Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (1987)

To start, I did not get very far at all in Zelda 2 and usually wouldn't give it a star rating because of that but it seems like that's a mandatory field for this review so my experience so far with the game is 1.5 / 5 Stars.

I played up to and beat the first castle/dungeon and there were definitely moments of joy but the obtuse nature of the world, the actual pure luck needed to find anything without an explicit guide, and the totally unfair difficulty are why I'm not going any farther into this title, especially after reading about a difficulty spike coming up.

I could see this working for some hardcore NES players but although I like a lot of titles from that era I'm not that. I was pleasantly surprised how well the first game held up, but this one didn't in my opinion.

2/20 Zelda titles played

Released in 1987 in Japan and 1988 in North America, it dared to stray far from the top-down exploration of its predecessor, plunging players into a side-scrolling action-RPG Frankenstein. This radical shift, caused the game’s infamous reputation to start.

Instead of simply doing the first game again, producer Shigeru Miyamoto and director Takashi Tezuka were influenced by the growing popularity of RPGs and side-scrolling action games.

The inclusion of towns, NPCs, and a more elaborate storyline further distinguished Zelda II from its predecessor.

The legendary

• The game has an awesome soundtrack that is still popular to this day. One example is the battle theme, which features a rapid and intense beat that is short but never gets annoying. And the best of them all, the Great Temple theme, this song is masterfully crafted and has been remixed for Smash Brothers.

• The game’s plot is arguably better than the original game because it has actual lore. The game opens with Link learning of a sleeping curse that has befallen the original Princess Zelda, a princess who predates the one he rescued in the first game. This princess was placed under a sleeping spell by a wizard who failed to obtain the Triforce of Courage. Link embarks on a quest to unlock the Triforce of Courage, the missing piece of the Triforce, and awaken the sleeping princess. At the same time, the survivors of Ganon’s army are trying to kill him so they can resurrect Ganon using Link’s blood.

• The combat system is well made. In the first game, there weren’t many movement options nor many ways to attack enemies, only sword, bomb, arrow, wand. Here? You can use magic to boost your defense, jump higher, shoot fire, create a lightning storm, you can plunge, enemies block your attacks, etc.

The bad

• The game is unforgivably unfair. It is a game that demands patience, precision, and a willingness to endure repeated failures. The game's limited lives system, combined with the "Game Over" screen that sends players back to the starting point with all your levels saved but your experience back to 0. One wrong move, one mistimed jump, and minutes if not hours of progress can be lost; the first game did this too but it wasn’t this unfair because here every single fight is an ambush, you will fight up to four enemies of different kinds and strategies, and most of the time running away is impossible.

• It provides minimal guidance due to hardware limitations and short dialogue. This can lead to aimless wandering.

• While the leveling system adds depth, it can also feel like a grind. It’s a trap, it leads to repeatedly fighting enemies to gain experience points, which can become tedious. Also leveling up magic barely improves the cost of spells, they barely reduce at all. Only attack and hp does increase a lot. Some enemies even steal experience or give you no points.

• It’s stupidly easy to soft lock yourself by running out of magic. You fell down and have no magic left to jump or use fairy? Quit the game, you are not getting out.

• The sword range is horrible, you will easily miss most of your attacks. It should have had double the sword range to make the game fair.

Conclusion

It's a game that, despite its numerous flaws and often infuriating difficulty, it was needed. While its side-scrolling action-RPG approach was a radical departure from the original, it laid the groundwork for future iterations of the series and introduced elements that would become staples in later games.

It is not for everyone, those who are willing to embrace its challenges and delve into its mysteries will find a rough diamond, a very rough one. It’s a game that you will either love or hate, and very few people are in between.

I had this back in the day as a kid and did not get far before handing it back to my dad. I assume he must have sold it. Many years later I tried to play it blind and ended up in the death mountain maze at very low level without completing any dungeons; it was not a fun time. Now I have finally finished the game. I can't remember if it was the same playthrough where I went to death mountain, but I started off in the first dungeon, at the candle, with a few levels up and 1 hit from death. I referred to a walkthrough as I played after I had completed an area, to see if I missed anything, and a few times to remind me what to do next.

