[content]IF ALL ELSE FAILS: 10 Things About Zelda II That Really Did Suck

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...

Okay, I can honestly say that your post is heavily flawed. It comes off less as "here's Zelda 2's flaws" and more as "People are starting to like Zelda, and I'm gonna put a stop to it."

The first and most obvious flaw is in #10, where you talk about the production period as if it meant the game was rushed. What you fail to mention, is that games were produced drastically faster back then, and production times of less than 6 months or even, at times, 3 months were not unheard of. And while I mean absolutely no disrespect, I honestly do not think it was uphill from there.

#9 While a problem, is fairly mild mannered by series standards. Let's not forget that OoT created more problems with Zelda's lore than any other title to date, and that the constant prequelitis and interquelitis hasn't helped. Zelda 2 didn't do any of THAT, but while I agree that the lore problems it DID create are bad, I can not agree that it deserves any sort of special mention for it.

#8 This is going to require some justification, you need to show WHAT information was famitsu exclusive and why it's bad that we couldn't have it. As of right now, I'm neutral on this point because I don't know what you're talking about.

#7 As long as we agree that OoT, Twilight Princess, and several other Zelda games that were ALSO LINEAR were ALSO BAD FOR BEING LINEAR. I disagree that linear = bad, although I prefer non-linear myself. That aside, it's worth noting that "linear as fuck" isn't quite right, as you could beat the temples in any order if you collected their items without beating the boss. That isn't MUCH non-linearity, but it's more than Twilight Princess allowed, so it at least isn't dead last on this point.

So, do you hate OoT for being Linear? Twilight Princess?

#6 Yeah sorry, this reeks of complaining about the difficulty, and no, I'm not trying to be a dick, but that is exactly the vibe I get when people complain about this stuff. It's okay if you personally feel that the game is too hard, but then say that. Don't complain about mechanic X, or enemy Y. Just admit that it's too hard for your tastes and move on. I won't agree, but I'll respect that point, and I suspect almost everyone else will too.

#5 While I have to agree on this one, it is far from the only Zelda Game guilty of this. The problem here, isn't the invalidity of your point, but that it feels like you are singling out this game. What about the Spinner From Twilight Princess? Or more blatantly, the Dominion Rod? Hell, that game even had one item that lasted for a single dungeon (the holy sword or whatever it was from level 8). Now I like Twilight Princess, it's a rare non-Zelda 1&2 game I'll actually play, but it suffers from this problem as well. In fact, it suffers from several of the problems you are bashing on Zelda 2 for.

#4 & #3 So it can be a challenging game? Again, this is just more complaining about the difficulty. If you wanna know the Truth, it may be hard for some to swallow, but here goes:

ZELDA 2 WAS NOT THAT DIFFICULT

Yes, by MODERN GAMING STANDARDS it's a bit tough, but one thing that you are not considering here, and to be fair you're not alone, is that relative to other games of the day, it was average at most. Ever play Guardian Legend? Mega Man 1? The Original Metroid? Life Force? Contra? Pacmania? Every single one of those is drastically harder than Zelda 2, and they are far from the worst offenders.

Perhaps they should have had health drops instead of a health restore spell, but I don't really fault them for trying it that way. Even if you can call that a flaw, it's a mild one.

#2.................Okay, that's, what, 4....out of 10 (and still counting) points in which your ultimate problem is the difficulty. Seriously, just say you find it too hard and move on.

And no, I'm sorry, did you just bring in the opinion of some ebegging*cough*movie*cough*, self-serving*cough*cheetahmen*cough* douche*cough*Mike Matei as moderator*cough* who treats his fans as cash cows with no remorse*cough*ebay*cough*, and most importantly, whose reviews are not serious opinions in the first place. No, really, did you actually just do that? Please say you did not. It's okay to like watching such videos on the internet, but they have NO PLACE in serious discussion.

That's like using The Onion to critique current events, it's parody, and parody is not a basis for serious critique.

#1 Okay, make that a full 5 out of 10. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but a full half of your complaints are that the game is too hard for various reasons. But if you want me to get into the specifics:

-Double Dragon
-The Battle of Olympus
-Faxanadu

These are 3 loved games that had the same problem, having to get in Melee range to attack. Granted, Faxanadu allowed the player to eventually increase it, but you had to play for a good bit before reaching that point. And Zelda 1, discounting the sword beam, had a similar range issue. Even if the range was further, it wasn't by much when your health wasn't full. This looks more like you digging for a reason to hate it, than having an actual reason in the first place.

