This review contains spoilers
There are a few questions that arise when discussing Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, the black sheep of the Zelda franchise. Is this game maligned on its own merits, or is it solely due to its inability to escape comparisons to the first Zelda game and all of the Zelda titles that followed? Is it because Zelda II takes the explorative elements that were the base of the first game and shifts them in a radically different direction? Is it because this game is so ball-bustlingly difficult that people chastise it out of spite? It could be a number of these, considering Zelda II’s contentious reputation. The Zelda franchise was still relatively new during the NES era, so developers could make radical changes to the foundation because there was only a little foundation to change. I’m sure the kids of 1987 couldn’t have cared less about the sequel to The Legend of Zelda being a 2D side scroller like they didn’t care about Mario pulling up turnips or Simon Belmont walking through a town in a pseudo RPG. These classic franchises were still in their infancy here, so experimentation was possible because the foundation that everyone was familiar with wasn’t established yet. Each of the games that followed these sequels deviated back to building upon the foundation of the first games like the second ones never existed. It was almost like the developers were apologizing for each franchise's second entry, like the experimentation was a massive fluke. Admittedly, I prefer Mario not to be an uncanny copy of an obscure Japanese game, and I much prefer Castlevania as a fast-paced action romp. I do not think Nintendo has to apologize profusely for Zelda II, or at least not to the point of having to secrete convincing crocodile tears. I might be in the minority, but I’ve always thought that Zelda II was an underrated entry to the Zelda franchise. In saying that, I fully understand why I’m in that minority. While I enjoy Zelda II, it’s still a brutal excursion that upholds all of the unforgiving characteristics of the NES era.
Zelda II might divert from the first title in terms of gameplay, but Zelda II’s plot continues the events from the end of the first game. Years have passed after Link defeated Ganon in the first game, and the land of Hyrule has been at peace for quite some time. A much older Link finds Zelda in a comatose state in the center of a palace. Link is informed that only the third Triforce of courage located in the Great Palace can resuscitate Zelda from her deep sleep. Before Link can obtain this triforce piece, he must venture to the other palaces and plant crystals inside head-shaped fixtures. While Ganon is no longer a looming threat, his followers run rampant throughout Hyrule and wish to kill Link and use his blood to resurrect the dark lord.
Immediately, the side-scroller direction Zelda II has taken becomes apparent to the player. The starting place is Zelda’s mausoleum, and roaming around this building is a trek from left to right without any deviation from a horizontal axis. Sidescrollers made up most of the NES library, so adjusting from the top-down view of the first game wouldn’t be too difficult for most players back in 1987. However, this changes as soon as the player exits the building to Hyrule Field. It’s revealed that the developers didn’t entirely scrap the top-down view of the first game but decided to implement it as an awkward hybrid with the sidescrolling. Hyrule Field is traversed with a top-down perspective and an icon of Link walking gingerly through green pastures and brown, earthy mountain peaks. The map looks drawn-on, and Link has a stiff range of movement, but the core of the awkwardness with this hybrid is how the game shifts between the two perspectives. The game will revert to being a 2D side scroller at any moment of action outside of the overworld. This includes entering a cave or dungeon or visiting one of the many towns. Enemies in the overworld constantly ambush Link, violently forcing the player to change perspectives in the blink of an eye. The transition is quite jarring and happens so often that it will annoy the player throughout the game. This doesn’t always mean conflict commences because the spry, black blobs bumrush the player. If the player manages to stay on a paved pathway, they will be transported to a field with pink soil without any of the enemies. The path does not conveniently span the entire map on a single trajectory, but it comes in handy in a few spots. If not for this, the already nauseating transitions would be much more infuriating.
