Topic: Virtual Console Mondays: June 4, 2007

[UltimatePartyBear]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
I agree with the rating for Zelda II (Recommended for fans), you're either a wuss or you've got balls...of fire. I don't do much grinding at all in this game, maybe it's because I've played this game so many times that I don't think it's dificult anymore.

And there is that thing about Miyamoto giving it the failure label (Which I don't believe he has ever given one of his games), many of the most important team members not working on it, a year development time, and the whole experiment thing. So I think the recommended for fans is justified, not because it is hard, but that the game is extremely flawed and tried to do way too much with a lot of it not working (Random battles should NEVER be in an action RPG).

Miyamoto calling the game a failure doesn't diminish my enjoyment of it any more than George Lucas's insistence that the latest mucking up of Star Wars is his "true vision" makes me want to give up my copies of the old version.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the game's value to people who aren't Miyamoto.

Worse than that, though, you criticize the game for being an experiment!  Where would we be today if game developers didn't experiment?  My guess is there'd be hundreds of versions of Pong, there'd be no Hollywood-rivaling global video game industry, and Shigeru Miyamoto would be painting new designs on playing cards.

[krillin1986]

i too would like to know about the overworld bug... also about the grinding.. what is that?

[Ceric]

Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold

Quote
In the first Zelda game players explored a vast but desolate world with nothing more than scraps of information from a thin instruction booklet. Zelda II introduced the busy towns and non-player character interactions now so familiar.

Which is why I believe the original Zelda is the purest of all of them. I may be biased because it's the first one I played, but Miyamoto created Zelda out of his memories exploring a barren cave. The solitude from the first Zelda has been carried forward, of course, but not to the same extent. LttP and OoT may be the most fleshed out and most technically sound Zelda games with the NPCs and all, but I think they stray away from Miyamoto's original intent. Link's Awakening (not directed by Miyamoto) really strayed the most as far as I'm concerned.

Interestingly enough, Gunpei Yokoi's Metroid has remained closer with the solitude thing.

I agree.

Though I really do enjoy Zelda 2 in a way different then any other game.  Though I do have to say that going back to it  I now think its pretty cheap to not have all the monster give you at least 1 point and the text is annoyingly slow.

[cartman414]

The combat system is anything but rudimentary. The high/low parry mechanics add a lot to the game. And while there are random encounters for better or worse, at least they are visible. And there are games that are a LOT worse about grinding (see: Final Fantasy 1 and the Pokemon games). And while it may have its blemishes, so did other games of its era, especially Metroid. Considering how awesome Super Metroid was, is that reason enough for there never again to be another game of its kind?

Anyways, Zelda II is one of my favorites in the series, only eclipsed by Link's Awakening and the Oracle games.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
I agree with the rating for Zelda II (Recommended for fans), you're either a wuss or you've got balls...of fire. I don't do much grinding at all in this game, maybe it's because I've played this game so many times that I don't think it's dificult anymore.

And there is that thing about Miyamoto giving it the failure label (Which I don't believe he has ever given one of his games), many of the most important team members not working on it, a year development time, and the whole experiment thing. So I think the recommended for fans is justified, not because it is hard, but that the game is extremely flawed and tried to do way too much with a lot of it not working (Random battles should NEVER be in an action RPG).

Miyamoto calling the game a failure doesn't diminish my enjoyment of it any more than George Lucas's insistence that the latest mucking up of Star Wars is his "true vision" makes me want to give up my copies of the old version.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the game's value to people who aren't Miyamoto.

Worse than that, though, you criticize the game for being an experiment!  Where would we be today if game developers didn't experiment?  My guess is there'd be hundreds of versions of Pong, there'd be no Hollywood-rivaling global video game industry, and Shigeru Miyamoto would be painting new designs on playing cards.

OK how about a severely flawed experiment where much of it did not work? My point is that I think this "love" for Zelda 2 is nothing more than overinflated praise to go against the grain and to make yourselves feel like the in crowd. I don't doubt some of you love the game, but then again most games that are decent have a few who love them, doesn't make them masterpieces though. I am just saying that there is more pointing towards Zelda 2 being a flawed, and dissapointing game then pointing towards it as being a great game. Not to mention this also a defence against the elites out there that think the reason why most dislike the game is because it is "hard" which is a load of crap and stupid elitist argument everytime it is used for a game.

