Zelda II - Why all the hate?

[sheath]

Zelda II is the only Zelda game with real action gameplay, once you learn it the game is easy, until you learn it the game is hard. Subsequently, Zelda II is the only Zelda game I actually enjoy.

[skaar]

There's no way to block their attack (at that point), and they back up when you try to jump over them. The only way to really kill them without getting your ass handed to you is to use the downward thrust... which is in a town you need the hammer to get to.

That's a design error. Yes, you can eventually master the exact timing between their attacks, but that happens over a long period of time and usually with repeated playthroughs. It's a design error.

See, I disagree. I think that you learn to FEAR the axe guys at that point - they only really give you two (maybe three) dark red ones you HAVE to go through to get to the hammer - and they're set up like minibosses. The orange ones are no challenge.

Once you have downthrust there is nothing more to fear from this enemy and they lose their effectiveness - bouncing off a head or two feels more like a triumph after you've had to fight without the option.

I really need to look now and see if he played Zelda II on Gamecenter CX.

[heybtbm]

It is a hard game, and it does have some poor design choices. The most egregious one to my mind is the hammer quest.

You need the hammer to progress in the game, and the hammer is in Death Mountain, which is filled with these awful hatchet monsters. There's no way to block their attack (at that point), and they back up when you try to jump over them. The only way to really kill them without getting your ass handed to you is to use the downward thrust... which is in a town you need the hammer to get to.

That's a design error.

I got around this by grinding. It was the first game where I recognized that killing a bunch of minor monsters would pay off later by leveling up and making me borderline invincible. At the time I thought I was a genius.

[heybtbm]

One other thing, Zelda 2 gave us one of the best Zelda music pieces of all time...

http://youtu.be/gBgFH27e4Dk

[spongerob]

Don't expect Zelda I and Zelda II probably won't disappoint you. I enjoy it to this day. It's different, and came after a game everyone loved. The hate is almost guaranteed in a situation like that.

I just hate the psychotically difficult final areas. Some of those dungeons are just flat out unfair. It'd be one thing if that was the whole MO of the game, or if I was eased into it, but you go from easy, easy, easy, easy, OMG MIND FUCKINGLY IMPOSSIBLE in one dungeon.

Still...love it though. Even with some of the most dull, boring grinding ever.

[Wraith Storm]

I used to play Zelda II at my cousins house when I was younger. I loved it then and I love it now.

Back in 2001 my friend and I each bought our own copies of Zelda II. We played through the game simultaneously. We would call one another and ask where the other was and it provided motivation for me to keep playing so I could beat it first.

The game is certainly harder than other Zelda games but regardless it is my favorite of the series. I love the experience system and how you can actually cast spells. To me it is a perfect blend genres and is a "true" action RPG.

I will say I am surprised to see so many people having issues (or at least hating on) getting the hammer at Death Mountain. I don't remember myself or my friend having problems there. Sure, it is a complex maze of caves and quite a long stretch but I enjoyed the challenge. I always considered it a fairly iconic section of the game. I don't remember it being any harder or easier than any other part the game.

[spongerob]

One other thing, Zelda 2 gave us one of the best Zelda music pieces of all time...

http://youtu.be/gBgFH27e4Dk

Agreed. I love this.

[treismac]

I actually think it gets more love because it's a Zelda title. If it were some random NES Adventure RPG like Faxanadu, Hydlide, or whatever I doubt it would have nearly as many fans. It being a Zelda game is what drives a lot of people to actually stick it out and put up with the BS.

I agree. For all we know in North America, Zelda II was originally some Doki Doki Panic game in Japan that got the Super Mario Bros. 2-esque makeover to get more sales.

[kainemaxwell]

I think the hate stems mostly from the difficulty. This is, at the moment, the only Zelda game I have not beaten yet, other than the Game and Watch one. I've made it to Death Mountain, but just have so much trouble there. I imagine it would be very off-putting to the Zelda fan who might die only a handful of times in an entire playthrough.

Never got past the final bosses either. Trying to get through Death Mountain even at the end was too annoying and tedious.

[Berserker]

See, I disagree. I think that you learn to FEAR the axe guys at that point - they only really give you two (maybe three) dark red ones you HAVE to go through to get to the hammer - and they're set up like minibosses. The orange ones are no challenge.