This game was brutally difficult. The default game speed on my emulator was unmanageable so I set a button to toggle slow motion 25 frames per second, which made the combat fun instead of frustrating. I felt quite a lot of satisfaction when I pulled off some badass move, or defeated a powerful enemy without getting hit. I did enjoy the simple combat mechanics: automatic blocking as long as he was not attacking, high and low guard/attacks, dive stabs, jump attacks, and jump upwards thrusts. They really pushed these mechanics to the limit with the enemy design, especially the enemies who could block and attack both low and high. Those battles were very nuanced with the back and forth guarding while trying to sneak a hit in. On one hand they were impressive design but on the other they were annoyingly difficult, especially the late types that threw projectiles or had weapons that could not be blocked. The ones in the final dungeon that jumped around were extremely difficult. I found I really had to take my time and focus on defense; button mashing was a quick way to game over. Early on I fought them toe to toe, while a bit later I mastered the jump attack, though the end game forms were too dangerous to try jumping. The final boss even used this mechanic and I found him too fast even on slow motion mode. The only way I could hit him was by hiding in the corner and low attacking while he jumped. The other bosses had good mechanics and were not too difficult. By the end I was max level and a little over half way to the 9000 to get a free life. I never lost any lives because I made sure to save state scum as needed. A few times I grinded enemies for xp before getting the free level up at the end of a dungeon, or to get magic drops for healing. Shield and heal were my most used spells. Jump, fly and reflect were occasionally used in situations where I did not need to use them, and the offense magic I only used if absolutely required.

I did not mind the side scrolling; it made this game feel a lot like Metroid, Castlevania and Mario, even if Link and platforming do not really go hand in hand. I did not mind the rpg mechanics, random overworld battles, and the arbitrary fetch quests. It felt like they took many features from the most popular games of the time and wanted to see what would happen by combining them. There were 3 major flaws in the game. The biggest flaw to me was the lack of maps for dungeons, though Metroid had the same problem. This game really needed the maps of its predecessor to help with exploration. The second flaw was the difficulty, which I think could have been fixed by allowing any enemy to randomly drop health on defeat. I really liked how powerful enemies did not respawn until after leaving a dungeon, but it would have been nice to have the option the grind weak enemies for hp. Magic drops and the heal magic kind of accomplished this, but not during the early game where it was sorely needed. The third flaw was the penalty for game over and saving, neither of which I had to suffer through. Surely there did not need to be an xp penalty, especially just for having to stop playing. Checkpoints at each dungeon and maybe even each boss would have been good too. Despite the good design for some parts of the game, these flaws really hold the game back.

6.5/10

I was excited to start playing the Redux romhack of this hoping it would make it more playable...and it did, but only for a short while. I completed the first palace and kinda enjoyed it. Then moved onto progessing through the overworld, got stuck, and pulled out a guide. OK, that's fine as long as I don't need to constantly refer to it.

Got to a platforming part and kept falling into the water and eventually restarted at Hyrule Castle. OK, let's just use cheats so I have infinite lives and don't have to go through everything again on game over (didn't feel much like a cheat).

Traveling the overworld comes with many random encounters which are only good for grinding/leveling. Checking the cheats list...ahh yes, disable random encounters.

I get to a cave which leads to another cave which leads to many caves. And of course they're all full of enemies that suck your health away. Roll out the next cheat for infinite health (temporarily). Also using fast-forward feature to zoom through the caves maze, but I still can't find the exit unless I look up the guide.

Do I want to play through the game like this? I think this is one Zelda game I won't beat (sorry, don't got time for it and doesn't feel like I'm playing using all these workarounds). I appreciate that Nintendo tried combining aspects of Zelda, Mario, and RPGs, but I'm not a fan of the mix and prefer my traditional Zelda.

Did you know there are two Zeldas? One that was rescued from Zelda 1, and one that's an ancestor that's been sleeping for many years. Maybe that's why it's called Zelda 2.