[Caliban]

*Throws some ice-cold water at GoldenPhoenix*

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
*Throws some ice-cold water at GoldenPhoenix*

*Throws boiling water on Caliban* Take that you Zelda II lover.

[cartman414]

Ho boy. Zelda II may have had blemishes, but so did other games of that era, Zelda I and Metroid included. Zelda II still does a bunch of things right, including a great combat system, magic and experience systems, and challenging adversaries. It's also one of those games that rewards personal skill. Not to mention that there's still nothing else like it right now.

And a lot of people out there do dislike the game for being too "hard".

Not to mention that practically all games by definition are flawed. Personally I think Ocarina of Time has a few serious ones, and most people regard it as one of the most definitive games ever.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: cartman414
Ho boy. Zelda II may have had blemishes, but so did other games of that era, Zelda I and Metroid included. Zelda II still does a bunch of things right, including a great combat system, magic and experience systems, and challenging adversaries. It's also one of those games that rewards personal skill. Not to mention that there's still nothing else like it right now.

And a lot of people out there do dislike the game for being too "hard".

Not to mention that practically all games by definition are flawed. Personally I think Ocarina of Time has a few serious ones, and most people regard it as one of the most definitive games ever.

Except OOT was never referred to as a failure but the creator, and was a mishmash of different genres, alot of which was dumped in later installations. There are legitimate design flaws in Zelda II that cause people to dislike it, and yes some of it makes the game artificially hard and cheap (I'd say Metroid 1 shares a similar flaw, it does not hold up well). Also I wouldn't consider there being nothing like it out there being like it a praise, that usually means there is a reason why it was never imitated.

[cartman414]

Quote
Except OOT was never referred to as a failure but the creator, and was a mishmash of different genres, alot of which was dumped in later installations.

You're going on a bit of a tangent there. I said that OoT had flaws of its own.

Anyways, I believe Miyamoto regarded it as a failure in how the design process went, which is somewhat understandable given the changes that were made from the Japanese version over to the English version (i. e. the stat levels originally resetting to whatever the lowest level was). And it was pretty successful as a genre mashup.

Quote
There are legitimate design flaws in Zelda II that cause people to dislike it, and yes some of it makes the game artificially hard and cheap

Many of which were reminiscent of that era of gaming. Beyond that, care to elaborate upon any so that I may respond on a piece by piece basis? There were things here and there that could have been changed, but it's still no harder than say, Ninja Gaiden, and definitely not any of the G'n'G games.

Quote
Also I wouldn't consider there being nothing like it out there being like it a praise, that usually means there is a reason why it was never imitated.

Only fathomable reason was because they wrongly assumed it was not worth revisiting, which it very much was. The potential for evolution was huge, and yet wasted.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: cartman414

Quote
Except OOT was never referred to as a failure but the creator, and was a mishmash of different genres, alot of which was dumped in later installations.

You're going on a bit of a tangent there. I said that OoT had flaws of its own.

Anyways, I believe Miyamoto regarded it as a failure in how the design process went, which is somewhat understandable given the changes that were made from the Japanese version over to the English version (i. e. the stat levels originally resetting to whatever the lowest level was). And it was pretty successful as a genre mashup.

Quote
There are legitimate design flaws in Zelda II that cause people to dislike it, and yes some of it makes the game artificially hard and cheap

Many of which were reminiscent of that era of gaming. Beyond that, care to elaborate upon any so that I may respond on a piece by piece basis? There were things here and there that could have been changed, but it's still no harder than say, Ninja Gaiden, and definitely not any of the G'n'G games.

Quote
Also I wouldn't consider there being nothing like it out there being like it a praise, that usually means there is a reason why it was never imitated.

Only fathomable reason was because they wrongly assumed it was not worth revisiting, which it very much was. The potential for evolution was huge, and yet wasted.

