Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (1987)

Like with Castlevania's Simon's Quest, this is an odd pivot. One critical difference though between those games: Simon's Quest still had a lot of features from the original Castlevania game. It was after all a 2-D action game with items, bosses and gauntlets. The RPG elements certainly changed the game, but the moment to moment gameplay on a screen was loosely similar. Albeit progression became obtuse with the shift to exploration and RPGs. Zelda 2, much like Simon's Quest, also has a focus on exploration, RPG and 2-D action.

What makes Zelda 2 so odd is how it combines together elements of 2-D action side scrollers with Final Fantasy style RPGs. They don't combine together seamlessly, but it's not as terrible as you may think (while also not being good either).

The first screen of the game is again actually pretty good (not as brilliant as Zelda 1). You see Zelda in the background asleep, communicating to you the quest of the game (realistically you would need to read the instruction manual to fully understand, but that was expected of you back in the day). This is also a 2-D screen, allowing you a safe space to come to grip with the new controls. You can exit either left or right and both will lead you to the right place. Then you exit Hyrule and are greeted with the overworld. This was pretty jarring the first time. It moves and feels like a classic turned based JRPG. There is a road that does lead you to two different towns. While moving on the overlord, eventually 3 random sprites will appear and run at you (it's possible to avoid but really hard). When one of these sprites collide with you, you enter an action screen. You can view these as a 2-D version of an action RPG battle screen. These are small, have the same theme as the tile you were on when the collide happen. And you basically just need to move off the screen to go back to the overworld (killing enemies isn't necessary but gives XP and other rewards).

You can theoretically grind levels, it is an RPG after all, but honestly grinding isn't really necessary. It does help, but I never had to grind. I just killed most enemies I encountered and tried to collect XP bags when I saw them. Combat is odd... for one thing, a lot of enemies are tanky, move erratically and can block your attack. They clearly wanted to create the feeling of dueling enemies. They got in the ballpark, but it still feels very janky and unreliable. Most of the time, I just figured out a way to cheese an enemy, rather than try to react and duel. A lot of early enemies aren't too bad, dying in a few hits and not able to block. But once you start encountering the knights, which is pretty early on, shit gets real.

These knights are able to block and attack from two different planes. Making hitting them and avoiding damage very hard. You might be crouched to stab the knight under their shield, but they might swing high and hit you while you hit them... the NES had limitations on its control scheme, which was certainly part of the issue. Another bigger issue though is it seemed like the enemies could react to you input. So you try to strike high, the game reads it then reacts... making fighting pretty frustrating and boils down to luck to score hits. If you are in a high ceiling room, I found jumping and attacking to be the most reliable way to deal with knights. If you time it right, you can hit them, back off to avoid their attack, then jump in again. The knights do escalate over the course of the game though.

There's one variation that throws knives at you. They at first will only throw one at a time, but land a hit, and they unleash a combo of knife throws, that will vary between high and low and need to be guarded. When I realized they would throw a barrage after an attack, I was able to actually react to them which was satisfying. But some of the other, more difficult enemies don't have this luxury. Such as the bird knights in the final dungeon who constantly throw a barrage of knives at you while jumping around. Fuck these guys. They are so frustrating to fight.

I did like the combat by the end. It certainly takes a while to get used to it, and it is janky, but I did still find it fun by the end. It certainly needed improvements, enemies felt pretty unfair a lot of the times, particularly knights in rooms where you can't jump, so you just have to rely on glitching out it's input reader to your actions...

Fighting is mostly necessary since you get XP for each kill. There are still heart containers and magic jars that increase your mana (first Zelda game to have a magic meter). You don't get an upgraded sword, instead, this time around you level up your sword while leveling. You don't get to pick which stat gets upgraded on a level up, that all happens automatically, but you can see what levels up next on the pause menu.