After a very lovely playthrough of The Legend of Zelda, I moved on to Zelda II and I've finally managed to play it all the way to the end! Prior to this playthrough, Zelda II: The Adventure of Link was the only mainline Zelda game that eluded me. I think I had reached as far as the Island Palace in past playthroughs, but I had never beaten it completely.

I never thought it was a bad game, but I never considered it a masterpiece either. While it loses some of the charm of the original by adopting a side-view perspective, it also improves on a lot of other things. The combat is much more satisfying and has unlockable spells and moves that keep things interesting. The towns that dot the world of Zelda II make Hyrule feel closer to a real fantasy world, rather than the desolate wasteland portrayed in the first game.

At the same time, it always felt like a one step forward, two steps back situation. The semi-random encounters of the world map take the danger of the first Zelda and turn it into annoyance. The leveling system feels like an empty addition. The linear progression through the world gives the game more structure at the cost of the original's addictive wanderlust. Without maps and compasses, navigating dungeons becomes a painful chore.

But finishing the game is what really shows its problems. Zelda II has by far the least interesting selection of items out of any Zelda. Because of that, Zelda II relies too much on its combat, which unfortunately doubles down on a lot of the most frustrating aspects of the first Zelda. The game's later dungeons are filled to the brim with annoying enemies with erratic attacks that are hard to avoid. The blue Iron Knuckles and all the variants of the Fokka were so frustrating that they almost made me quit the game.

Much like with my playthrough of the first Zelda, I wanted to complete this game without consulting any walkthroughs. Unfortunately, I found myself hopelessly stuck in two spots: finding the lost child on Maze Island and finding the location of New Kasuto, so I had to look for help. Despite the introduction of friendly villagers that give hints, there were times where Zelda II felt more cryptic and confusing than the first game.

There were some cool moments, like the fight against Dark Link, and Barba/Volvagia, but overall, my opinion of Zelda II has suffered from this playthrough. Unlike the first game, Zelda II has aged pretty badly, and it's easy to see why few of its gameplay concepts have survived in modern Zelda games. I find it to be completely unplayable without the liberal use of Save States and/or a Rewind feature, and even with those, it's still not very fun after the novelty of its unique gameplay (Within Zelda) wears off.

Okay, so I can't declare this the worst Zelda game yet. On my quest to play every mainline Zelda game, I still have A Link to the Past to go. But that game is so beloved I really don't think it will land in last place.

This is definitely a very unique Zelda game, which is probably why so many hate it and so many love it. To me, having a one of a kind side-scrolling 2D Zelda game actually makes it more endearing. I can see why someone would hate that upon release. When a series is that young, most people just want more of what the first beloved game delivered. Looking back on a 35 year old series now though, a game that manages to stick out is a bit of a hidden gem.

It's also obnoxiously hard. Stupidly hard. The kind of difficult that makes any modern gamer (myself included) find ways to cheese it, including abusing save states. The kind of hard that makes older gamers look at any gamer younger than 30 and go "Haha kids these days are so bad at video games. Back in my day..."

Overall, the worst Zelda game is still pretty fun. The side scrolling combat was really well implemented and a lot of fun. There's a lot more strategy and timing to it than simply looking at an enemy and pressing attack. I also really enjoyed the spell system. Magic meter management and deciding when and when not to use spells was a fun little strategic mini game. Actually leveling up was an interesting RPG mechanic that I never thought I'd really see in a Zelda game. I could take that or leave it though. Didn't love it. Didn't hate it.

A surprisingly disappointing aspect of this game though was its presentation. It's kind of bland. Zelda games almost always have fun, beautiful worlds and a charming art style. This isn't a case of dated graphics. I don't mind 8-bit graphics and the first game certainly had that classic visual charm. The overworld is incredibly grid-like with a very stiff animated Link. In 2D, all the environments looked incredibly similar and just ended up being endlessly repeating brick patterns with an occasional window being the only other background detail.