Actually I didn't say it was in comparison to NG or G n G games (Personally I don't care much for either series and I do think many NES games had lazy design flaws to make them cheap so I don't disagree with that either), regardless my focus is not on how hard it was but flaws that made it hard, there is a difference. Take for example Ninja Gaiden for Xbox 360, the game is quite challenging yet it is well designed (well except for that nasty camera). Hardness should not be the focus but how the game is designed. Zelda II felt like an experiment,one that fell into the nasty void of not knowing what it wanted to be, it had tedious random battles, mixed with leveling, mixed with platforming, mixed with lives. The reason why the game was not revisited is because it wasn't that popular and was not that well received by fans of the original game.

So you love the game? Great for you, but realize the majority do not agree with you, there is much more evidence pointing towards the game being flawed in design, and more importantly its reception since it had a great game in the series before it. You can defend the game all you want, and perhaps you like the stuff that annoys others and disappointed the designer, but the fact remains that your opinion, though you have to fair, with accepting the fact that others may have some good reasons for not liking the game besides it being hard. Perhaps it isn't as clear as I thought, but the one year development time gives an indication that the game was rushed out the door, especially since it was basically a whole new engine. Regardless, I think Miyamoto handled the game fine, he took elements that actually worked and trashed the rest, that is all Zelda fans needed. If the game was so brilliantly designed someone else would have mimicked the design, yet no one really did, the game died and led the way to a brilliant title in LTTP.

BTW just for reference purposes here is Miyamotos exact quote (At the very least it indicates that they were going through the motions when creating the game)

Quote
It was my idea, but the actual game was developed by another team, different people to those that made the first game. Compared to Legend of Zelda, Zelda II went exactly what we expected... All games I make usually gets better in the development process, since good ideas keep coming, but Zelda II was sort of a failure...

[TheYoungerPlumber]

Quote
Originally posted by: krillin1986
i too would like to know about the overworld bug... also about the grinding.. what is that?

"Grinding" is a term often used to describe killing lots of enemies to gain experience points in an RPG so that you're strong enough to progress through the game.  The overworld bug is fairly simple.  As you walk around random baddies appear and try to intercept you.  The map is divided into squares.  If you are between Square A and Square B when you intercept a baddie, you will always return on Square B after the generic battle area.  Now, Square B can be an "event" square--a square that actually triggers a side-scrolling sequence that is usually unavoidable due to map design.  These events are more difficult than the generic battle areas.  If you intercept a baddie when walking onto such an event square, you'll enter a generic baddie sequence instead of the more intricate and difficult event.  When the battle is over, you will be on Square B and can continue to Square C without entering Square B's event.

[cartman414]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Quote
Originally posted by: cartman414

Quote
Except OOT was never referred to as a failure but the creator, and was a mishmash of different genres, alot of which was dumped in later installations.

You're going on a bit of a tangent there. I said that OoT had flaws of its own.

Anyways, I believe Miyamoto regarded it as a failure in how the design process went, which is somewhat understandable given the changes that were made from the Japanese version over to the English version (i. e. the stat levels originally resetting to whatever the lowest level was). And it was pretty successful as a genre mashup.

Quote
There are legitimate design flaws in Zelda II that cause people to dislike it, and yes some of it makes the game artificially hard and cheap

Many of which were reminiscent of that era of gaming. Beyond that, care to elaborate upon any so that I may respond on a piece by piece basis? There were things here and there that could have been changed, but it's still no harder than say, Ninja Gaiden, and definitely not any of the G'n'G games.

Quote
Also I wouldn't consider there being nothing like it out there being like it a praise, that usually means there is a reason why it was never imitated.

Only fathomable reason was because they wrongly assumed it was not worth revisiting, which it very much was. The potential for evolution was huge, and yet wasted.

Actually I didn't say it was in comparison to NG or G n G games (Personally I don't care much for either series and I do think many NES games had lazy design flaws to make them cheap so I don't disagree with that either), regardless my focus is not on how hard it was but flaws that made it hard, there is a difference. Take for example Ninja Gaiden for Xbox 360, the game is quite challenging yet it is well designed (well except for that nasty camera). Hardness should not be the focus but how the game is designed. Zelda II felt like an experiment,one that fell into the nasty void of not knowing what it wanted to be, it had tedious random battles, mixed with leveling, mixed with platforming, mixed with lives. The reason why the game was not revisited is because it wasn't that popular and was not that well received by fans of the original game.

