Topic: RetroActive #6 Game Discussion: Zelda II - The Adventure of Link

[Jonnyboy117]

Please discuss Zelda II - The Adventure of Link here.  It's available for 500 Wii Points from Virtual Console in every region.  Any post in this forum thread may be excerpted to be read on Radio Free Nintendo as part of our RetroActive feature.

The current plan is to discuss this game on Episode 148 (immediately before E3) and possibly Episode 150 (immediately after E3).  If the 150th episode celebration plans become elaborate, we may push off a continuation to 151, another special episode in which we all drink Bacardi before and during the recording session.

[Jonnyboy117]

I'm glad we are playing this game, as it motivated me to finally download it for VC. I've played Zelda 2 a few times over the years, never getting too far. It may be my least favorite Zelda game, but I've never disliked it either.

After downloading it last night, I played for about 45 minutes straight and felt very comfortable with it.  The controls, combat, and exploration are less awkward than I remember, or else my accumulated experience with the game is paying off.  The music is quite awesome, though I hate some of the sound effects, like when you start a random battle.  My approach to leveling up is to favor attack power first, then upgrade life when I'm almost dead, and only mess with magic when it's disproportionately cheap compared to the experience I'm getting from local enemies.

[NWR_DrewMG]

I recently started a project to play through all of the console Zelda titles chronologically, and I started this one a week ago, so it's great that you guys picked it.  I've always been partial to this game, if only because I feel like it gets an unfair amount of criticism from people who don't feel it's a real Zelda game.  I think if this game didn't have the word "Zelda" on the front of the box, it would be remembered fondly as an NES gem, not a "black sheep."

As for my progress, I recently just finished the fourth palace, and got the water boots.  The maze that leads to the fourth palace is pretty frustrating, especially when you have to go in there several times - first to get the item you need for the REFLECT spell, and also to go back in for the palace.

The key to leveling up in Zelda 2 is to try to gain a level up right before you finish each palace, so that the "free" level you get for beating the palace is as expensive a gift as possible, so to speak.  After that, I used to just grind in Death Mountain for XP.  The first 4-5 levels come quickly, however after that it slows way down.

I really enjoy the dungeons in this Zelda game, maybe moreso than the first Zelda.  The upthrust and downthrust moves add a whole new dimension to combat, and are a lot of fun to use once you have them.

Great game, better than it's unfortunate reputation.

[TheYoungerPlumber]

This is one of the biggest games from my childhood. I like the first Zelda a lot, but for some reason I have more vivid memories of Zelda II.

Zelda II is a curious hybrid of genres. People ridicule Zelda II for being "different" from the other games in the series, but saying that is rather unfair. It introduced a lot of gameplay mechanics and ideas reprised in later games, such as more elaborate swordplay (you even learn new moves), towns with people you must interact with, and crude trading sequences.

There are definitely some obtuse moments in the towns, and I recall the caves before the final temple being brutal (unless you exploit a quirk of the tile-based overworld), but there's a lot of fun to be had.

Rather strangely, Zelda II provided my first exposure to RPG concepts such as random battles, an overworld distinctly different from towns/dungeons, and magical spells. I'm not sure I even recognized these things as RPG elements as a kid, since I had no other NES games that incorporated such things!

My biggest complaint about this game is the experience points system. First of all, the level-up system is a bit unbalanced. Since you get a "free" upgrade at the end of a temple, and later upgrades are far more expensive, it behooves you to grind at the beginning of the game. (The regenerating bubbles in the first dungeon are my favorite grinding spot.) In fact, if you don't, you'll likely be significantly underpowered at the end of the game. You must also be careful not to waste a freebie by clearing a temple when you almost have enough EXP for the next upgrade.

Interestingly, the worst aspect of the experience point system is largely mitigated by the VC's save state. Although the game has save files, their usefulness is somewhat undermined by the fact that they do not save your experience points. If I didn't plan ahead, I'd wind up having to either leave my NES on or sacrifice my EXP. I'd often commit suicide after a level-up just to save my data. The designers probably liked the idea of losing your experience points with a Game Over, but it was a poor design decision.