There are also magic spells you learn throughout your Quest. Some of these are necessary. To use them, you pause, select, then unpause and push the select button to use. It's clunky, but there were limited controller options on the NES. You also get power ups that unlock new abilities for Link. These are mostly used to get past environmental obstacles, such as a hammer to smash boulders, or boots that let you walk across some water.

Progression in this game is fairly linear. You have the roads that will mostly guide you to the key towns, though you will have to venture off the beaten path to get to the Palaces (the dungeons in this game). In town, townsfolks will give you hints and at these locations are where you will always get spells and new sword abilities. Kind of a fun detail is how Link's upward thrust and downward thrust of Super Smash Brothers comes from this game. You learn both of those abilities over the adventure. There are issues with the hints in this game. At least the version I played. Two times a Townsfolk told me where I needed to go, but used the opposite cardinal direction of where I needed to go. So the Palace is East? They told me West! So that was frustrating, but I eventually figured it out.

Palaces are needed to reach the final Palace and they also will always contain one treasure, typically used to traverse past an obstacle. Palaces themselves are far more linear than Dungeons were in Zelda 1. Often times, you will want to clear each floor, before going deeper, rinse and repeat. Like with Zelda 1, most of the focus of these Palaces are combat and searching for keys. There are bosses, but a decent amount of them will feel kind of samey to each other, and often the gauntlets getting to bosses is far more challenging than the bosses themselves.

There was one time I got stuck in a palace and needed to backtrack all the way out and go to a hidden town to get a key power up to finish the dungeon... this was annoying and I would have likely been stuck for hours if I hadn't looked it up. This is certainly a type of game where there is no shame in using a guide. The game is linear, but the path forward can still be fairly obtuse.

The game also suffers from how it punishes you on death. You have extra lives, but if you deplete them all, you can save your game, but you start all the way back at Hyrule with the sleeping Zelda... then you have to run all the way back to the Palace and try again... certainly a way to pad out the game. The final palace does allow you to reset at the entrance to that palace, which is good because it is stupidly hard, but that really should have been a feature for each palace.

In the end, this is a really weird game that is honestly weirder than Majora's Mask. I respect the boldness in its departure from the first Zelda game, but it ultimately feels too janky for it's own good. It presented some interesting ideas and I do think it's structure could work if it was highly refined. The combination of JRPG navigation with 2-D action side scroller action as an RPG I think could be compelling with fine tuning. It just wasn't here. Castlevania understood the limitations of the NES, making most enemies die in one hit, so you are more focused on avoiding damage and striking tactically. This works for the limited ways you have to move your character. Trying to impose a more nuanced system like Sekiro when you have only 2 action buttons and four directions was ambitious and they didn't really succeed. I still had fun, but it's certainly frustrating and not for everyone.

Second on the docket: Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (Played on the 2021 Zelda Game & Watch and then that was NOT a good way to do it so moved to NES Classic)

I want to first and foremost offer my upmost respect to every 8 year old who beat this when it came out. You are the only true gamers among us. Playing this game was certainly frustrating at times but it's definitely not without its merits or fun sections. Namely the middle chunk (palaces 3-6) I actually really got into the groove of things and was enjoying the mechanics. I think the leveling is a really cool idea and the villages had a lot of charm to them (especially for an 8 bit game).

But this game is HARD. And I really want to say it's unnecessarily and unfairly hard, but I understand that this game came out in a era where it kind of WAS necessary. Similar to Zelda I- I can try my best to put myself in a 1988 mindset, but I can't pretend this is the only game I have to play for the next several months. My backlog grows at an unnerving rate and Deku Deals has sent me 3 separate deal alert emails today alone. And like, school and work and stuff.