So you love the game? Great for you, but realize the majority do not agree with you, there is much more evidence pointing towards the game being flawed in design, and more importantly its reception since it had a great game in the series before it. You can defend the game all you want, and perhaps you like the stuff that annoys others and disappointed the designer, but the fact remains that your opinion, though you have to fair, with accepting the fact that others may have some good reasons for not liking the game besides it being hard. Perhaps it isn't as clear as I thought, but the one year development time gives an indication that the game was rushed out the door, especially since it was basically a whole new engine. Regardless, I think Miyamoto handled the game fine, he took elements that actually worked and trashed the rest, that is all Zelda fans needed. If the game was so brilliantly designed someone else would have mimicked the design, yet no one really did, the game died and led the way to a brilliant title in LTTP.

BTW just for reference purposes here is Miyamotos exact quote (At the very least it indicates that they were going through the motions when creating the game)

Quote
It was my idea, but the actual game was developed by another team, different people to those that made the first game. Compared to Legend of Zelda, Zelda II went exactly what we expected... All games I make usually gets better in the development process, since good ideas keep coming, but Zelda II was sort of a failure...

Zelda II was not much different from Simon's Quest, Symphony of the Night, and other Metroidvanias, in that it was sort of a Metroid-esque experience with RPG elements. The only differences being you had the aforementioned random encounters (which were at least visible) an overhead map (which was also done in Commander Keen and the Japanese-only Konami Famicom release Getsufuu Maden, and those didn't have any RPG elements to begin with), and multiple lives. There are admittedly blemishes, such as pits of death, but that could be fixed by returning to either the room entrance Link was at or the last block of land he was on with a small life penalty, like in subsequent Zeldas. They could also flesh out exploration, item and NPC elements. So to say that the Zelda II concept couldn't be more greatly realized is a bald faced lie.

And if you considered the random battles, which you had a chance of avoiding at the very least, tedious, stay far, far away from the Pokemon games. At least Zelda II had a very engaging battle system.

That last quote suggests IMO is that Miyamoto wasn't really around to see it through the way he did for the predecessor. He said this, IIRC at a later date:

Quote
Link's Adventure... if we were to just bring it out again, it wouldn't be enough fun. It's a little rough around the edges, isn't it? The Disk System had certain limitations and if we were using the cartridge format it would have been better. You know, the American version is improved. It would be great if we were to give the American version of Link's Adventure to Japan, but... [shrugs]. Even among our staff, they love Link's Adventure.

And I meant Ninja Gaiden for the NES, which as much as I loved, could also be considered cheap here and there. And you didn't really give any specific reasons why Zelda II is "difficult for the sake of being difficult".

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: cartman414
Link's Adventure... if we were to just bring it out again, it wouldn't be enough fun. It's a little rough around the edges, isn't it? The Disk System had certain limitations and if we were using the cartridge format it would have been better. You know, the American version is improved. It would be great if we were to give the American version of Link's Adventure to Japan, but... [shrugs]. Even among our staff, they love Link's Adventure.

And I meant Ninja Gaiden for the NES, which as much as I loved, could also be considered cheap here and there. And you didn't really give any specific reasons why Zelda II is "difficult for the sake of being difficult".

I don't believe I said Zelda II was difficult for the sake of being difficult, I think it is poorly designed which makes it difficult. Now what are these design flaws? Oh perhaps the random battles later on that throw a buttload of enemies at your, which will more than likely hit you. Could it also be the ridiculously poor sword distance? Or maybe it is the cheap "throw you back" when you get hit which I never liked in a game? Or perhaps it is the button smashing battles such as with Ironknuckle which weren't fun nor innovative. This may not be a difficulty flaw but what about the lame "cheap" glitches to kill some of the bosses, like the final one.