[Sundoulos]

My biggest complaint about this game is the experience points system. First of all, the level-up system is a bit unbalanced. Since you get a "free" upgrade at the end of a temple, and later upgrades are far more expensive, it behooves you to grind at the beginning of the game. (The regenerating bubbles in the first dungeon are my favorite grinding spot.) In fact, if you don't, you'll likely be significantly underpowered at the end of the game. You must also be careful not to waste a freebie by clearing a temple when you almost have enough EXP for the next upgrade.

You just reminded me of something.  I think that on subsequent play-throughs of this game, I would always beat the bosses in each temple normally, but I always left the crystals in place until I needed them to reach the final temple.  By end game, I would travel back to each temple and grab the free level-ups to get my final attack, health and experience upgrades.   It was a little tedious, I suppose, but by the end-game, going back through the earlier temples was a bit of a breeze.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Well I'm just going to post once here, no interest in debating Zelda II fans! I really do not like the game, it is game is a mish mash of RPG elements and side scrolling that NONE of it works. The enemy designs are uninspired and the Boss fights weren't that memorable (I did like the dragon boss though). Many reminded me of the lame midget sprites that were Metroid 1 that were used for Kraid and Ridley. Oh yeah the final bosses were terrible as well (come on the blue flying bird freak thing was about as stupid as can be, it didn't even really have any animations beyond flying around and throwing crap

The dungeon designs are pathetic, besides a few palette and color swaps they all look virtually the same with little distinguish each room.  In fact they are so bad that every dungeon looks the same and it is almost impossible to tell where you are, there are no landmarks to go by, just lots of the same. The game is pretty non-linear though like Zelda 2 but that is the only good thing about this mess. Thankfully for future iterations Nintendo took the decent aspects from this game (villager interaction, and a bit of the magic system) and dumped the rest into gaming oblivion. Oh, you also have LIVES in this RPG/Adventure/Mutant freak of a game. No wonder Miyamoto said this game was one of his true failures. It shows that the game was punted out the door with minimal development time not to mention from what I recall it LACKED many of the major team members behind the original, a sure sign of a cash in.

I would say the opposite of what others saying, if it was not a Zelda game it wouldn't have nearly as many supporters. It would be seen as a game with some unique ideas but poor and seemingly rushed execution. There is a reason why Nintendo dropped it like the plague even though it sold pretty well.

[Caliban]

No wonder Miyamoto said this game was one of his true failures.

Source? If true than it just goes to show that Miyamoto isn't the end all be all of gaming.

[TJ Spyke]

Source? If true than it just goes to show that Miyamoto isn't the end all be all of gaming.

http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/230403.shtml

Superplay: The sequel, Zelda II: Adventures of Link was a very different game. Why was this? And why have you never done anything like it again?

Shigeru Miyamoto: 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...

[gojira]

I never owned the NES Zelda games as a kid.  When playing them at friends' houses Zelda II always was more approachable to me.  It's probably because it was more like the other games I played back then (Mario, Castlevania and other side scrolling games.)

When I finally put in some real time into Zelda II years later I still enjoyed it, but never completed it.  Despite liking the game more than many other Zelda games, it's the only one I still haven't beaten to this day.

Now getting the game on VC, I vow to finally beat the game.  So far I'm having a lot of fun and a good deal of frustration.  The way Link controls is very fun.  Running around jumping and attacking in this game has always been great.  But the weird experience/lives/continue system takes some getting used to.  Plus Link's sword has always felt very short.  But fighting the skeletons and knights is very satisfying. 

It wasn't until I read this thread that I realized that you could choose how to level up.  I've never read the manual or a guide, so when your only two options are upgrade or cancel, I always chose upgrade.  That adds a good deal more to the game for me. 

[Caliban]

Source? If true than it just goes to show that Miyamoto isn't the end all be all of gaming.

http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/230403.shtml

Superplay: The sequel, Zelda II: Adventures of Link was a very different game. Why was this? And why have you never done anything like it again?

Shigeru Miyamoto: 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...

Thank you.

"Sort of a failure", call me a Zelda II fanboy, but from what I read he did not say "it was a failure", nor "it was a true failure". Isn't that right GP?

[Mop it up]

My NES is packed away right now so I might play this on the Game Boy Advance.

Zelda II is an example of why companies are afraid to experiment with a beloved franchise, and this was released back before Zelda even was an established franchise. Even to this day people still complain about this game as being a failure. This game was an important step in Zelda game development, as it helped determined which elements worked and which ones didn't. Had this game not existed, something tells me Zelda 3 would have been quite a different game.

