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

[King Aquamentus]

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.

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.

#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...

#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.

#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?

#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.

#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...

#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.

#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.

#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

[Anarchy_Balsac]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.