Not much different from CV or Metroid? You are kidding right? The design in those games alone beats this one with the ugly stick, not to mention that the "Metroidish" segments are only a part of the game, it has more in its goofy design including the thrown together "random" battles. In regards to random battles and Pokemon, that game is an RPG whose staple is random battles, Zelda II didn't know what it wanted to be, there is a difference.

Anyway I can say I was wrong about Zelda II, it isn't above average it is average to below average! The game is flat out terrible in places, I just played a couple hours of it and see little to nothing redeemable about it (now I know why I never liked it). Text conversations are snore inducing as you wait for them to finish, fighting is simple and stupid (As stated earlier the Iron knuckles are hilariously dumb to fight, down jab, up jab, down jab, up jab really fast), over world map is generic and cramped, level design is generic with little to no variety (Where are all the great puzzles? Where are the distinguishable landmarks? Above all else why does every room look the same in a dungeon?), it is a grind fest, random battles suck being more tedious than fun, item variety is pretty lame in comparison to other Zelda games, and the leveling system is ridiculous. So yeah I would say I have some legitimate reasons for not liking the game (I also found the music nauseating, you can tell it did not have Zelda's lead composer).
 

[that Baby guy]

Both of you!  Stop quoting each other.  You make my computer screen scream out with the pain!

Look, you're both arguing at each other.  I don't even care to know what about, but it doesn't need a messes of quotes like that.  Please, just stop it.  Add your 2 cents in each message, but don't show us the dollar you're adding to.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Quote
Originally posted by: cartman414

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Quote
Originally posted by: cartman414

Quote
Except OOT was never referred to as a failure but the creator, and was a mishmash of different genres, alot of which was dumped in later installations.

You're going on a bit of a tangent there. I said that OoT had flaws of its own.

Anyways, I believe Miyamoto regarded it as a failure in how the design process went, which is somewhat understandable given the changes that were made from the Japanese version over to the English version (i. e. the stat levels originally resetting to whatever the lowest level was). And it was pretty successful as a genre mashup.

Quote
There are legitimate design flaws in Zelda II that cause people to dislike it, and yes some of it makes the game artificially hard and cheap

Many of which were reminiscent of that era of gaming. Beyond that, care to elaborate upon any so that I may respond on a piece by piece basis? There were things here and there that could have been changed, but it's still no harder than say, Ninja Gaiden, and definitely not any of the G'n'G games.

Quote
Also I wouldn't consider there being nothing like it out there being like it a praise, that usually means there is a reason why it was never imitated.

Only fathomable reason was because they wrongly assumed it was not worth revisiting, which it very much was. The potential for evolution was huge, and yet wasted.

Actually I didn't say it was in comparison to NG or G n G games (Personally I don't care much for either series and I do think many NES games had lazy design flaws to make them cheap so I don't disagree with that either), regardless my focus is not on how hard it was but flaws that made it hard, there is a difference. Take for example Ninja Gaiden for Xbox 360, the game is quite challenging yet it is well designed (well except for that nasty camera). Hardness should not be the focus but how the game is designed. Zelda II felt like an experiment,one that fell into the nasty void of not knowing what it wanted to be, it had tedious random battles, mixed with leveling, mixed with platforming, mixed with lives. The reason why the game was not revisited is because it wasn't that popular and was not that well received by fans of the original game.

So you love the game? Great for you, but realize the majority do not agree with you, there is much more evidence pointing towards the game being flawed in design, and more importantly its reception since it had a great game in the series before it. You can defend the game all you want, and perhaps you like the stuff that annoys others and disappointed the designer, but the fact remains that your opinion, though you have to fair, with accepting the fact that others may have some good reasons for not liking the game besides it being hard. Perhaps it isn't as clear as I thought, but the one year development time gives an indication that the game was rushed out the door, especially since it was basically a whole new engine. Regardless, I think Miyamoto handled the game fine, he took elements that actually worked and trashed the rest, that is all Zelda fans needed. If the game was so brilliantly designed someone else would have mimicked the design, yet no one really did, the game died and led the way to a brilliant title in LTTP.