Fortunately, the awkward overworld comes with a few new ideas that weren’t present in the first game. The most essential addition Zelda II includes are the various towns strewn about the map. Each of these towns is a respite from the chaotic onslaught of Ganon’s minions in the overworld. The towns are very quaint and unsophisticated, and the slow-moving, textbox dialogue of the townsfolk adds to the rustic charm. While the towns might vary in architecture and color scheme, they all serve the same few purposes. The process of healing one’s health and magic reminds us that Link is a grown-ass man now as he relieves himself by fornicating with the womenfolk in each town. A young woman invites him into her home to replenish his health, and an old woman lets him rest in her home to refill his magic, showing that Link is not picky. All right, the sexual implications are heavily inferred on my part, but what usually happens behind closed doors when a woman invites a man to her place? I rest my case. Other useful NPCs include a wizard that resides in a basement that grants Link a new magic power. The other NPCs are either recalcitrant or are hostile purple bats in disguise with the occasional entertaining town-dweller like the infamous “I am Error” guy. Overall, the various towns found all over the map are a worthy addition that Zelda II implements. These towns may have a cookie-cutter design and offer the same services, but their inclusion makes the world of Zelda II seem all the more spacious. These towns are what make the pixelated crayon-drawing of a world map even the slightest bit substantial.
The primary goal of traversing through the overworld is to uncover the seven dungeons just like in the first game. The obvious difference is that Link explores these dungeons in a 2D sidescroller, which makes for a completely different experience. The entrance of each dungeon is a long hallway of stone supported by a series of columns, showing Hyrule’s blue skies in the background. It’s a stark contrast to the dingy depths of the dungeons below which Link descends from an elevator. The dungeon design of the first Zelda title was an asymmetrical series of different paths that seldom lead to dead ends, only hidden entryways. Zelda II’s dungeon design gives the player a choice between left or right, which will most likely lead to a dead end. If the dead-end of the player’s choice doesn’t lead to the dungeon’s item or the boss, they must trek back and descend further into the dungeon via an elevator. Many paths will also lead to keys that unlock doors that further the player’s progress in the dungeon. Besides the tough enemies that litter each of these dungeons, the main point of contention I have with Zelda II’s dungeons is the lack of a map. The dungeons may be less labyrinthian than the ones from the first game, but the number of levels each has mixed with the unicolored graphics is a surefire way to get hopelessly lost. Running around in circles trying to find where I was supposed to go was about half the time in each dungeon.
The omission of a dungeon map is the least of any player’s problems in Zelda II. There is a gaming adage that relates to certain games being tough but fair, but Zelda II is anything but fair. I don’t know where to start listing how Zelda II bends the player over the knee and smacks them into submission. If the player finds themselves swarmed by enemies off the safe path, the number of foes and the difficulty of these foes vary. Sometimes Link will luck out and face some blobs, but will just as often face enemies with unpredictable attack patterns that can kill Link in seconds. There are even enemies that drain the player’s experience points if they get damaged by them, something vital to surviving in the game, as I’m sure everyone knows. This isn’t even a unique quirk for one enemy. Several enemy types like the jousting rodents, the floating graveyard eyes, the bonefish, etc. will deplete both the player’s health and their experience upon impact. Why don’t the developers just rip off the player’s pants and fuck them up the ass while they’re at it? Some of the enemies in the late game are erratic damage sponges like the blue darknuts and the rooster-like enemies in the last palace, and I do my best to avoid them. At this point in the game, the player still might stand a chance against them because they’ll have enough magic for shields, fire spells, and health regeneration if needed.
There is one section in the game that incorporates all of these agonizing aspects, and it’s not even close to being at the end of the game. The player won’t have the assistance of various magic powers when they have to endure Death Mountain, the steepest difficulty curve in any game I’ve ever played. Death Mountain might sound familiar to anyone who has played the first game because it’s the name of the last dungeon. This treacherous mountain path is a series of entrances and exits in Zelda II that will test the player’s navigation abilities. On top of figuring out the correct path to the end, Death Mountain features a number of these red and yellow bipedal reptilian creatures that come in orange and red. They may not steal experience points, but a mere couple of hits from their axes will smite Link in seconds. Above all else, the reason Death Mountain is such a painstaking affair is Zelda II’s penalty for death. Link gets three lives per continue, and whenever his lives run out, a red game over screen signals the return of Ganon with the evil boar laughing at the player. Whenever this happens, the player is revived at Zelda’s resting place and has to trek back to where they died. The first game did this whenever the player died in the overworld, but Zelda II forces the player to start from here even if they died in a dungeon which is frankly egregious. Not only is the long journey back tedious, but the player will most likely be battered due to the excessive swarms of enemies along the way. To make matters worse, the game resets the amount of experience gained during that session. It’s unfair, but the amount of contempt the developers show for player error is unnerving. Death Mountain is the gatekeeper of the player’s threshold of brutality that showcases all of Zelda II’s vexing elements, and it’s only after the very first dungeon. The developers were not fucking around.
