roaming goes, the first Zelda was something of an extreme: only two overworld screens out of 128 couldn't be accessed from the start, so it may seem unfair to compare that to Zelda II. However, most modern Zelda games have you at least backtrack to previous locations. In Zelda II, each general area of the game has a variety of tasks to complete and palaces to conquer, and then no reason to return with items found in later dungeons.
Imagine if there was a cave near the North Palace that required you to use the Thunder Spell of all things in order to find some sort of item? That alone would give you a big reason to explore an old location again after such a late point in the game. It never happens though, because Zelda II is designed in such a way that a flowchart of the game's progression could be shaped like a string of beads: each bead represents a general environment you can freely roam in and complete a handful of tasks, but once you're done there, you move on to the next bead, and then the next after that. There's simply no reason to backtrack to early parts later on unless you missed something. Of course, you will inevitably return to some of these places, because...
6: Continuing Is a Harsh Mistress
If you lose all of your lives, you start back at the North Palace in Northwestern Hyrule, no matter what. The only exception to this rule is the Grand Palace, presumably an act of mercy due to its sheer difficulty (guess what? Not so much in the Disk version!)
Its nice of the final dungeon to start you off at the entrance, but this is something the game should at least do with all of the palaces. Is it really necessary to punish the player by making them walk all the way back to the same palace, break the same rock, get attacked on the road as a result (that's a stupid thing too, turning the roadblock tile into a non-road tile when you break it but that's another story), and then finally walk all the way across Nabooru field just for another shot at Gooma? Not to mention the kind of pain if you die in the Valley of Death without making it to the final dungeon.
5: The Items Kinda Suck
This one might sound a little bit like nitpicking, but there's no particular reason for Link to arbitrarily stop using things like arrows, bombs, or a boomerang. He learns a few offensive spells yes, but most of the time you'll avoid using them anyways for reasons I'll get to next. The Items you find in the game serve no offensive purposes whatsover, and are purely tools, either in sideview scenes or on the overworld (some of which are only useful near where you find them). Link's only real weapon is his sword.
4: Magic Is Far Too Expensive
You learn some wonderful spells over the course of the game, which would be a lot of fun to use if they didn't drain half of your magic meter. I can understand spells like Thunder being costly, heck even Fairy has to be nerfed a little if it'll let you bypass locked doors and freakin' fly... but why does it cost so much magic to replenish your health that you can only do it twice in a best-case scenario? Especially considering...
3: Health Is Far Too Scarce
This.
Right here. One of the game's *biggest* freakin' problems.
In Zelda II, enemies sometimes drop items. A bag of experience points, or maybe a jar of magic... but never, EVER, EVER will they drop hearts. Ever. Now, assuming you're not in the middle of a palace you can go to town and get healed. If you're lucky out on the field, you might even run into a fairy. If you're not near either of these, then you'll be hoping you either don't need that magic you're converting into health, or that you even have enough to cast the spell in the first place. Most of the time when enemies *do* drop magic jars, it won't be enough to cast the spell: when your magic levels are maxed out, it will still take the equivalent of three blue jars.
2: Death Mountain
A confusing maze of caverns, eventually leading out to the first game's overworld, where a vital tool can be found. Having that tool means you never need to go through that horrid gauntlet again, but was it really necessary to begin with? Death Mountain contains many extremely difficult enemies which, at this point in the game, you really have no choice but to run away from. What's more, there's no way to tell for sure where each cave will lead out to unless you make a map or pay close attention to the overhead view. Who knows: you might be making the trip even harder than you have to.
The Angry Videogame Nerd himself said Death Mountain should have been saved for the end of the game, and I agree: In all honesty, it would be quite fitting to have to return to where it all began, on your quest towards the Grand Palace. Wouldn't that actually make it cooler?
And the number one thing about Zelda II that really does suck:
...
1: The Sword
Good Lord, look how small it is. Link is essentially running around with a kitchen knife, stabbing enemies. This wouldn't make much difference in a game where he runs around stabbing enemies like in the original, except he's a much bigger target than in the first game, and his weapon's range is pathetic. I mean I can kinda understand that Link has grown up, therefore the magic sword and magic shield might seem a little smaller, but was this really necessary in-game? Would it make the game too easy for the blade to be a little longer? Especially considering that again, this is Link's only weapon. Thus, attempting to stab a Tinsuit for the umpteenth time will inevitably lead to you screwing up the timing and getting hit. Better yet, how many times have you tried to get close enough to a Bit or Bot in order to stab them, only for them to suddenly jump on you? Why is this weapon's range so short?
Oh.
Right.
I know why: Sword Beams. When Link is at full health, he can fire beams from his sword, just like in the original game. His sword may be very short-range, but if you're at full health it won't matter, you can just snipe all of your enemies from a distance.