BTW just for reference purposes here is Miyamotos exact quote (At the very least it indicates that they were going through the motions when creating the game)

Quote
It was my idea, but the actual game was developed by another team, different people to those that made the first game. Compared to Legend of Zelda, Zelda II went exactly what we expected... All games I make usually gets better in the development process, since good ideas keep coming, but Zelda II was sort of a failure...

Zelda II was not much different from Simon's Quest, Symphony of the Night, and other Metroidvanias, in that it was sort of a Metroid-esque experience with RPG elements. The only differences being you had the aforementioned random encounters (which were at least visible) an overhead map (which was also done in Commander Keen and the Japanese-only Konami Famicom release Getsufuu Maden, and those didn't have any RPG elements to begin with), and multiple lives. There are admittedly blemishes, such as pits of death, but that could be fixed by returning to either the room entrance Link was at or the last block of land he was on with a small life penalty, like in subsequent Zeldas. They could also flesh out exploration, item and NPC elements. So to say that the Zelda II concept couldn't be more greatly realized is a bald faced lie.

And if you considered the random battles, which you had a chance of avoiding at the very least, tedious, stay far, far away from the Pokemon games. At least Zelda II had a very engaging battle system.

That last quote suggests IMO is that Miyamoto wasn't really around to see it through the way he did for the predecessor. He said this, IIRC at a later date:

Quote
Link's Adventure... if we were to just bring it out again, it wouldn't be enough fun. It's a little rough around the edges, isn't it? The Disk System had certain limitations and if we were using the cartridge format it would have been better. You know, the American version is improved. It would be great if we were to give the American version of Link's Adventure to Japan, but... [shrugs]. Even among our staff, they love Link's Adventure.

And I meant Ninja Gaiden for the NES, which as much as I loved, could also be considered cheap here and there. And you didn't really give any specific reasons why Zelda II is "difficult for the sake of being difficult".

I don't believe I said Zelda II was difficult for the sake of being difficult, I think it is poorly designed which makes it difficult. Now what are these design flaws? Oh perhaps the random battles later on that throw a buttload of enemies at your, which will more than likely hit you. Could it also be the ridiculously poor sword distance? Or maybe it is the cheap "throw you back" when you get hit which I never liked in a game? Or perhaps it is the button smashing battles such as with Ironknuckle which weren't fun nor innovative. This may not be a difficulty flaw but what about the lame "cheap" glitches to kill some of the bosses, like the final one.

Not much different from CV or Metroid? You are kidding right? The design in those games alone beats this one with the ugly stick, not to mention that the "Metroidish" segments are only a part of the game, it has more in its goofy design including the thrown together "random" battles. In regards to random battles and Pokemon, that game is an RPG whose staple is random battles, Zelda II didn't know what it wanted to be, there is a difference.

Anyway I can say I was wrong about Zelda II, it isn't above average it is average to below average! The game is flat out terrible in places, I just played a couple hours of it and see little to nothing redeemable about it (now I know why I never liked it). Text conversations are snore inducing as you wait for them to finish, fighting is simple and stupid (As stated earlier the Iron knuckles are hilariously dumb to fight, down jab, up jab, down jab, up jab really fast), over world map is generic and cramped, level design is generic with little to no variety (Where are all the great puzzles? Where are the distinguishable landmarks? Above all else why does every room look the same in a dungeon?), it is a grind fest, random battles suck being more tedious than fun, item variety is pretty lame in comparison to other Zelda games, and the leveling system is ridiculous. So yeah I would say I have some legitimate reasons for not liking the game (I also found the music nauseating, you can tell it did not have Zelda's lead composer).

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Both of you!  Stop quoting each other.  You make my computer screen scream out with the pain!

Look, you're both arguing at each other.  I don't even care to know what about, but it doesn't need a messes of quotes like that.  Please, just stop it.  Add your 2 cents in each message, but don't show us the dollar you're adding to.

What did you say?

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Please, just stop it.  Add your 2 cents in each message, but don't show us the dollar you're adding to.

That's awesome. I must remember that quote.