The demanding presence of Zelda II backfired on the developers in one aspect, and that’s the bosses. Some of them are as lackluster as they were in the first Zelda, with bosses requiring only a few hits to defeat with obvious weak spots. The enemies in Zelda II are more difficult to deal with than most regular enemies, and I’d be less giddy about it if the game didn’t attempt to massacre me at every waking moment. The bosses that were designed with more attention and care are still easy, and that’s because the developers had a momentary lapse of judgment. What the developers didn’t catch in their mission to make Zelda II as punishing as humanly possible is that the game could be easily exploited. Some of these exploits are due to glitches, but many of the more organic ones can be used for a number of bosses. Carock can be defeated in seconds by using the deflecting spell and ducking in the corner. Many games have this boss, but it’s never the final boss. Despite the player being at a high level and with all of the magic spells, the Great Palace is just as arduous as Death Mountain is. It’s also the only place where the developers grant mercy to the player and provide a checkpoint if they get a game over. At the end of this grueling charade is Thunderbird, the only boss in this game that provides a substantial challenge. One would think this mighty bird would be the appropriate challenge to cap off this game, but there’s another one around the corner. Link approaches the Triforce to have his shadow rip away from him and start attacking him. Link’s shadow, infamously known as “Dark Link,” will mirror every move Link makes, making him an extreme version of all the shielded enemies the player has faced thus far. Dark Link will initially seem impenetrable, but a well-known exploit will turn a seemingly impossible boss into the easiest boss in the game. Ducking in the corner and flailing the sword wildly will eviscerate Dark Link. Even for those who feel like using this exploit is dishonorable, they still have to admit that taking down the final boss of this herculean game in a matter of seconds is hilarious.
Calling Zelda II: The Adventure of Link a flawed experience is an understatement. It’s a game whose reputation is entirely based on its myriad of flaws. One could wonder if this game would still be widely discussed today if it were not an entry in the enigmatic Zelda franchise. Since the days of the NES, the franchise has evolved and cemented a foundation that left the obtuse, strenuous direction that Zelda II established behind. All of the younger Zelda fans who did not grow up during this era (myself included) visit this game because they are fond of the series, but this results in their spirits being crushed into pixie dust. They might be turned off by the esoteric design, the savagery of the enemies, and the strict penalty of continuing. They give up without realizing that all of this is just indicative of this era of gaming. I choose not to disregard Zelda II as a glaring smudge on the franchise's legacy because I see it individually. I played this game after already playing through six other Zelda games and was too intimidated to play it due to its reputation. After biting the bullet and struggling with it immensely, the feeling I got after finishing it was powerful. I felt confident enough to take on any game possible, regardless of difficulty. Zelda II was the game that made me shed my fears of being brutalized by a video game, and now I yearn for that challenge. Because of this, Zelda II holds a special place for me, and I can’t say that about any other game, much less any other Zelda title.
------
Attribution: https://erockreviews.blogspot.com
Zelda II might divert from the first title in terms of gameplay, but Zelda II’s plot continues the events from the end of the first game. Years have passed after Link defeated Ganon in the first game, and the land of Hyrule has been at peace for quite some time. A much older Link finds Zelda in a comatose state in the center of a palace. Link is informed that only the third Triforce of courage located in the Great Palace can resuscitate Zelda from her deep sleep. Before Link can obtain this triforce piece, he must venture to the other palaces and plant crystals inside head-shaped fixtures. While Ganon is no longer a looming threat, his followers run rampant throughout Hyrule and wish to kill Link and use his blood to resurrect the dark lord.