Oh, and fear them I did. The orange ones are no challenge now, but initially I found it pretty difficult to get the timing down. But yeah, at least when you run from those guys it's not all flyin' hatchets up the ass.

Have you gotten the hammer without the candle yet? That's when you know you play this game too much.

[Aussie2B]

I think Zelda II would get more love if it weren't so damn annoying. Losing experience from being hit, the way ambushes work, the distance you have to travel and how uninteresting the world map is, etc. It's the little things that really bog it down and make the game much harder and more tedious than it needs to be. And it's long.

But... I beat the game for the first time just a few months ago, and I did so over a few days of casual playing. o_O It's not remotely a long game. Frankly, I didn't encounter any of the problems you're stating here. Not all of the enemies drain EXP and those that do aren't a big problem (and anyone complaining about anything to do with the level up system needs to man up because it was actually changed to be made easier than the Japanese original). I don't even know what you mean about "ambushes" (unless you're just complaining about battles on the world map, which are usually easy to avoid). The distance to travel on the world map is miniscule. It's set up in such a way that you're always acquiring new items that let you skip past what you did before. It probably doesn't take more than a minute to walk from Zelda to the final segment of the game once you have the items to do so. In fact, I'd say the game is very streamlined, the opposite of bogged down and tedious. It's structured in such a way that you're always moving forward at a good clip.

Anyway, overall I think the game is good. I'd probably rank the first four Zelda games all roughly on par because each serves its own unique purpose, so it just comes down to what type of game experience you crave at any particular moment. I do like like other adventure games more than the Zelda series, though.

[wingzrow]

It was different. That scares and anger people.

Case in point, majora's mask, wind waker, final fantasy 12, breath of fire dragon quarter, chrono cross.

It's mostly an RPG thing.

[spongerob]

It was different. That scares and anger people.

Case in point, majora's mask, wind waker, final fantasy 12, breath of fire dragon quarter, chrono cross.

It's mostly an RPG thing.

So true. The populous fears change. At least the Japanese are open about it and embrace the fact they're comfortable with what they know. We pretend to want innovation and new shit but when we get it, we just want The Old Feeling again.

[TonyTheTiger]

But... I beat the game for the first time just a few months ago, and I did so over a few days of casual playing. o_O It's not remotely a long game. Frankly, I didn't encounter any of the problems you're stating here. Not all of the enemies drain EXP and those that do aren't a big problem (and anyone complaining about anything to do with the level up system needs to man up because it was actually changed to be made easier than the Japanese original). I don't even know what you mean about "ambushes" (unless you're just complaining about battles on the world map, which are usually easy to avoid). The distance to travel on the world map is miniscule. It's set up in such a way that you're always acquiring new items that let you skip past what you did before. It probably doesn't take more than a minute to walk from Zelda to the final segment of the game once you have the items to do so. In fact, I'd say the game is very streamlined, the opposite of bogged down and tedious. It's structured in such a way that you're always moving forward at a good clip.

Just because the EXP drain isn't incredibly devastating doesn't mean it isn't annoying. Just because the level system is easier than the Japanese version can just as easily mean the Japanese version was worse as it could mean the American version is "wussified." Just because battles are easy to avoid doesn't mean it isn't stupid design.

All of that isn't especially relevant to what makes the game good. At best it just proves the game isn't so bad.

See, that's what I've been saying. If I bring up a game that has an actual flaw (let's imagine a glitch that can corrupt your save file) the mere fact that said issue is "easy to avoid" or "only happens once or twice" or "is easily corrected with X, Y, Z" does not absolve it of being a flaw.

It's kind of like if I order a burger and it comes to me with a little bit of mold on the bun. And then if I bring it up I'm told, "At least it wasn't a big cockroach." I never understood the style of defending a game by pointing out how "not bad" the flaws are as a way of justifying their presence. If you're going to justify their presence then tell me why it's good that it's structured like that, not tell me "it could be worse."

Why is it good that some enemies drain experience? Why is it good that loading a save puts you in a completely different place from where you saved (attributable to Zelda in general)? Why is it good that enemies simply pop up on the map and charge at you?

[Hep038]

So true. The populous fears change. At least the Japanese are open about it and embrace the fact they're comfortable with what they know. We pretend to want innovation and new shit but when we get it, we just want The Old Feeling again.

Japan is so awesome and America is so lame.