[cartman414]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixI don't believe I said Zelda II was difficult for the sake of being difficult, I think it is poorly designed which makes it difficult. Now what are these design flaws? Oh perhaps the random battles later on that throw a buttload of enemies at your, which will more than likely hit you. Could it also be the ridiculously poor sword distance? Or maybe it is the cheap "throw you back" when you get hit which I never liked in a game? Or perhaps it is the button smashing battles such as with Ironknuckle which weren't fun nor innovative. This may not be a difficulty flaw but what about the lame "cheap" glitches to kill some of the bosses, like the final one.

The enemy recoil, while at times annoying, wasn't unique to Zelda II, and could be certainly as annoying elsewhere. I do agree about the short sword distance, though it can be overcome to a good extent by mastering the combat. Im' sure there's a saying something along the lines of the weapon not always being everything. And the Ironknuckles were more than "button smashing", which I'll get to in a bit. And the only exploitable glitch involved the final boss.

Quote
Not much different from CV or Metroid? You are kidding right? The design in those games alone beats this one with the ugly stick, not to mention that the "Metroidish" segments are only a part of the game, it has more in its goofy design including the thrown together "random" battles.

Zelda II came at an early age, where memory constraints limited design. This was also the case with Metroid 1. Heck, it wasn't until Super Metroid that they really got it right on that series. And even if Zelda II was simpler in its design, at least it wasn't half as laden in terms of needed backtracking, something which still to an extent is present in the exploration based Castlevanias. (Though it has been fixed in 2d Metroids thanks to nifty shortcuts and high speed powerups such as the Dash Boots.)

Quote
In regards to random battles and Pokemon, that game is an RPG whose staple is random battles, Zelda II didn't know what it wanted to be, there is a difference.

So just because a random encounter results in a non-turn based battle system encounter, that means the game is genre-confused? What about Star Ocean or the "Tales of..." games? Getsufuu Maden, a non-RPG, also had a few visible encounters in one area.

Quote
Anyway I can say I was wrong about Zelda II, it isn't above average it is average to below average! The game is flat out terrible in places, I just played a couple hours of it and see little to nothing redeemable about it (now I know why I never liked it). Text conversations are snore inducing as you wait for them to finish, fighting is simple and stupid (As stated earlier the Iron knuckles are hilariously dumb to fight, down jab, up jab, down jab, up jab really fast), over world map is generic and cramped, level design is generic with little to no variety (Where are all the great puzzles? Where are the distinguishable landmarks? Above all else why does every room look the same in a dungeon?), it is a grind fest, random battles suck being more tedious than fun, item variety is pretty lame in comparison to other Zelda games, and the leveling system is ridiculous. So yeah I would say I have some legitimate reasons for not liking the game (I also found the music nauseating, you can tell it did not have Zelda's lead composer).

Text conversations? You're complaining about single, small blocks of text that you can mostly skip with the push of a button. And from the sound of it, you didn't learn to use the shield properly, or watch their shields, because the Iron Knuckles aren't that bad. It's all about timing and reflexes. I'm not sure I know what you mean by the overworld map being cramped. Zelda I and Metroid were just as repetitive about level design, the latter case a more critical shortcoming given the bigger single area construct. I do understand the gripe about there being a lack of puzzles, though it beat having obtuse and/or badly conceived puzzles (see: Simon's Quest), and the combat kept things interesting for me. As for grind fests with often tedious random battles, let me point you to Pokemon and the first two Final Fantasies, aka Dawn of Souls (GBA) and Origins (PS1). And the leveling system worked pretty well aside from the loss of all present level experience at game over. And the music was fantastic. (If any early Zelda track became nauseating, it was the dungeon music from Zelda 1.)

[GoldenPhoenix]

Let me say it again, I don't care what flaws were common in that day and age, they still are flaws and they hamper gameplay (the recoil was a flaw I've always despised in the NES days). In regards to Metroid, I don't think the game has held up very well, so I would never think of arguing that it is a good example of how to do things. I know how to use the shield, and I know about the Ironknuckles timing, but still it is a button smash battle, not to mention they are only a small example of the game basically being a button smasher. Like I said there are little to no puzzles, the level designs are quite repetitive with no personality, the game ruined what made other Zelda games great, which was fun items/weapons to use, this game they are pretty generic, and the overworld map feels too small and looks like they pasted blah looking textures all over it. Please don't make me repeat this again, Zelda II was genre confused in a bad way, there are some games that blend it well and IMO Zelda II did not.