Immediately, the side-scroller direction Zelda II has taken becomes apparent to the player. The starting place is Zelda’s mausoleum, and roaming around this building is a trek from left to right without any deviation from a horizontal axis. Sidescrollers made up most of the NES library, so adjusting from the top-down view of the first game wouldn’t be too difficult for most players back in 1987. However, this changes as soon as the player exits the building to Hyrule Field. It’s revealed that the developers didn’t entirely scrap the top-down view of the first game but decided to implement it as an awkward hybrid with the sidescrolling. Hyrule Field is traversed with a top-down perspective and an icon of Link walking gingerly through green pastures and brown, earthy mountain peaks. The map looks drawn-on, and Link has a stiff range of movement, but the core of the awkwardness with this hybrid is how the game shifts between the two perspectives. The game will revert to being a 2D side scroller at any moment of action outside of the overworld. This includes entering a cave or dungeon or visiting one of the many towns. Enemies in the overworld constantly ambush Link, violently forcing the player to change perspectives in the blink of an eye. The transition is quite jarring and happens so often that it will annoy the player throughout the game. This doesn’t always mean conflict commences because the spry, black blobs bumrush the player. If the player manages to stay on a paved pathway, they will be transported to a field with pink soil without any of the enemies. The path does not conveniently span the entire map on a single trajectory, but it comes in handy in a few spots. If not for this, the already nauseating transitions would be much more infuriating.
Fortunately, the awkward overworld comes with a few new ideas that weren’t present in the first game. The most essential addition Zelda II includes are the various towns strewn about the map. Each of these towns is a respite from the chaotic onslaught of Ganon’s minions in the overworld. The towns are very quaint and unsophisticated, and the slow-moving, textbox dialogue of the townsfolk adds to the rustic charm. While the towns might vary in architecture and color scheme, they all serve the same few purposes. The process of healing one’s health and magic reminds us that Link is a grown-ass man now as he relieves himself by fornicating with the womenfolk in each town. A young woman invites him into her home to replenish his health, and an old woman lets him rest in her home to refill his magic, showing that Link is not picky. All right, the sexual implications are heavily inferred on my part, but what usually happens behind closed doors when a woman invites a man to her place? I rest my case. Other useful NPCs include a wizard that resides in a basement that grants Link a new magic power. The other NPCs are either recalcitrant or are hostile purple bats in disguise with the occasional entertaining town-dweller like the infamous “I am Error” guy. Overall, the various towns found all over the map are a worthy addition that Zelda II implements. These towns may have a cookie-cutter design and offer the same services, but their inclusion makes the world of Zelda II seem all the more spacious. These towns are what make the pixelated crayon-drawing of a world map even the slightest bit substantial.
The primary goal of traversing through the overworld is to uncover the seven dungeons just like in the first game. The obvious difference is that Link explores these dungeons in a 2D sidescroller, which makes for a completely different experience. The entrance of each dungeon is a long hallway of stone supported by a series of columns, showing Hyrule’s blue skies in the background. It’s a stark contrast to the dingy depths of the dungeons below which Link descends from an elevator. The dungeon design of the first Zelda title was an asymmetrical series of different paths that seldom lead to dead ends, only hidden entryways. Zelda II’s dungeon design gives the player a choice between left or right, which will most likely lead to a dead end. If the dead-end of the player’s choice doesn’t lead to the dungeon’s item or the boss, they must trek back and descend further into the dungeon via an elevator. Many paths will also lead to keys that unlock doors that further the player’s progress in the dungeon. Besides the tough enemies that litter each of these dungeons, the main point of contention I have with Zelda II’s dungeons is the lack of a map. The dungeons may be less labyrinthian than the ones from the first game, but the number of levels each has mixed with the unicolored graphics is a surefire way to get hopelessly lost. Running around in circles trying to find where I was supposed to go was about half the time in each dungeon.
The omission of a dungeon map is the least of any player’s problems in Zelda II. There is a gaming adage that relates to certain games being tough but fair, but Zelda II is anything but fair. I don’t know where to start listing how Zelda II bends the player over the knee and smacks them into submission. If the player finds themselves swarmed by enemies off the safe path, the number of foes and the difficulty of these foes vary. Sometimes Link will luck out and face some blobs, but will just as often face enemies with unpredictable attack patterns that can kill Link in seconds. There are even enemies that drain the player’s experience points if they get damaged by them, something vital to surviving in the game, as I’m sure everyone knows. This isn’t even a unique quirk for one enemy. Several enemy types like the jousting rodents, the floating graveyard eyes, the bonefish, etc. will deplete both the player’s health and their experience upon impact. Why don’t the developers just rip off the player’s pants and fuck them up the ass while they’re at it? Some of the enemies in the late game are erratic damage sponges like the blue darknuts and the rooster-like enemies in the last palace, and I do my best to avoid them. At this point in the game, the player still might stand a chance against them because they’ll have enough magic for shields, fire spells, and health regeneration if needed.