This game has the best dungeon music of any Zelda game ever, although that might not be saying much. Most Zelda games released after this tended to have more atmospheric music, which I guess was supposed to set some sort of mood. I find myself preferring the music of old, I guess it helped to get me pumped or something. The remix in Super Smash Brothers Melee would have been awesome if used in a dungeon in The Wind Waker or something.

If Zelda II didn't have the Zelda name, it would become similar to Battle of Olympus, a game which plays a lot like Zelda II: remembered fondly by all who played it as an overlooked gem.

At the end of the day, the worst Zelda game is still better than 80% of all other games.

The dungeon designs are pathetic, besides a few palette and color swaps they all look virtually the same with little distinguish each room. In fact they are so bad that every dungeon looks the same and it is almost impossible to tell where you are, there are no landmarks to go by, just lots of the same.

The first Zelda game was the same way. The only difference was that you had a map, which would have helped for this game.

[Jonnyboy117]

I love Battle of Olympus!  But I haven't played it in many, many years.  I keep hoping that it will resurface for Virtual Console or something similar.

[gojira]

Just a little note: even though it sucks restarting at the castle when you die.  It is kinda nice having a reminder of why you're doing what you're doing in the game.  Usually princesses are taken far far away and it's easy to forget why you're going level to level defeating foes.  And if you've never beaten the game like I have, you feel like Zelda has never woken up.  It's almost as bad as beating Rez and the game tells you 'she' is still locked inside. 

[TheYoungerPlumber]

I've always been amused by how Punch-Out!! for the NES borrowed many of this game's sound effects.

[Mop it up]

That's an interesting piece of trivia.

There is a line in this game's manual that surprised me a bit. In the section which recants the backstory of the game, it says this:

"The key to Ganon's return was the blood of Link - the valiant lad who overthrew the King of Evil. Ganon would be revived by sacrificing Link and sprinkling his blood on the ashes of Ganon."

I know, this is tame compared to the games of today, but in the NES era games weren't even allowed to contain blood. That's why I didn't expect to see it. It seems like game manuals didn't follow the heavy restrictions that the games themselves did...

[Jonnyboy117]

It seems like game manuals didn't follow the heavy restrictions that the games themselves did...

[Sundoulos]

I love Battle of Olympus!  But I haven't played it in many, many years.  I keep hoping that it will resurface for Virtual Console or something similar.

I'll second that notion.  I always thought there were similarities between the two as well.  I was checking out a youtube video on Battle of Olympus, and you can see some obvious similarities between the two games, particularly in the hero's character design and the backgrounds inside the houses.  I think Battle of Olympus was released a little over a year later than Zelda 2 in Japan, and it has aged much, much better.  The game, overall looks more visually interesting than Zelda; that year made a big difference.

I say this because I started my playthrough of Zelda 2 last night.  One thing that struck me: the game's backgrounds and color pallete are far more bland and Spartan than I remember.   I'm far more fond of some of the enemy character sprites, though.  I still think the Goriyas, Stalfos, Ironknuckles (Darknuts), Lizardmen, Bird Knights, etc. look very, very cool.  As a kid, I was so taken with the whole Zelda mythos, that I loved seeing these guys return in this game.

Also, the text seems painfully primative, and the translation is horrible.  For instance, one of the early clues in the first town, Rauru, is misleading.  I believe one of the NPCs say something like, "Get candle in Parapa Palace. Go West."  Well, Parapa palace (and the candle) are both in the east, which leads me to believe that the intended meaning was to go west after  you get the candle.  As a young kid, I wasted a lot of time at the beginning of this game as a kid trying to find where I should go.

Anyway, that interview with Miyamoto is very interesting.  It sounds as if they took one of Miyamoto's original concepts, but that he didn't really have that much say in the final product.  Perhaps at that point in his career, he didn't have the autonomy over projects that he appears to have now.

Still, even if Zelda 2 was "sort of a failure", there are elements from that game that were used in many of the later Zeldas.   The game introduced the Triforce of Courage.  The names of the towns that were used as the names of the Sages in OoT (with the exception of Impa),  one town was also named Mido (the character in Kokori forest in OoT).   The reflective shield (only implemented as a spell here) was used later on as the mirror shield in various sequels.  Last but not least, this is the first use of Link's shadow as a boss character.  I was actually disappointed that Link's Shadow was the FINAL boss in Zelda 2, especially after they teased the return of Ganon in the manual and the game.  I suppose that this made more narrative sense since this was more of a personal quest for Link, and he had to face his "dark side" in order to obtain the Triforce of Courage.  There are probably others, but I can't think of them right now.