So yeah, it looks, to me, like you just don't want people liking Zelda 2. I can accept if you don't like it. There's some validity to a few of your complaints, but much of them are shared by other Zelda games, which in many cases have it even worse. And the rest is just complaining about the difficulty. I can't agree with points when they are made in this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

Okay, I can honestly say that your post is heavily flawed. It comes off less as "here's Zelda 2's flaws" and more as "People are starting to like Zelda, and I'm gonna put a stop to it."

---

Far from it. I'm actually doing a low-level run of the game, and the Link that I cosplay is directly based on this exact game. It's one of my favorite titles.

Quote:

---

The first and most obvious flaw is in #10, where you talk about the production period as if it meant the game was rushed. What you fail to mention, is that games were produced drastically faster back then, and production times of less than 6 months or even, at times, 3 months were not unheard of. And while I mean absolutely no disrespect, I honestly do not think it was uphill from there.

---

Megaman 3 was also rapidly produced out of immediate demand, and also came out rather incomplete only a few years later. Eiji Inafune has directly stated it to be his least favorite.

Quote:

---

#9 While a problem, is fairly mild mannered by series standards. Let's not forget that OoT created more problems with Zelda's lore than any other title to date, and that the constant prequelitis and interquelitis hasn't helped. Zelda 2 didn't do any of THAT, but while I agree that the lore problems it DID create are bad, I can not agree that it deserves any sort of special mention for it.

---

Yes, but those games all generally have the excuse that Link and Zelda aren't the same ones you met before. Here Link is the same, but Zelda has changed. odd...

Quote:

---

#8 This is going to require some justification, you need to show WHAT information was famitsu exclusive and why it's bad that we couldn't have it. As of right now, I'm neutral on this point because I don't know what you're talking about.

---

Some of Zelda II's late game secrets are not revealed in-game, but subscribers to Nintendo Power would know the answer to it. Honestly though, this isn't unique to Zelda II. Castlevania 2 is arguably more notorious for it.

Quote:

---

#7 As long as we agree that OoT, Twilight Princess, and several other Zelda games that were ALSO LINEAR were ALSO BAD FOR BEING LINEAR. I disagree that linear = bad, although I prefer non-linear myself. That aside, it's worth noting that "linear as fuck" isn't quite right, as you could beat the temples in any order if you collected their items without beating the boss. That isn't MUCH non-linearity, but it's more than Twilight Princess allowed, so it at least isn't dead last on this point.

---

I don't think either of those games were linear at all. You definitely backtracked throughout both of them. In Zelda II though there was virtually no point at all. Do *you* think Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess were linear?

Quote:

---

#6 Yeah sorry, this reeks of complaining about the difficulty, and no, I'm not trying to be a dick, but that is exactly the vibe I get when people complain about this stuff. It's okay if you personally feel that the game is too hard, but then say that. Don't complain about mechanic X, or enemy Y. Just admit that it's too hard for your tastes and move on. I won't agree, but I'll respect that point, and I suspect almost everyone else will too.

---

You come off awfully angry yourself. Difficulty isn't the same as annoyance, and that's just what starting back at North Palace seems like to me. Keep in mind, again, in the first game this did not happen.

Quote:

---

#5 While I have to agree on this one, it is far from the only Zelda Game guilty of this. The problem here, isn't the invalidity of your point, but that it feels like you are singling out this game. What about the Spinner From Twilight Princess? Or more blatantly, the Dominion Rod? Hell, that game even had one item that lasted for a single dungeon (the holy sword or whatever it was from level 8). Now I like Twilight Princess, it's a rare non-Zelda 1&2 game I'll actually play, but it suffers from this problem as well. In fact, it suffers from several of the problems you are bashing on Zelda 2 for.

---

The dominion rod is indeed as useless as some of this game's items, but that game also gave link multiple weapons. You come back to Twilight Princess an awful lot...

Quote:

---

#4 & #3 So it can be a challenging game? Again, this is just more complaining about the difficulty. If you wanna know the Truth, it may be hard for some to swallow, but here goes:

ZELDA 2 WAS NOT THAT DIFFICULT

Yes, by MODERN GAMING STANDARDS it's a bit tough, but one thing that you are not considering here, and to be fair you're not alone, is that relative to other games of the day, it was average at most. Ever play Guardian Legend? Mega Man 1? The Original Metroid? Life Force? Contra? Pacmania? Every single one of those is drastically harder than Zelda 2, and they are far from the worst offenders.

