Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

The Good
I think I applaud the development team for trying something different. The game has even more RPG elements and some of those things made their way into subsequent releases (some of the named locations, fighting a dark version of yourself, etc..) but largely the concepts and ideas in this game were forgotten.

As much as I despised the combat, I did start to get a kind of Souls-like feeling with it. I would figure out the enemy's patterns and after I had died a few dozen times, I became adept at taking them on. Then another enemy was introduced that I couldn't figure out, so rinse and repeat.

The Bad
Well, the graphics are terrible. Even if you're a retro gaming fan, there's a lot not to like about the visuals. Link's sword, for example, is the same color as his skin. So, it looks like Link has a really messed up appendage. All of the towns look exactly the same except for maybe a color palette swap or a slight shift in position. The overworld map is bland and uninteresting.

NPC dialogue is confusing and provides almost no context or information. All of the NPCs look the same.

None of this would be as bad if the gameplay was any good. After all, the Castlevania series attempted a similar shift in format with Simon's Quest and it wasn't terrible. Unfortunately, Zelda 2 doesn't fare so well. The game is unfair, way more unfair than the original. Link's sword swipe is not very long so therefore you have to be super close to the enemy to hit it. Link's movement is as if he's on ice so when you stop you kind of slide just a tiny bit, which makes platforming a bit more challenging than it needs to be.

The bosses, while visually interesting, are random and seem to have no real connection to one another.

The Bottom Line
The Adventure of Link swings for the fences, I will say that much. They tried to do something different, unfortunately it just didn't work. I don't think the game is without merit, the leveling system is interesting, and a lot of the enemies and bosses looked pretty good. Everything else though was pretty bad. The game honestly felt like it wasn't finished and needed just a little more polish and balancing.

The Good
Zelda II is a pretty big departure from the first Zelda in the series. So, kudos to Nintendo for trying to do something different. Unfortunately, “different” isn't synonymous with “good” or even “adequate”.

I'll give the game that had an interesting combat system. Fighting the shielded foes by attacking high and low was a neat idea. Unfortunately it isn't really possible to tell where they will block, so you’ll often find yourself flailing at them.

The leveling system was also not a bad idea. You still had to find heart containers, but you also gained experience and leveled up to gain new spells. The spell system was also decently implemented, but really it just replaced the (superior) item system. There is decent exploration. Some characters in the towns will give you hints on the locations of special items. There are some side-quests, but they’re usually little more than fetching.

My favourite moment in this game is when you had to find someone’s child. When Link picks the kid up, he does it in classic above-the-head-Zelda-style. “You got someone’s child!”

The Bad
I’d never have finished Zelda II if it hadn't been for my goal to play though every Zelda game, in their original format, in order of their release. This game is also the reason I’m never going to try that again.

First off, this game has an extremely inconsistent difficulty. Most of the time, the game is far too difficult. It isn't challenging, it’s cheap. Inversely, the boss battles are extremely easy. It appears to me that the difficulty was used to artificially lengthen the adventure. Without the extremely frustrating cheapness, the game would be over and done with rather quickly.

As mentioned earlier, the item collection from the first game has been replaced by learning new spells. This is not only unoriginal; it is also far inferior to the old system. The new random battles are also extremely annoying, as usually they include pester enemies, such as birds.

The Bottom Line
I know there are people who believe this game doesn’t deserve its bad reputation, but it does. Praising it for deviating from the Zelda formula is a little cheap, as there had only been one in the series before it. Guess which style of gameplay they decided to stick with. As it stands, Zelda II is not only a poor Zelda game, but it’s also a BAD game.

The Good
Ever play Cadash? That's a great game. This is a passable Cadash that predates it by about a year, on an 8-bit system!

The gameplay, as previously mentioned, is sidescrolling, with an overland map interlude for getting from place to place. There isn't much else good to be said about this game, though. It is primitive at best, and is stuck somewhere between Phantasy Star and Cadash, without the horsepower in the NES to pull it off properly.

This kind of side scrolling RPG would become very common in the future. What Zelda 2 has going for it is that it is innovative, it's too bad Nintendo didn't release it with its original characters instead of adding a "touch of Zelda" when the real Zelda 2, which I'm convinced was scrapped, didn't work out.

The Bad
Remember Mario 2? Remember the story of how they took a game that was not Mario and overlaid a bunch of Mario sprites to make a funky game that didn't feel right?

I suspect that isn't the only time Nintendo made that mistake. They did it with Zelda, too.

What you have is a game that was clearly not designed as a Zelda title with Zelda sprites and the first 5 seconds of the overland theme grafted on to make it appear "Zeldaish."

The Zelda overland theme, the really cool one that sticks in your head, plays for about 5 seconds and then immediately and rather crudely dissolves into cheesy uninspired 8-bit kazoo box music. That progression in the music describes the rest of the game. 5 seconds of Zelda and 15 hours of some other game that the box lied about. As you go, it just becomes wildly less and less like Zelda until you start wondering how Link got so tall.

Give me a map, or a compass, or rupees or ANYTHING else from the original game and this criticism becomes invalid, but it isn't there. There's no "nightmare key," no master sword, no heart meter. You can't make a "departure" sequel and ditch nearly everything that made the flavour of the original.

This was the 80's, back when they were plastering Erno Rubik's name on every dumb puzzle they could find, yet none of them were "the cube." This kind of "Brand leveraging" proved to be very damaging to the companies that did it, and so you don't see nearly as much of it any more. Nintendo learned and now jealously guards its brands.

The Bottom Line
Zelda sprites added to a perfectly good RPG to increase sales.

You can play the original Zelda and it's all there, in crude form. Everything that would become the rest of the series.

This game doesn't represent a "departure" as so many apologists will tell you. It's a completely different game. It's very difficult, and by today's standard's not terribly innovative, but okay to play if you like a sidescrolling RPG like Cadash. It's amazing they pulled this off on the 8-bit NES.

So when you hear this game get badmouthed, it's mostly because of people who expected a Zelda title and didn't get one. It's Super Mario Bros. 2 all over again. The good news is that there is a title.

Remember, it predates Cadash by a year, is playing on 8-bit hardware, and is a perfectly good RPG.

(Just watch out for the guy who tells you to get the candle at the palace by going "West." The palace is to the NNE.)

Production standards have improved since these days...

(Reviewer played this off the Zelda Collector's Edition GC disc. There may have been a map showing exactly where the candle palace is in the original.)