The dungeons themselves also weren't nearly as fun as the dungeons in the original. When I think about it, the combat is really the only area of this game that excels, but it's fun enough and the game is short enough that it kind of carries the game.

Look: 8/10 Much more engaging graphics than the first one, even some cute graphics like the little kids in towns and the old ladies. It's silly they didn't include a visual for the shield so it's clear when it's up (though thankfully it becomes clear--and very useful--when you have your shield up: btw for new players, you even have it up while moving, just not while attacking). Sword's range was not clear, but again you learn that in the nuances of the gameplay. The ending graphics were quite disappointing, so the overall visual atmosphere didn't excel at any point (except perhaps the Dark Link fight scenario). Still, ahead of its time, some remarkable parts, and some fun graphics.

Sound: 8/10 Repetitive as they ended up being, I actually engaged with the audio at parts, which is a huge improvement from the last game (and a rare occasion for any NES game). I even got chills from a few tracks, namely the dungeon track.

Play: 8/10 I have to admit I enjoyed learning the tricks to the clunkiness; it was oddly addicting for how poorly designed and frustrating it often was. Even though I didn't feel the urge to replay the game right away, I still kept wanting to play the game--to the point that I still haven't started Dragon Warrior II at all (the RPG I was supposed to play simultaneously with this one). This would earn a 9 because of this, but it's just so darn glitchy and poorly designed at parts. The way you use spells, the way you pick up items sometimes just walking on them sometimes having to slash them, etc. Perhaps it was the nostalgia for when I used to play this at my grandparents', but I definitely found myself addicted to the game despite these obvious faults. I think I would have enjoyed it more when I was young if I had understood the importance of and functioning of the leveling system, since I love grinds. I wish they allowed for even more grinds. The battles definitely got more repetitive and frustrating near the end of the game, but it still was short and sweet enough that I can earnestly say I enjoyed all of the game. The second quest concept was kind of silly, but hypothetically I would've loved that as a kid if I didn't already grind to maximum or wanted to try a different path to completion.

Feel: 8/10 Despite its faults, there's just something special about the game. I felt the urge to play and the classic feels more during this one than the first. Again, that could have to do with my nostalgia, which this one does a better job or accruing imo (love the title screen). I also love that there is a grinding aspect to the game--not just collect power-ups, etc. It's a healthy balance of power-ups and leveling. I love how in towns the NPCs come out of hosues and you can sometimes convince them to let you in. I also like the simplicity of the storyline, as basically nonexistent as it is. I loved the Dark Link ending. Albeit incredibly clunky, the game kept drawing me back to learn the clunkiness, glitches, and design flaws to get past parts. The link doll mechanic and save game mechanic were quite silly (thank God for savestates). Ironic that Zelda 1, the earlier game, had a better save/lives mechanic. While a flawed and often frustrating game, it has a classic, addictive charm with a challenge that is brutal but--with a guide and savestates--oddly enjoyable and engaging.

Attachment: 9/10 Even though I don't see myself replaying this any time too soon, I have indeed played this multiple times, and finished it to 100% at least once. I could see myself replaying this some day for sure. So far, indeed, it is my favorite of the classic Zeldas I have played/replayed. So, despite its faults, I can't deny the nostalgia I have for this game, enjoying the overall vibe and addictive difficulty of trying to overcome tough parts.

Well, I liked the first game in Zelda series, but Zelda II was probably one of the most frustrating experience in my gaming life.

The difficulty there is so punishing that I barely beat it with quicksaves after every enemy. I can't imagine anyone, who could possibly beat it back in the days without any cheats. It just ruined the whole game for me, I've just suffered for the entire game.

I'll try to forget it as a bad dream and move on to better Zelda games.

The only reason you should play this game is if you are a perfectionist like me and want to have beaten every single Zelda game. And even then, do not attempt this without a walkthrough and some sort of emulator that allows you to rewind or use save states. I played it on the Switch, and that's the only reason I did not put a hole in my TV.