I played the game on NES Classic and I can't even imagine going through it without restore points. Certain sections got so dire that I was basically save scumming between every successful hit on an enemy. And I think that gets to the root of what I found the most frustrating about this game, which is the same thing that's prevented me from ever finishing Majora's Mask- this game punishes you for exploring and taking your time. The first Zelda was all about seeing a weird rock and then trying a bunch of stuff to see if that rock moved. I had no problem bombing every wall in a dungeon, because bombs were cheap and commonly dropped and often led to great secrets. In Zelda II, you can try to see what's in that cave over there but you're on your last life and you're at 2450/3000 XP and it's probably not worth the risk of loosing all your progress. I spent most of this playthrough glued to a guide, because I didn't want to make a wrong turn and then realize I had wasted my magic meter only to reach a dead end, and now be totally screwed for the boss fight.

I think it was cool to try something so different for a sequel. And when it worked it did definitely work! I just don't think it holds up phenomenally 30+ years later in the culture of games today. And that's fine! We can't all be Super Metroid!

Onwards to a Link to the Past, which I tried once a long time ago and never got into. But after the endurance trial of Zelda II I'm actually super excited. See y'all in 16 bit!

Completed on emulator using a guide + savestates.

Zelda 2 is a tough game. I have played 6 other Zelda games, but Zelda 2 feels completely different. It's a lot more focused on combat.

The worst aspect of Zelda 2 is the difficulty curve: the game is hard right from the beginning and merciless up to the 3rd temple. Then, after getting some crucial upgrades, I was easily beating the other temples, even without using savestates. Finally, the difficulty spikes once again on the last temple, which is brutal when playing it for the first time.

Many call this game underrated or underappreciated. I'd say it's just "ok" and I completely understand that most people today will stop playing when trying to beat Death Mountain, easily the most frustrating part of the game. I don't think this game is better than other Zelda games just because it's a challenge to beat, so to me this is surely a candidate to be the weaker Zelda I have played.

So, this game is frustrating. I say that having made heavy use of Nintendo Switch Online's rewind feature and save states and using a guide.

Early in the game, I did enjoy the leveling up and grinding process. Early grinding in the game can make late grinding unnecessary. I was maxed out before the sixth palace.

I desperately wanted to have the ability to say I experienced this game! I don't recommend it to casual gamers. Strangely, I do want to say that I feel this game hits a sweet spot for fans of both retro games and very difficult games. It has an almost "Souls-like" gameplay quality that a certain type of person may enjoy. (Or maybe it's on the brain because Elden Ring was just released.)

I gave this a low score from a general audience standpoint. My feeling at the end was one of relief to have it off my list as opposed to joy of reaching the game's ending.

I am excited to continue on my LoZ journey with A Link to the Past!

This game is unexpectedly and unnecessarily hard. It is still (or even more so than the first game) cryptic, but my biggest problem with Zelda II is that combat in it is way too hard. It simply feels poorly balanced. God bless the emulators with infinite save states.

When playing Zelda II, I kept thinking about Castlevania II. While Castlevania II made a move toward Zelda's adventure/RPG territory, Zelda II has become a Castlevania-like sidescroller action game. And, to be honest, I think Zelda's sequel failed even harder than Simon's Quest. I enjoyed wandering around the world and 'dungeons', looking for items and clues (mostly) in The Adventure of Link. Well.. actually, everything about the game is cool except for combat, but it's the biggest part of the game, so it spoiled the whole experience for me. Unlike in the classic Castlevania games, it wasn't fun killing monsters: most of them took too many hits to kill, some had difficult to reach hit boxes, and the resources were never enough to make up for that. If Zelda II's action had been more like in Castlevania, I would have absolutely loved the game. But it is hard and frustrating instead.

I can't say I was bored playing through Zelda II as the challenging combat kept me uptight, but there wasn't much pleasure involved either. The internet says there are a lot of great games in the series, so I'll just forget about this one fast and move on to the next installments.