[RP2A03]

This thread reminds me that I need to make another attempt at a no death completion.

[spongerob]

Japan is so awesome and America is so lame.

It might be lame both ways.

[Aussie2B]

Just because the EXP drain isn't incredibly devastating doesn't mean it isn't annoying. Just because the level system is easier than the Japanese version can just as easily mean the Japanese version was worse as it could mean the American version is "wussified." Just because battles are easy to avoid doesn't mean it isn't stupid design.

All of that isn't especially relevant to what makes the game good. At best it just proves the game isn't so bad.

See, that's what I've been saying. If I bring up a game that has an actual flaw (let's imagine a glitch that can corrupt your save file) the mere fact that said issue is "easy to avoid" or "only happens once or twice" or "is easily corrected with X, Y, Z" does not absolve it of being a flaw.

It's kind of like if I order a burger and it comes to me with a little bit of mold on the bun. And then if I bring it up I'm told, "At least it wasn't a big cockroach." I never understood the style of defending a game by pointing out how "not bad" the flaws are as a way of justifying their presence. If you're going to justify their presence then tell me why it's good that it's structured like that, not tell me "it could be worse."

Why is it good that some enemies drain experience? Why is it good that loading a save puts you in a completely different place from where you saved (attributable to Zelda in general)? Why is it good that enemies simply pop up on the map and charge at you?

My point wasn't in justifying flaws but in stating that those problems don't exist in the first place. The game isn't long. The EXP drain from enemies isn't annoying. The world map isn't cumbersome to travel. And I don't even know what you'd want out of the world map battles. Would you rather them be like normal random battles in an RPG where you can't avoid them at all? Would you rather them be 100% avoidable? Would you rather them not be there at all so the overworld is just barren? I think they made the best choice. When they appear, you can see them and you have a good chance of avoiding them if you're skillful. Plus there are ways to make them not show up at all. That's good game design. The other things don't really make the game good or bad, they just "are". When I think about the game's positive and negative aspects, stuff like EXP drain doesn't even cross my mind, seeing as the game gives out plenty of EXP.

[TonyTheTiger]

If those are non-issues why are they there in the first place? Seems pretty extraneous and haphazard then, doesn't it? "Just because" doesn't strike me as especially good design. That's a lose or draw situation, which you never want to be in. At best it doesn't hurt anything. At worst it does.

[skaar]

I'm kind of amused by the amount of times "design flaw" is being tossed around.

Everyone's a critic.

[dap9984]

I do like like other adventure games more than the Zelda series, though.

I see what you did there

And I forget to state in my previous post but others have already stated it, but it was such a big change from the original that people feared and despised it. Then on top of it being so difficult from the get go, I can see why people didn't care for it. But if you give it a chance, it's actually an awesome game.

[TonyTheTiger]

I think the whole "it's different" is too easy an excuse, though. Mario 2 was also very different, being a totally unrelated game and all. And while it does get its fair share of criticism, it isn't nearly as divisive as Zelda II. I don't think simply being different is the reason. And some games end up garnering incredible praise when they break from tradition. Castlevania: SoTN? Metroid Prime?

[Icarus Moonsight]

Growth is a major factor when I think Zelda. That organic growth, emulated so well by others in the series, is missing from Adventures of Link. They put it out in numbers as EXP instead of the narrative holistically sewing the seeds of your future accomplishments.

Since the game runs on the numbers with a drive toward action, a rougelike/action-platformer could be a great remake path. I'd love to see the game get a remake if it makes the game more integrated and less jarring to play.

[spongerob]

I think the whole "it's different" is too easy an excuse, though. Mario 2 was also very different, being a totally unrelated game and all. And while it does get its fair share of criticism, it isn't nearly as divisive as Zelda II. I don't think simply being different is the reason. And some games end up garnering incredible praise when they break from tradition. Castlevania: SoTN? Metroid Prime?

You can cite examples both ways. Reality is, gamers are illogical and are just big spoiled babies sometimes. And Zelda gamers are extremely outspoken and fanatical.

[exit]

One other thing, Zelda 2 gave us one of the best Zelda music pieces of all time...

http://youtu.be/gBgFH27e4Dk

When I remember playing Zelda II until I reached the first palace just to hear that theme, I was rather young (5 or 6) and couldn't really get any further than that anyway.