This game was released a mere 11 months after the original title. You can tell they really just wanted to capitalize on the success of The Legend of Zelda by getting the sequel out there as quick as possible, and in their rush, they dropped what made the game great (exploration) and kept what made the game annoying (the punishment of completely restarting when you made a mistake). I don't want to go into too much detail on this, but the combat was punishingly difficult at times, and the things you had to do to progress the story were completely ridiculous. Like seriously, do not even bother attempting this without a walkthrough.

One tip though: the game is a million times easier if you take some time in the first palace to grind and level up your sword. As you can see from the screenshot, I couldn't even make it to the second palace without constantly dying. I restarted and spent a morning grinding it out in the first palace; I think I got it to level 5 before I left. I died fewer times in the entire second playthrough than I did in the first hour of the first one.

A quick word on the story (spoilers ahead): it makes no sense / is completely non-existent. Like, you can tell they spent the entire 11 months hiding progression items rather than thinking of a reason Link should be on his adventure. Despite the constant threat of Ganon returning (as you are reminded every time you get a game over), he is not in the game. You spend your whole time putting McGuffins--sorry, crystals--into palaces, just to open some so-called Great Palace, where apparently a friendly wizard was waiting patiently for you to come prove yourself against your own shadow so he could just hand over the Triforce. You then save Princess Zelda. How utterly and pathetically stupid.

Despite all this, it actually was kind of fun sometimes. So it can have two stars.

Grouvee Horrible Hundred #68: Zelda II: The Adventure of Link


It's Zelda II, it's Zelda II!
My excitement grew of a Legend anew.
its gotta be good, don't have to be new
No mag dares slam Nintendo in their review.

I started out trying to play this legit but got tired of that real quick. Let me say without a doubt... THIS game is annoying without emulator tricks! And by the end of it all I was absolutely baffled how anyone could get through such a game.

It's impossible to argue it's a well designed game and should be played out-of-the-box like this because there are some definite oversights... some that make the game easier some that make it harder. It's also a whole lot longer than I had expected it to be. I expected a day, it took me three!

But it ain't bad in its own right, its just extremely up there in both terms of difficulty and janky awkwardness. Compare this game to something similar on the system (maybe Faxanadu) or the J-ARPG genre (Popful Mail, Dragon Slayer, etc) and the accessibility of this one is way below the belt for Nintendo (An EAD title no less!)

I also watched a youtube vid demonstrating the FDS version differences (The origianl reason I was considering picking it up actually) and there were a few things, but overall minor. The difficulty is a bit easier on that version in some ways but you still have some of the same problems on both versions.

It's crazy to think that people did actually finish this game... But it seems that people actually do, (or claim to). I myself had only played about maybe 2-3% of the game from long ago, and actually expected that to be typical. And while it's not unusual for many NES games to be experienced on such a small scope that just doesn't seem befitting of a Zelda game.

Due to the nature of losing progress and how VERY easy it is to miss arbitrary puzzles that gate your progress, this would be a terrible experience to try and play blind only to get lost and continuous roam and repeat endlessly. The experience is overall a little dry, and paces slow, but I found it an okay ride and nice time when reading along with a decent guide side-by-side as its played (I used the one and ZeldaDungeon.net). The problem is, this sort of thing can't be something most people ever enjoyed. Maybe Zelda II is one reason we did not see but a handful of side scrolling J. ARPG's released in the West. Yet this one that Nintendo brought us is probably one of the more inaccessible ones that were actually localized and released for US. It's flaws are also not inherently a result of either localization or being ported from the FDS. I would posit that for this reason, Zelda II rightfully earns its place in the Grouvee Horrible Hundred.

Make no mistake. Zelda 2 is hard. Really, really fucking hard. It's easy to think the game is deliberately working against you, and it often seems like it is. It's hard to fill up on life when you get low, which is about as easy to do as breathing, and the screen will fill up with infinitely generating enemies. Make not another mistake: Zelda 2 is a bullet hell game. Oh, and when you lose all your lives, you go back to the START. You lose all your experience (you keep your levels though), and you start back at Hyrule Castle. Even if you were two steps away from the Great Palace, you go back to square one of the game. The only time this doesn't happen is if you die at the last dungeon, in which you go back to the start of the dungeon. Why didn't the other dungeons in this game do this?