[Jonnyboy117]

I think this is easily the hardest Zelda game.  I've had to continue a few times already, which really does suck since your experience resets to zero.  Still, I have gained at least one level on each continue, so it's not like I'm spinning my wheels.  Just beat the second temple; now I'm exploring that maze of caves.  I can't wait to find the hammer so I can take some shortcuts on the world map.

[Sundoulos]

I haven't played this game in years;  I died twice last night while attempting to level up...even before even making it to the first palace.  This, in part, is probably because I'm just not used to games with this level of difficulty anymore.  By the time I made it to the palace, I think I found my rhythm again.

By the way, I hate the enemies that steal your experience when they hit you.  I had forgotten about that.

One of the things that I do enjoy about the game is the swordplay, though.  As gojira mentioned, battling some of the foes, such as the Stalfos and Ironknuckles, are a lot of fun.  I think it even gets better once you learn the upward and downward stab moves.

P.S. - The game is rather hard.  There's a lot I don't remember about the game, but I do remember that the final palace was really difficult, as is the final trek to get there.

[TheYoungerPlumber]

I like how this game retains some flexibility in terms of the order in which you do things, in spite of its linear nature. For example, if you're daring you can explore some caves reasonably well before you get the candle, and you can trek for the hammer before or after the second temple.

[Mop it up]

It seems like game manuals didn't follow the heavy restrictions that the games themselves did...

There's another example, although that one really surprised me. Even today you don't often see that sort of thing in a videogame.

Also, the text seems painfully primitive, and the translation is horrible.  For instance, one of the early clues in the first town, Rauru, is misleading.  I believe one of the NPCs say something like, "Get candle in Parapa Palace. Go West."  Well, Parapa palace (and the candle) are both in the east, which leads me to believe that the intended meaning was to go west after  you get the candle.  As a young kid, I wasted a lot of time at the beginning of this game as a kid trying to find where I should go.

Ha ha, I love the poor text in this game, it's hilarious. I remember I always had trouble remembering which directions east and west were, and because of this game I had east and west mixed up for years. I still don't always get it right...

My favourite line is "When all else fails, use fire." True words of wisdom right here folks. I also like that guy who says "I am Error."

I like how this game retains some flexibility in terms of the order in which you do things, in spite of its linear nature. For example, if you're daring you can explore some caves reasonably well before you get the candle, and you can trek for the hammer before or after the second temple.

I once tried to complete the game without ever getting the candle, but I didn't get very far. There's no way to get past that maze of caves unless you've perfectly memorized each and every one.

[adadad]

I really enjoyed Zelda 2 when I was playing it back in 2007, as I said in the earlier thread I had more fun with this than with Twilight Princess due to its different mechanics and challenging but fun combat. Unfortunately I don't have access to a Wii or NES so I can't play along this time, but I was wondering, can you guys tell me how far into the game I was and some idea of how much there is to go after that till the end? I never had a sense of how much there really was to do or how lengthy the quest would be and I'm quite curious.

I got the candle and hammer and finished the exploration of the caves in the south west...and I remember a task involving looking for a hidden place in a graveyard, but after that I don't think I had gotten to a subsequent temple.

The NPC interaction stuff is needlessly complicated due to the poor translation so that aspect I found surprisingly difficult, a complete contrast to the overly cloying usage of coloured text to indicate a message of significance in the 3D Zeldas. Wish they would find a compromise between these two extremes.

The temples were generally quite enjoyable, I love the statues at the entrance, I seem to remember they'd give you health most of the time when you attacked them but once the statue came to life and attacked? Would really like to play this again. Of course the music is fantastic which really helps the fun gleaned from the dungeons, but it's more than that. It was talked about on RFN about how Zelda was made for 3D before it was technically feasible, but in this case I feel the 2D approach Zelda 2 took lends itself to an entirely different form for the dungeons that disposes with that line of thought - I don't find this game to anticipate 3D. The 2D scrolling screen makes these dungeons feel far more like Metroid or Prince of Persia than what would now be called Zelda. This is because the modern 3D Zeldas greatly take advantage of their extra dimension and dungeons are a linear set of rooms, each generally a self contained puzzle or event with an occasional manipulation of a central mechanism in the hub of a level (Water temple in OOT). Zelda 2 is bound by its lack of items and reliance on combat instead of environmental puzzles, and navigating the dungeon feels more engaged with the RPG and action elements of its DNA, RPG-like grinding and combat, as opposed to the puzzle/adventure aspects which became more prevalent in more recent years. The layout of dungeons is also altered too, and I mentioned Metroid earlier because of the side scrolling dimensions meaning rooms can only have four possible exits (left to right, right to left, or lifts going up or down) and the difference in perspective necessitate a lack of complexity in layout and add the need to backtrack. Backtracking, whilst kept down to an extent, is far more prevalent here than with the overhead perspective. Similarly the repetition of graphics in the backrounds etc. and the abundance of enemy encounters (resulting in a scarcity of architectural uniqueness) makes navigational memory a pertinent tool to get through the dungeons. Sharply at ends with the traditional notions of seeking out the map and compass in order to gain advance knowledge of notable locations in a dungeon, i.e. the boss' lair.

Anyway I guess I'm taking a long time to get to a short point; overall I enjoyed the differently emphasised gameplay aspects in this game to other Zeldas, but that doesn't by any means make it a great game, yet such a departure inevitably has repercussions beyond merely the limited scope of the game itself for the series as a whole. Significant without being magnificent. For this alone I feel it deserves praise as I'm sure many are with me in agreement that there is a staleness to the Zelda series due to its predictability.

I find it interesting that the discussion in this thread has addressed the flexibility of linearity in the game, and there's a parallel with the game in its context as a member of the Zelda club, as I found that coming at this game after experiencing the monotony of the series as a whole since Link to the Past notarises its differentiating factors - note that I'm only saying this in reference to certain recurring tropes, most notably the dungeons, as they form a sizeable bulk of each game's content. Link's Awakening was my first and consequently most enjoyable Zelda for me personally, and all further entries with the exception of the mild kick in the balls jolt of the third dimension continued along the same tropes predictably mechanically and structurally despite a number of aesthetic and cosmetic changes. Coming to Zelda 2 in 2007 after the establishment of the series as a whole is what makes this whole retroactive discussion so worthwhile. Suddenly the precedent for a different approach to dungeons, to an overworld, to combat, to life and death and to perspective is set in stone and stands to me as a great source of potential for the future.

How does this game stand to impact upon the future of the Zelda series and the next entry in the series? Does the promise of change and the roughness of Zelda 2 suggest a refinement of its core mechanics might be in the works? Too drastic some might say, but look what a shift in emphasis did for the Resident Evil series.

Ok that's enough soliloquising.

[Jonnyboy117]

"I am Error." is not a translation error; that character becomes important later, and he is still called Error by another character. I suspect it was a programmer's joke more than anything.

adadad's mention of dungeons comprising the bulk of most Zelda games made me realize something.  In Zelda II, you spend as much time in caves as you do the temples (dungeons).

[Mop it up]

Adadad, it's interesting to read the impressions of someone who has played this game long past its prime.

Here's another interesting tidbit from the manual (no I haven't started playing the game yet): It states that the save battery will last for five years. It's been about twenty years now and my copy still holds saves. You gotta love how conservative Nintendo is with their numbers.

"I am Error." is not a translation error; that character becomes important later, and he is still called Error by another character. I suspect it was a programmer's joke more than anything.

I know, I didn't say it was a translation problem, just that I think it's funny. The other line I mentioned isn't a mistranslation either, it just sounds humourous as a piece of wisdom.

I'm not sure if the time you spend in caves and temples is a 50/50 split, because most temples seem larger than the caves you trek though before them. But there's definitely a lot of cave dwelling in the game. Maybe they should have called it The Legend of Zelda: Spelunker of Time.

[NWR_DrewMG]

adadad, it sounds to me like you were between temples 2 and 3, out of 7 total.  You were probably about 30-35% of the way through the game. 

I've now gotten all of the magic and health containers, leveled up to 7-8-8, and am headed into the 6th palace.  Really enjoying this, more than I even expected to considering I played through it as recently as 2006.