...Nah I'm kidding this is actually the most hilariously terrible thing about the game. Link's Sword beams only travel about a third of the way across the screen, slowly, before popping like a soap bubble (complete with a little ->pop<- looking graphic to boot!) This is of course, assuming it doesn't hit ninety percent of the game's enemies along the way, upon which it will also pop like a harmless soap bubble. Quite honestly, it wouldn't really make any difference if that's what your sword was shooting, which is a shame considering that your sword beams have a penetrating effect on what little evil they *can* harm, allowing you to hit multiple (weak) enemies in one shot. Once you've reached the swamp palace however, shooting a beam from your sword only serves as an annoying indicator that "yes, you are now at full health".
Despite all of these things, Zelda II isn't really a bad game. It just has some things that are a little bit absurd, especially for a Zelda game. It's a good game, there's just some things about it that really need to be improved upon. In fact, if someone did fix these things, I'd definitely play the end result. Though, admittedly, it *would* be less of a challenge...
by King Aquamentus
September 2, 2015
So recently, Zelda II seems to have become a bit more popular, mostly due to people who once disregarded it (and the original) now going back to try and get into the history of the series. This is the game that fans infamously referred to as the "black sheep" of the series, sometimes as the only generic piece of information they even knew about it (despite Chris Farley not making a single appearance in the whole game.)That said, it's nice to see that even Zelda II is getting something of a second chance with the newer fans, many of whom see it a good but difficult game, worthy of a challenge.
Zelda II really did have some issues, though. Some of them don't necessarily affect the game itself, but still flaw it in ways that hurt the overall package. What kind of things exactly? Well...
10: The Production Was Drastically Rushed.
The first Zelda game debuted in Japan in February of 1986, and was so successful that Nintendo demanded a sequel be made immediately. Less than a year later (January 1987 to be precise), Zelda II also debuted in Japan. Then, in August, North America finally got its hands on... ...Zelda 1.
That's right: The sequel was developed so quickly, The original game still wouldn't be on a cartridge for another seven months. That's ridiculous, considering that Zelda games nowadays have a notorious track record for never meeting deadlines: Ocarina of Time took so long to release, some people thought "The Legend of Zelda" was a new franchise in 1998. Twilight Princess took so long that it ended up getting released on two different generations of Nintendo consoles at once. So, the idea of developing major Zelda games rapid-fire like that sounds unthinkable. Then again, Nintendo did have to learn not to do it from somewhere: The end result was unrefined and felt more like a beta than a finished game. In fact, by the Zelda II came out on a cartridge in September of 1988, so much had been changed that it felt less like a port or localization and more like an updated remake. For the most part, this only really affects the original Disk version, although being so rushed does mean the game ran into other problems, and that's why I'm putting this at the bottom of the list. Its not actually a flaw in the game itself, but it opened the door to many real ones.
9: Most of Zelda 1's Endgame Is Irrelevent.
Plotwise, Zelda II mostly takes everything you thought you were doing in the first game and throws it out the window, which wouldn't be terrible if it weren't a direct sequel. You still have the Triforce of Wisdom and the Triforce of Power, but Ganon's forces are so strong, he might as well still be alive. What's more, the princess from the previous game is only a Zelda by law, and that her sleeping ancestor is the one you *really* need to focus on saving. The princess from the first game is so unimportant that she isn't mentioned at all in either game or instruction manual. She just completely disappears from the story. So really, there was no point in saving her. "What about running her kingdom", you ask? Yeah, about that... apparently Hyrule Kingdom consists entirely of the original game's overworld, while Zelda II's overworld is a greater country. So literally, she rules over a handful of old people in caves. That's what you were saving in the first game. Cheers!
8: Be The Raddest Kid On The Block With Nintendo Power
Awwww yeeaaahh. Nothing can stop you when you've got the latest issue of NINTENDO POWER, and Issues 4 and 5 were chock full of necessary information for beating this game. Information that, come to think of it... couldn't actually be found in the game itself. Now, I know what you're thinking: Japan didn't have Nintendo Power, right? Of course not, that's what Famitsu was for.
Son of a... !!!
7: The Game Was Actually Quite Linear
As far as free-roaming goes, the first Zelda was something of an extreme: only two overworld screens out of 128 couldn't be accessed from the start, so it may seem unfair to compare that to Zelda II. However, most modern Zelda games have you at least backtrack to previous locations. In Zelda II, each general area of the game has a variety of tasks to complete and palaces to conquer, and then no reason to return with items found in later dungeons.
Imagine if there was a cave near the North Palace that required you to use the Thunder Spell of all things in order to find some sort of item? That alone would give you a big reason to explore an old location again after such a late point in the game. It never happens though, because Zelda II is designed in such a way that a flowchart of the game's progression could be shaped like a string of beads: each bead represents a general environment you can freely roam in and complete a handful of tasks, but once you're done there, you move on to the next bead, and then the next after that. There's simply no reason to backtrack to early parts later on unless you missed something. Of course, you will inevitably return to some of these places, because...