Because of the difficulty, that stops me giving it five stars, because I did genuinely enjoy playing it even with a walkthrough. I didn't feel like suffering through endless runs from Hyrule Castle. It's a hell of a choice for a first-time Zelda, so I'd only recommend it to Zelda fans or gamers who enjoy hard-ass games. Use a walkthrough and save states. You'll save so much time.

As part of my poorly-timed effort to play through all the Zelda games before Breath of the Wild comes out in March (why did I decide to do this impossible task back in December of '16 when the game had been announced back in '14? Oy.), next up is the sequel to the original.

Like I stated in my Legend of Zelda review, I played the originals on the NES way back in their prime in the late 80s and early 90s when I was a youngster. I just had no real idea as to what I was doing nor had the patience to figure it out. The first Zelda back then, to me anyway, was a fun and challenging exploration game with no real end, you just loaded it up to stab things for awhile. The second game only ever got a few minutes of playing time from me before I became super angry and switched to something else.

So in 2017 I decided it was best to play it on the Wii U Virtual Console with an online strategy guide in hand, and the ability to abuse save states.

And man did I abuse some save states.

The general impression I got from Zelda II was that the first game sold like waffles, perhaps unexpectedly for Nintendo, so they decided to gather the same group of developers to quickly produce another one for the next year. And, perhaps my timelines are a little off here, but unsure where to go with a sequel they saw that the likes of Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy were also making buckets and decided that since, hey, Zelda's also in the fantasy genre, let's take some of their game mechanics and incorporate it into our franchise.

So you have a rushed game combined with new game mechanics that replaced the things people loved in the first, a winning formula.

Most of the game just feels deliberately unfair. The overworld map throws tons of enemies at you, constantly, sometimes with an increased difficulty level. Powerups are few and far between; life-restoring fairies seeming to appear on the overworld once every fifty times or so, enemies only drop magic after 5-6 have been killed, and the easiest enemies (slimes called "Bots") will still randomly jump and attack you or push you off a ledge into lava. It's easy to run low on health, but no worries, you can use magic to restore it! Only the LIFE spell barely refills your meter, and often uses up half of your magic.

I'm sure this was part of Nintendo's plan, making sure that kids (and their parents) got their money's worth in terms of time from the game. And while most of the "puzzles" had some sort of obtuse clue for them ("Hey I just got a spell called "spell"! I wonder what it does? Oh, huh, the end of this town is a giant wall...), others I could only assume required a subscription to Nintendo Power to discover. In the last dungeon I had to destroy some blocks on the floor to fall down an invisible hole. I don't think I could have figured that one out on my own back in 1988.

The music is neat. And while there is barely any plot, it's fun to see some of the staples of the series take root here.

But otherwise it's a tedious chore of a game that hates you.

History:

Until starting this project, I barely new this game even existed.

Expectations:
I've heard a lot about how this is a terrible game, but I'm not so sure. I can't imagine it's that bad. I do think it's going to warrant a walkthrough though...

Day 1:

Ehhhhh.....

So I fired up the game and started exploring. Aside from some hilarious innuendos...

...the townsfolk are mostly...

...useless.

I gathered that in order to progress through the game I'll need a candle. This becomes obvious when I walk into my first cave and find that I can't see anything that's trying to kill me. I pick the cave that I think might be the right one based solely on intuition and hope and rush through it.

On the other side is Parapa Temple (Ha!) where I manage to both level up and get my third game over.

I'm already not feeling this game. I don't care that it's supposed to be a Zelda game, that doesn't really matter to me, and I'll be judging this one on it's own merits. The combat is "okay" and nothing feels particularly counter-intuitive, I think it's just not my genre. I never liked the first Zelda due to complete lack of direction. I'm also not a fan of Metroid adventure games, and this game is all that PLUS RPG elements. Even after playing for just 30 minutes the tedium is setting in.