[cartman414]

Zelda II was only the second game in the series. How could it have necessarily ruined what was early in development, namely the Zelda series? Zelda I and II were different entities. And the only Ironknuckles that gave the sort of problems you speak of were the blue ones. Still beats a room full of blue Darknuts in Zelda I IMO. And again, Zelda I was also pretty repetitive with the dungeon designs, yet people don't seem to mind it there. As far as items go, the spells could be counted as de facto usables. And the overworld this time around was less central to the overall action this time around.

You may think Zelda II wasn't a successful hybrid, which is fine. I personally found it to be a better cross-genre game than many others.

While I'm not defending every little thing Zelda II did, to say there should never be another game in its vein is kind of like saying there should have never been another top-down Zelda. Refinements happen, you know.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: cartman414
Zelda II was only the second game in the series. How could it have necessarily ruined what was early in development, namely the Zelda series? Zelda I and II were different entities. And the only Ironknuckles that gave the sort of problems you speak of were the blue ones. Still beats a room full of blue Darknuts in Zelda I IMO. And again, Zelda I was also pretty repetitive with the dungeon designs, yet people don't seem to mind it there. As far as items go, the spells could be counted as de facto usables. And the overworld this time around was less central to the overall action this time around.

You may think Zelda II wasn't a successful hybrid, which is fine. I personally found it to be a better cross-genre game than many others.

While I'm not defending every little thing Zelda II did, to say there should never be another game in its vein is kind of like saying there should have never been another top-down Zelda. Refinements happen, you know.

Actually Miyamoto said the reason why they went back to the over-head was because of how much better it worked, not to mention people actually gave it a lot of praise (Zelda II never had a good reception even when it was new). In regards to map design, Zelda 1 felt designed, Zelda II's dungeons felt like they were randomly generated or at the very least, rushed. In Zelda 1 you could tell the difference between rooms for the most part (why they ditched the map is another weird thing in Zelda II). Zelda II shared a lot of the same issues Metroid had, which was the repetitive textures, making it hard to tell where you actually were. In regards to my comment on Zelda II ruining things that made Zelda games I was referencing things that have made the series a great series, and what worked to make Zelda I the phenomena it was.

ANYWAY, this is pretty pointless, my only reason for debating this is to defend those of us who dislike Zelda II for reasons other than it is hard. I am sure you can agree that there are some legitimate reasons for not liking the game besides it being hard, and that is all I am trying to show. Personally I put Zelda in the same category as a game I actually loved, which was Rygar, I really enjoyed that game but I can understand why people may hate it because of its gameplay flaws. Personally if I were review a game like Rygar, I'd probably give it no higher than a 6 even if it was one of my favorites, because I can see where it is liking. If I were to review Zelda II I would probably give it a 5 or 6.

[cartman414]

From what I remember, Zelda II had a rather good reception when it debuted. And again, how can you say it ruined what there was after only ONE game? Zelda II went in a different direction, one that was more combat oriented. Personally, after Zelda II, I anticipated a consolidation of both styles of gameplay, which they did to a marginal extent with the side-scrolling segments of Link's Awakening.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: cartman414
From what I remember, Zelda II had a rather good reception when it debuted. And again, how can you say it ruined what there was after only ONE game? Zelda II went in a different direction, one that was more combat oriented. Personally, after Zelda II, I anticipated a consolidation of both styles of gameplay, which they did to a marginal extent with the side-scrolling segments of Link's Awakening.

It did not receive a good reception, which is why Miyamoto went back to the overhead view.

[cartman414]

It didn't necessarily receive a bad reception, just not as good as that of the original.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: cartman414
It didn't necessarily receive a bad reception, just not as good as that of the original.

Well it was bad enough to scrap things and go back to the original formula. Really I think Zelda II was created in a period where Nintendo was trying to cash out on their hit titles with quick releases, Lost Levels comes to mind when it comes to a game that looks rushed out the door (Well at least they had the sense to reuse something that wasn't broke).