6: Continuing Is a Harsh Mistress
If you lose all of your lives, you start back at the North Palace in Northwestern Hyrule, no matter what. The only exception to this rule is the Grand Palace, presumably an act of mercy due to its sheer difficulty (guess what? Not so much in the Disk version!)
Its nice of the final dungeon to start you off at the entrance, but this is something the game should at least do with all of the palaces. Is it really necessary to punish the player by making them walk all the way back to the same palace, break the same rock, get attacked on the road as a result (that's a stupid thing too, turning the roadblock tile into a non-road tile when you break it but that's another story), and then finally walk all the way across Nabooru field just for another shot at Gooma? Not to mention the kind of pain if you die in the Valley of Death without making it to the final dungeon.
5: The Items Kinda Suck
This one might sound a little bit like nitpicking, but there's no particular reason for Link to arbitrarily stop using things like arrows, bombs, or a boomerang. He learns a few offensive spells yes, but most of the time you'll avoid using them anyways for reasons I'll get to next. The Items you find in the game serve no offensive purposes whatsover, and are purely tools, either in sideview scenes or on the overworld (some of which are only useful near where you find them). Link's only real weapon is his sword.
4: Magic Is Far Too Expensive
You learn some wonderful spells over the course of the game, which would be a lot of fun to use if they didn't drain half of your magic meter. I can understand spells like Thunder being costly, heck even Fairy has to be nerfed a little if it'll let you bypass locked doors and freakin' fly... but why does it cost so much magic to replenish your health that you can only do it twice in a best-case scenario? Especially considering...
3: Health Is Far Too Scarce
This.
Right here. One of the game's *biggest* freakin' problems.
In Zelda II, enemies sometimes drop items. A bag of experience points, or maybe a jar of magic... but never, EVER, EVER will they drop hearts. Ever. Now, assuming you're not in the middle of a palace you can go to town and get healed. If you're lucky out on the field, you might even run into a fairy. If you're not near either of these, then you'll be hoping you either don't need that magic you're converting into health, or that you even have enough to cast the spell in the first place. Most of the time when enemies *do* drop magic jars, it won't be enough to cast the spell: when your magic levels are maxed out, it will still take the equivalent of three blue jars.
2: Death Mountain
A confusing maze of caverns, eventually leading out to the first game's overworld, where a vital tool can be found. Having that tool means you never need to go through that horrid gauntlet again, but was it really necessary to begin with? Death Mountain contains many extremely difficult enemies which, at this point in the game, you really have no choice but to run away from. What's more, there's no way to tell for sure where each cave will lead out to unless you make a map or pay close attention to the overhead view. Who knows: you might be making the trip even harder than you have to.
The Angry Videogame Nerd himself said Death Mountain should have been saved for the end of the game, and I agree: In all honesty, it would be quite fitting to have to return to where it all began, on your quest towards the Grand Palace. Wouldn't that actually make it cooler?
And the number one thing about Zelda II that really does suck:
...
1: The Sword
Good Lord, look how small it is. Link is essentially running around with a kitchen knife, stabbing enemies. This wouldn't make much difference in a game where he runs around stabbing enemies like in the original, except he's a much bigger target than in the first game, and his weapon's range is pathetic. I mean I can kinda understand that Link has grown up, therefore the magic sword and magic shield might seem a little smaller, but was this really necessary in-game? Would it make the game too easy for the blade to be a little longer? Especially considering that again, this is Link's only weapon. Thus, attempting to stab a Tinsuit for the umpteenth time will inevitably lead to you screwing up the timing and getting hit. Better yet, how many times have you tried to get close enough to a Bit or Bot in order to stab them, only for them to suddenly jump on you? Why is this weapon's range so short?
Oh.
Right.
I know why: Sword Beams. When Link is at full health, he can fire beams from his sword, just like in the original game. His sword may be very short-range, but if you're at full health it won't matter, you can just snipe all of your enemies from a distance.
...Nah I'm kidding this is actually the most hilariously terrible thing about the game. Link's Sword beams only travel about a third of the way across the screen, slowly, before popping like a soap bubble (complete with a little ->pop<- looking graphic to boot!) This is of course, assuming it doesn't hit ninety percent of the game's enemies along the way, upon which it will also pop like a harmless soap bubble. Quite honestly, it wouldn't really make any difference if that's what your sword was shooting, which is a shame considering that your sword beams have a penetrating effect on what little evil they *can* harm, allowing you to hit multiple (weak) enemies in one shot. Once you've reached the swamp palace however, shooting a beam from your sword only serves as an annoying indicator that "yes, you are now at full health".
Despite all of these things, Zelda II isn't really a bad game. It just has some things that are a little bit absurd, especially for a Zelda game. It's a good game, there's just some things about it that really need to be improved upon. In fact, if someone did fix these things, I'd definitely play the end result. Though, admittedly, it *would* be less of a challenge...