I'm not done playing yet though.

Later...

Picked it up again with a bit more direction and worked my way through the first temple.

After defeating Bowser, the Candle was at last mine!

The first temple was fun enough, though nothing too memorable. Combat "feels" tight but truthfully it's a bit off somehow. Candle in hand I was able to navigate caves without getting ganked by little ankle biters. With this new found ability, as well as learning high jump magic, I set out into the world!

...and got lost and died.

Day 2:

So I picked the game back up tonight and, after realizing the Candle wasn't the only thing to get in the Parapa Temple, returned there to finish things out.

This game is hard. Not just in the frustrating, I don't know where to go kind of way, but like it's legitimately challenging. I want to complain about this, but every time I die I find myself immediately rushing back to where it happened and trying again. Not only that, but after trying again and again I can actually see myself improving, which only makes the need to succeed that much greater.

The more difficult enemies have alternating high/low attack patterns. At first I found these enemies to be infuriating, especially the ones that throw those boomerangs. Imagine my great surprise where, after some time, I was actually able to not only start tracking and anticipating their attacks, but also react to them.

That's not to say the game isn't crushing.

I've seen this damn starting area more times than I can count.

I was eventually able to beat the boss in Temple 1 and explore further south on my way to Death Mountain, a location I've hated in every Zelda I've ever played... Not that that matters though, I'm lost again!

Even so, I was ready to start giving up on this game until tonight. Now I'm not so sure.

Day 3:

Now I'm more sure!

Yep, doesn't matter what version of Zelda I'm playing, I hate Death Mountain.

I actually spent my entire night here, well mostly here. Actually I mostly spent my night GETTING here, since every time you die you get sent back to the beginning of the game. My desire to try to beat this game has finally been outweighed by my lack of desire to continue actually playing it.

Conclusion:

So this isn't a "bad" game. I actually quite liked it right out of the gate. I still don't dislike it, per se, but the things that it does wrong for me it does very wrong, for me. Firstly, I am not at all a Zelda purist. I don't care at all that this is a very different game than its predecessor, I'm judging it based completely on its own merits.

Again, and I've said this before and I'll say it again, this genre just doesn't agree with me. I like games that tell me where to go and what to do, or at least give me some illusion of choice so that I'm not running around for hours trying to progress the story. I guess this game does do that, in a way, so I really can't be that hard on it. It's true, if you talk to every NPC is nearby towns they will direct you to places of immediate interest, or remind you that their programmer forgot to give them something to say. Still, while the game was ambitious for its time, and it definitely was ambitious, I feel it didn't flow very well, at least for me.

Need I remind how horribly bias all my reviews are?

It's a platformer. It's an action RPG. It's an adventure game. Frankly, if the whole game was played in the sideview platformer mode with various checkpoints, I'd probably love it. Mix in the overworld exploration, annoying semi-random encounters, the experience system which frankly should have kept to an upgrade system... and I just lose interest quickly. Add on to that the extremely unfair death penalty and my disinterest quickly turns to frustration. Why? Why do I have to start all the way back at the Northern Temple after walking halfway across Hyrule, navigating caves, dodging encounters and crossing Mario Death Bridges, only to have to do it again because some stray ax found its way into my face!?

I mean, out of context it doesn't sound THAT bad, except that you do die in this game. A lot. A lot a lot.

Liked:

- When the combat was good, it was really good. It was challenging but fair, and as I fought more complex enemies over and over again, I could really see myself improving.
- Great music, now I know where that track from the story mode in Smash Bros Brawl came from!
- Graphics in towns and dungeons were pretty good for the NES. Large sprites, absolutely no flickering.
- On that note, the game handles incredibly well.

Disliked:

- When the combat was not good, it could feel unforgiving and cheap.
- No matter where you were when you lost your final life, you'd be sent back to the beginning of the game.
- While the game did provide some clues on where to go, I still found myself reaching for the strategy guide all too often.

Personal Score: