I'll say it because it needs to be said and we might as well get it out of the way:

Zelda II is for fans but Kid Icarus is for everyone? WHAT. THE. HELL.

Now we can move on.

Artimus, I agree with you 100%. I really like Zelda II. I guess TYP just didn't feel the same way.

I think TYP's biggest problem with it is that it isn't Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance.

I'm one of the few that actually adores Zelda II. I love the game. I think its battle system is great, and I love the magic casting, too. I wish current, modern Zeldas took upon this style of Zelda gameplay, too. And with Twilight Princess, we're starting to get a bit of that style. Who knows, the next Zelda is going to be so dramatically changed, according to Miyamoto, that we may very well see something so far beyond what Zelda II did for the Zelda series on the NES. I can't wait!

Zelda II is awesome. First Zelda game I got into. Still can't believe I actually beat it in Jr. High.

Is Milon's Secret Castle really so Metroid-like? ¬_¬

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.

---

Please stop bringing up Kid Icarus. I think that game is horrible too, and it is very important to understand that these impressions are written by individual staff members. Seriously, that "free point" simply cannot be applied to my writeup.

I would like to go on record, as I have said before, saying I really enjoy playing Zelda II. Imagine that--recommended for fans actually means some will like the game?! And gamers can enjoy games with a review score of 7? WOW! I am one of the fans the game is recommended for, but I assure you some will not enjoy grinding, or they will not enjoy discovering in Dungeon 6 that they should have been grinding in Dungeon 1. Perhaps some others on staff or in the forums have a different interpretation of "Recommended for Everyone," but I see RfE and RfF ratings as audience, and not quality, assessments.

Hey TYP, moving away from the defense of NWR reviews again, I was just wondering what happened to last week's trivia podcast? Was it cancelled or delayed to this week?

It's off-topic but I will respond. I was on business travel and could not organize a recording session in time. T'was my lack of planning. This week should be live radio trivia.

My take on the opinionated ratings: It works. Just read the talkback thread, and you'll be able to see which games are borderline for several of the games. So far, I have not seen a game that was not heavily talked about in talkback that I didn't 100% agree with the rating about.

I think Kid Icarus is done with. We've heard enough about that. On the Zelda 2 side, I think that there are very mixed opinions. Personally, I think the game is a little too difficult and a little too frustrating to receive the "For Everyone" tag, so I have to agree with TYP on this one. In this case, fans would be anyone who enjoys Zelda or Sidescrollers, which is a pretty broad category. TYP's review implies this to the audience, and gives great reasoning for why it isn't for everyone. Of course, you still should tell what you think about it here, for the readers who might not be familiar with it. Extra perspective never hurts.

What, no games recommended for me?!?!?!

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Smoke39
Is Milon's Secret Castle really so Metroid-like? ¬_¬

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
There's more talk of this on RFN, too.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Smoke39

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
There's more talk of this on RFN, too.

---

No thank you. I prefer reading to listening to people ramble.

---

I've listened to a few episodes and didn't find it particularly interesting.

Gosh, I never thought I'd get mocked EVERY subsequent VC Mondays article for actually liking Kid Icarus...

/sigh.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: IceCold

Quote

---

Link's Awakening (not directed by Miyamoto) really strayed the most as far as I'm concerned.

---

Still the best game ever made.

Grinding in Zelda II isn't as bad as. . . well, pretty much every other game I've ever played that uses experience points. When I was a kid, for reasons I will never be able to explain, I was a total pansy when it came to risking my virtual life in games, and so I leveled up by fighting the absolute weakest enemies that gave experience, two points each, for days' worth of play time. Since then, I've grown a pair and found an easier way. I go through the first temple a few times until I can handle the boss, and then I just go through the game without bothering to grind until I get to the third temple, which is the first to feature an Ironknuckle statue that can spawn an Ironknuckle or a red magic bottle. The Ironknuckle gives plenty of experience points, and the magic bottle means you can use Life magic as much as you need. I still don't max out every stat here, because it's not necessary at this point in the game, and clearing a temple guarantees a level up.

I'm in the level-up-while-it's-cheap camp. Kill them bubbles in the first or second temple. There's a room in the first with four of 'em every time you enter the room.

I love Zelda 2... the best way to level up is to not put back any of the gem things after you beat a boss. Wait until you are around experience level 6, then return to the old dungeons and get free level ups. No sense in wasting the free level up on exp. level 2. Wait until you need a ton of exp. points!

Also: what overworld exploit bug?

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.

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.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Pale
Gosh, I never thought I'd get mocked EVERY subsequent VC Mondays article for actually liking Kid Icarus...

/sigh.

---

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).

---

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

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.

---

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.

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.

---

*Throws some ice-cold water at GoldenPhoenix*

Quote

---

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

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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...

---

Quote

---

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

---

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...

---

---

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... . Even among our staff, they love Link's Adventure.

---

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... . Even among our staff, they love Link's Adventure.

---

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.

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... . 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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

Quote

---

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

---

Failure or not, Zelda II had enough novel ideas in my book to warrant a spinoff series or something. And hey, if the first time was rushed and sent off to an alternate team, then why not try again proper?

Personally I think SMB: the Lost Levels could only be guilty of being too punishing at times. I liked a couple of things, such as warp pipes that sent you backwards. Clearly they were testing the mettle of the more experienced player. And this time, no levels were recycled.

Christ Almighty. GP - When you respond to a post directly above yours, there's absolutely no reason to quote the whole thing. If you want to quote a small portion of a larger message, that's fine (encouraged, even), but don't quote the whole Goddamn thing. There seems to be an interesting conversation going on here, but I'll never know because I can't stand sorting through this crap.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: vudu
Christ Almighty. GP - When you respond to a post directly above yours, there's absolutely no reason to quote the whole thing. If you want to quote a small portion of a larger message, that's fine (encouraged, even), but don't quote the whole Goddamn thing. There seems to be an interesting conversation going on here, but I'll never know because I can't stand sorting through this crap.

---

What about the five hundred times before that?

Quote

---

Originally posted by: 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.

---

Milon's Secret Castle as reviewed by The Angry Video Game Nerd

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/44794.html

WTF Frankenbump