Often derided as the odd man out in the Zelda series, I got strangely addicted to Zelda II on my current playthrough. I was listening to the Insert Credit podcast and Tim Rogers was espousing the virtures of the game. As a shamefully devoted zealot of the man, I decided to give the game another serious look. I had previously beaten the game on the Zelda Collector's Edition on the Gamecube but that was fifteen years ago. I had dabbled in it recently as it is on the Switch NES online and found myself agreeing with the detractors who dismissed the game.

I decided to not abuse save states and see how the game would work played in its original context. Using the game's own save system, you are able to save when Link's three lives are depleted. When this happens, you get a game over, the option to save, and must restart from the beginning shrine. The game is similar to some roguelikes in that you lose a good chunk of your progress when you perish but do retain some things. Your current experience points vanish but your levels remain. (yes this Zelda has levels) All the items you have acquired remain. And, most importantly, the dungeons, or palaces as they are called in this game, are run-based affairs. If you are playing the game without a guide (which is nearly impossible for some of the progression) you basically need to make maps of the dungeons, an exercise that I found thoroughly enjoyable. The palaces are the most fun part of the game. You run through them, find keys, and basically eliminate pathways. When you die, you do have to walk all the way back to the palace, which is annoying, but if you are tracking your progress through the palace your next run can be more efficient. Bosses are never hard enough that you can't take them down if you appropriately use your magic.

Speaking of magic, magic is the key to mastering Zelda II. The first spell you learn is Shield, which doubles your defense, which is essential for most of the game. When traversing palaces, I used the Shield spell liberally to extend my exploring runs as much as possible. With bosses, obviously doubling your life is a smart strategy.

Balancing my use of spells and increasing the efficiency of my palace traversal was the addictive loop here. Traversing the overworld and trying to find its obtuse secrets can be frustrating. There is some serious NES era nonsense hidden on the overworld. The game also requires you to collect all the magic potions (the item that grants you more MP) to finish the game, one of which is hidden in a pretty darn obscure place in a midgame maze. If this were 1988, I would be spending the big money calling up that hint hotline.

As the game nears its conclusion, walking your way all the way back to palaces can become a bit tedious. You also pretty much need to be at max level for the Great Palace ( the last one) which does require grinding.

Thankfully, the final palace does allow you to restart at the entrance, so the designers clearly understood it would be way too tedious to walk back. However, by the time I reached the final palace, the tedium had become a bit too strong and I ended up using save states for the final bosses. I felt pretty good about making it that far without them. How I beat this game legitimately with a Gamecube controller is beyond me and I'm beginning to believe I fabricated that memory.

I had a good time with this game and it does some really interesting things. I'm not the first person to make this observation but there are definitely a lot of Dark Soulsy type things about this game. It has a similar progression in that once impossible tasks become cakewalks later and that a lot of time you are playing to unlock shortcuts or find more efficient paths. The 2D side-scrolling gameplay is actually pretty good and it was fun to gather information in towns, even if sometimes the hints were a bit too obscure. I also really enjoyed the labyrinthine aspects of the palaces although the Great Palace gets a bit out of hand with this. I had to consult a walkthrough just a couple of times, when the game hides its progression behind asinine secrets.

Honestly, in 2020, this game is probably more worth playing than the original. Zelda 1 is cool, but if you need a top-down Zelda, A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, and a Link Between Worlds are all way more enjoyable. The first Zelda can become somewhat samey and punishingly difficult. Zelda II offers a more unique entry in the series and its gameplay has not really been duplicated or refined in any way. Any sane person in 2020 will need a walkthrough to get through some of the ridiculous progression blocks but there is definitely some rewarding gameplay to be had and the influence of Zelda II is definitely apparent in many of the "Souls-Like" games we see today.

Below is my hand-map of the maze caves you must traverse to find the hammer.

Played this recently, and was surprised at how GOOD it was. I feel like this gets ignored a lot because it's such a departure for the franchise, but I like how weirdly modern it feels. Like the slight open world vibe and minor RPG elements feel like a precursor to today's big gaming trends. Kind of fascinating considering how under discussed it is.

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 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.