---

Zelda 2's magic system and XP systems were ideas seen in other NES titles like Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy. Heck, even random encounters came from here (gosh, King Aquamentus sure didn't bitch about *that* part of Zelda II), which handled their costs and replenishability far better than Zelda II did.

Quote:

---

#2.................Okay, that's, what, 4....out of 10 (and still counting) points in which your ultimate problem is the difficulty. Seriously, just say you find it too hard and move on.

And no, I'm sorry, did you just bring in the opinion of some ebegging*cough*movie*cough*, self-serving*cough*cheetahmen*cough* douche*cough*Mike Matei as moderator...

---

I'm really sorry Anarchy, but I had a hard time following your train of thought, here, so I don't understand what you were trying to say. :(

Quote:

---

#1 Okay, make that a full 5 out of 10. Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick here, but a full half of your complaints are that the game is too hard for various reasons. But if you want me to get into the specifics:

-Double Dragon
-The Battle of Olympus
-Faxanadu

These are 3 loved games that had the same problem, having to get in Melee range to attack. Granted, Faxanadu allowed the player to eventually increase it, but you had to play for a good bit before reaching that point. And Zelda 1, discounting the sword beam, had a similar range issue. Even if the range was further, it wasn't by much when your health wasn't full. This looks more like you digging for a reason to hate it, than having an actual reason in the first place.

So yeah, it looks, to me, like you just don't want people liking Zelda 2. I can accept if you don't like it. There's some validity to a few of your complaints, but much of them are shared by other Zelda games, which in many cases have it even worse. And the rest is just complaining about the difficulty. I can't agree with points when they are made in this way.

---

I think you kind of missed the point of the article. It was written for entertainment value and to be an interesting read, not for anyone to take on a personal level, or treat like it is actually a serious discussion.

Based on your livid reaction to each item on the list (particularly numbers 3 and 4), it sounds like it still deeply offended you, and I apologize. Perhaps you'd enjoy some of the other "content" articles I've written for AGN:

Top 10 things that didn't suck about the Super Mario Bros movie

Ikari Warriors II: "Kick a clown, that's right"?

What You Thought You Knew About Mario (and why it is a lie)

Why Schala Is Just As Bad As Magus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Aquamentus

Megaman 3 was also rapidly produced out of immediate demand, and also came out rather incomplete only a few years later. Eiji Inafune has directly stated it to be his least favorite.

---

Mega Man 3 is one of the longer NES titles(hell, it's one of the longer MM titles period), and many consider it a favorite over MM2.The only signs of rushing I even detected was the final stage being a single room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Aquamentus

Yes, but those games all generally have the excuse that Link and Zelda aren't the same ones you met before. Here Link is the same, but Zelda has changed. odd...

---

Okay, but that's nowhere near as bad as what OoT did to the story, or how Minish Cap introduced an ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE we never saw in all the games that come after it in the timeline. You have to reach pretty far to single out Zelda 2 for this one thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Aquamentus

Some of Zelda II's late game secrets are not revealed in-game, but subscribers to Nintendo Power would know the answer to it. Honestly though, this isn't unique to Zelda II. Castlevania 2 is arguably more notorious for it.

---

They do have hints, but they're vague. NES era gamers were used to those sort of hints, and adapted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Aquamentus

I don't think either of those games were linear at all. You definitely backtracked throughout both of them. In Zelda II though there was virtually no point at all. Do *you* think Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess were linear?

---

Backtracking isn't the same as non-linear. Non-linear means you can complete the game's missions in any order desired. Non-linear does not mean that there is backtracking. But fine, I'll accept that Zelda 2 could have used a little more backtracking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Aquamentus

You come off awfully angry yourself. Difficulty isn't the same as annoyance, and that's just what starting back at North Palace seems like to me. Keep in mind, again, in the first game this did not happen.

---

This is true, but it's not impossibly hard to beat the game's levels and such with the 3 lives given. Maybe it could have done with more continue points, but it doesn't take impossibly long to get anywhere in Zelda 2, so for me it was never a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Aquamentus

The dominion rod is indeed as useless as some of this game's items, but that game also gave link multiple weapons. You come back to Twilight Princess an awful lot...

---

The point is that you can't pick on Zelda 2 alone for flaws that are not unique to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Aquamentus

Zelda 2's magic system and XP systems were ideas seen in other NES titles like Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy. Heck, even random encounters came from here (gosh, King Aquamentus sure didn't bitch about *that* part of Zelda II), which handled their costs and replenishability far better than Zelda II did.

---

And why is that? You can't just say they handled it better and leave it at that. You have to specify as to exactly why. "I couldn't heal myself enough to not die in Zelda 2" is not what I would consider a legit reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Aquamentus

I think you kind of missed the point of the article. It was written for entertainment value and to be an interesting read, not for anyone to take on a personal level, or treat like it is a serious discussion. Sorry if it somehow offended you.

---

The problem is, you seem to trying to represent the difficulty as if it were a fundamental flaw of the game itself, not as something you just personally didn't like. You also picked on it for problems shared by other Zelda games, or for things like being developed at a pace which was normal for NES games and such. You really can't call a game of this era rushed for taking 9 months to a year to complete. At most, the development may have dragged on, and they may have hurried to finish. That's not something I would consider entertaining or an interesting read. Instead, it comes off more as a person pushing his opinion as though it were fact.

That may not have been your intention, but that is how it came across.

I'm just going to weigh in here. I think the biggest problem most people had with Zelda II was the drastic change in the play style. You may have noticed that subsequent Zelda games (LTTP, LA) went back to the top-down exploration style rather than the side-scrolling platform-jumper that Z2 was. That was arguably the largest complaint from fans of the original Zelda.

Secondly, not to harp too much on complaining about the difficulty, but I think you have to agree that the Dairas that early in the game were a bit much for the average player. And it isn't as if you could just save that for later and come back to it when you gained some levels--no, this area is required in order to progress. Or else you'd have to grind for levels, which is the most tedious aspect of any RPG, and even more so in Z2. I'm not saying "boo hoo this game is too hard boo hoo," but be honest. I am certain that I am not the only person whose NES controller hit the wall several times while trying to get through that part of the game. And then there is the aspect of not having any real weapon apart from the sword (so, the hammer can destroy giant boulders blocking the road, but can't whack a few monsters? Oooh kayyy).

I'm not saying the game sucks; like with any game, it has its good and bad points. As to whether the bad ones outweigh the good ones...I'll leave that up to the opinion of the individual player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDarkOne

Secondly, not to harp too much on complaining about the difficulty, but I think you have to agree that the Dairas that early in the game were a bit much for the average player. And it isn't as if you could just save that for later and come back to it when you gained some levels--no, this area is required in order to progress. Or else you'd have to grind for levels, which is the most tedious aspect of any RPG, and even more so in Z2. I'm not saying "boo hoo this game is too hard boo hoo," but be honest. I am certain that I am not the only person whose NES controller hit the wall several times while trying to get through that part of the game.

---

That's an opinion though, not a fact. I used to find Death Mountain a rather satisfying challenge to overcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

That's an opinion though, not a fact. I used to find Death Mountain a rather satisfying challenge to overcome.

---

Of course it was an opinion. That is precisely what it was meant to be. My point is that the opinion is probably shared by at least 50% of Z2 players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDarkOne

Of course it was an opinion. That is precisely what it was meant to be. My point is that the opinion is probably shared by at least 50% of Z2 players.

---

And there is nothing wrong anyone having that opinion, as long as it is framed as an opinion, and not a flaw with the game itself.

Zelda II rules, that's a fact. :3

So say I, Chris Miller, princess---errr....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Miller

Zelda II rules, that's a fact. :3

So say I, Chris Miller, princess---errr....

---

...of Wales?

Zelda 2 was hard as shit. I have yet to beat it and I beat Mega Man 2 which was also, but not quite so, hard as shit.

Try beating it candleless :P

I always bugged the Valley of Death to skip the sub zones; those were the real killer. Overall, the game wasn't too hard after upping all my stats.

yeah once you get used to it its okay. there's just things that, when you think about it...

I never could beat Zelda II without the assistance of Game Genie. And even then, it was (as @SUCCESSOR said), hard as shit. And if your shit is as hard as that game, you need to drink more fluids.

One other thing (not what I would consider a flaw, though) was the absence of a second quest. That was one of the things that made the first game so awesome. It was almost like two games in one. Come to think of it, I don't think any of the later Zelda games had a true second quest--it least, not one of the caliber of the original.

For me the prohibitive difficulty of Zelda 2 was the Swamp Temple. Or rather, it was reaching the Swamp Temple. I did level farming for some 102 continues before I could breach the walls of that fortress.

After that (and after resorting to a guide) the rest of the game was fairly easy. Part of the difficulty comes from a blind run: if you don't know where to go and what to look for you lose a lot of energy on random encounters and battle you should really be skipping.
I still have not beaten the game, though, even after years of trying. I made it to Thunderbird in the Great Palace repeatedly but could not defeat the boss. Since there's only one fight after that (Dark Link) I decided I was close enough.


Still, I agree that the difficulty wall is an opinion (even though it is a popular one). There are certainly other contemporary games (like the NES Ninja Turtles game) which make Zelda 2 look like a walk in the park.

EDIT: Well, the first Zelda game after Zelda 1 to have a second quest was Ocarina of Time, and that only came when it was ported to a new system (the Gamecube if I recall correctly). I will admit, though, that OoT Master Quest is of a caliber of gameplay on par or exceeding 2nd quest; the dungeons were clever and forced you to think to navigate rooms (such as transporting torch flames through doors), a notion not frequently explored in the 3d Zelda games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUCCESSOR

Zelda 2 was hard as shit. I have yet to beat it and I beat Mega Man 2 which was also, but not quite so, hard as shit.

---

MM2 was pretty easy actually. Even difficult mode wasn't so bad. The only hard part is Bubeam trap, and if you're REALLY stuck, you can get around it with an exploit (crash bomb all walls, die, refill crash bombs, face Bubeam trap without crash bomb walls).

But if you think it was hard, the other Mega Man games will have you pulling your hair out. Especially 7 and 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CJC

Well, the first Zelda game after Zelda 1 to have a second quest was Ocarina of Time, and that only came when it was ported to a new system (the Gamecube if I recall correctly). I will admit, though, that OoT Master Quest is of a caliber of gameplay on par or exceeding 2nd quest; the dungeons were clever and forced you to think to navigate rooms (such as transporting torch flames through doors), a notion not frequently explored in the 3d Zelda games.

---

Ah, well, I have not played the Gamecube version so I don't know much about that one. In fact, the only other 3D Zelda games I have tried (beside OOT) are Wind Waker (the HD version for the Wii U) and the 3DS game A Link Between Worlds. I have seen gameplay videos for most of the others (Twilight Princess is one I haven't) and while impressive, none of them seemed quite as good as OOT (at least to me).

To make it clear, it is my OPINION that ALTTP was one of the best Zelda games, and I'd have to say LA is also a good one. Granted, they are way old but what's wrong with classics? And how many different variations on the original Zelda exist for ZC?

Concerning OoT's Master Quest, its unlockable in the 3DS port once you beat the game. Just an FYI. Also I've played Zelda 2 from scratch to finish too many times as a kid. I loved it (and still to this day love it) whenever I wasn't playing something else new (I liked renting stuff a lot since I had little money of my own as most of the money I got was for my birthday or Christmas and that usually got spent asap on a new game or toy or whatever). Heck, I still play Zelda 2 from scratch every now and then (once every 2-3 years or so) without a guide (I've played it that much, and on top of my dad also played the heck outta it when I was a kid, he'd give me hints, etc when he felt like I needed it) I will say that it isn't my favorite Zelda game, but it is in my top 5. :kitty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

MM2 was pretty easy actually. Even difficult mode wasn't so bad. The only hard part is Bubeam trap, and if you're REALLY stuck, you can get around it with an exploit (crash bomb all walls, die, refill crash bombs, face Bubeam trap without crash bomb walls).

But if you think it was hard, the other Mega Man games will have you pulling your hair out. Especially 7 and 10.

---

Now I know your difficulty grade is jacked. Mm2 is very hard for those who haven't put in exhaustive time learning its quirks and designs. Mm7 was not as difficult or unfair.

No way was MM2 THAT hard. Last year I played it for the first time in like 20 years and beat it on hard with a single continue. The weapons alone are easily the most overpowered compared to any of the other games. >_>

IMO Zelda 2 was much harder, if for no other reason that the timing of attacks and jumps were wonky--I'd even go so far to say that they really needed to put a lot more polish on the gameplay before they released it.

I never really got into the Megaman games much (though I have to say Roll is adorable). I did try the X series on the SNES but even that didn't totally hold my interest.

As for Zelda II, the only time I really needed a guide was the Maze Palace. I've got two maps for that dungeon and it still confuses the smeg out of me. Even the final dungeon isn't as confusing (just much bigger). The main thing about the final battle against Shadow Link, is there an easy exploit that I think all players know. Thunderbird is harder and I managed to beat her my third try (using GG for infinite lives but not infinite health).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SUCCESSOR

Now I know your difficulty grade is jacked. Mm2 is very hard for those who haven't put in exhaustive time learning its quirks and designs. Mm7 was not as difficult or unfair.

---

That's odd because I believe the consensus would say the opposite.