There is one section in the game that incorporates all of these agonizing aspects, and it’s not even close to being at the end of the game. The player won’t have the assistance of various magic powers when they have to endure Death Mountain, the steepest difficulty curve in any game I’ve ever played. Death Mountain might sound familiar to anyone who has played the first game because it’s the name of the last dungeon. This treacherous mountain path is a series of entrances and exits in Zelda II that will test the player’s navigation abilities. On top of figuring out the correct path to the end, Death Mountain features a number of these red and yellow bipedal reptilian creatures that come in orange and red. They may not steal experience points, but a mere couple of hits from their axes will smite Link in seconds. Above all else, the reason Death Mountain is such a painstaking affair is Zelda II’s penalty for death. Link gets three lives per continue, and whenever his lives run out, a red game over screen signals the return of Ganon with the evil boar laughing at the player. Whenever this happens, the player is revived at Zelda’s resting place and has to trek back to where they died. The first game did this whenever the player died in the overworld, but Zelda II forces the player to start from here even if they died in a dungeon which is frankly egregious. Not only is the long journey back tedious, but the player will most likely be battered due to the excessive swarms of enemies along the way. To make matters worse, the game resets the amount of experience gained during that session. It’s unfair, but the amount of contempt the developers show for player error is unnerving. Death Mountain is the gatekeeper of the player’s threshold of brutality that showcases all of Zelda II’s vexing elements, and it’s only after the very first dungeon. The developers were not fucking around.
The demanding presence of Zelda II backfired on the developers in one aspect, and that’s the bosses. Some of them are as lackluster as they were in the first Zelda, with bosses requiring only a few hits to defeat with obvious weak spots. The enemies in Zelda II are more difficult to deal with than most regular enemies, and I’d be less giddy about it if the game didn’t attempt to massacre me at every waking moment. The bosses that were designed with more attention and care are still easy, and that’s because the developers had a momentary lapse of judgment. What the developers didn’t catch in their mission to make Zelda II as punishing as humanly possible is that the game could be easily exploited. Some of these exploits are due to glitches, but many of the more organic ones can be used for a number of bosses. Carock can be defeated in seconds by using the deflecting spell and ducking in the corner. Many games have this boss, but it’s never the final boss. Despite the player being at a high level and with all of the magic spells, the Great Palace is just as arduous as Death Mountain is. It’s also the only place where the developers grant mercy to the player and provide a checkpoint if they get a game over. At the end of this grueling charade is Thunderbird, the only boss in this game that provides a substantial challenge. One would think this mighty bird would be the appropriate challenge to cap off this game, but there’s another one around the corner. Link approaches the Triforce to have his shadow rip away from him and start attacking him. Link’s shadow, infamously known as “Dark Link,” will mirror every move Link makes, making him an extreme version of all the shielded enemies the player has faced thus far. Dark Link will initially seem impenetrable, but a well-known exploit will turn a seemingly impossible boss into the easiest boss in the game. Ducking in the corner and flailing the sword wildly will eviscerate Dark Link. Even for those who feel like using this exploit is dishonorable, they still have to admit that taking down the final boss of this herculean game in a matter of seconds is hilarious.
Calling Zelda II: The Adventure of Link a flawed experience is an understatement. It’s a game whose reputation is entirely based on its myriad of flaws. One could wonder if this game would still be widely discussed today if it were not an entry in the enigmatic Zelda franchise. Since the days of the NES, the franchise has evolved and cemented a foundation that left the obtuse, strenuous direction that Zelda II established behind. All of the younger Zelda fans who did not grow up during this era (myself included) visit this game because they are fond of the series, but this results in their spirits being crushed into pixie dust. They might be turned off by the esoteric design, the savagery of the enemies, and the strict penalty of continuing. They give up without realizing that all of this is just indicative of this era of gaming. I choose not to disregard Zelda II as a glaring smudge on the franchise's legacy because I see it individually. I played this game after already playing through six other Zelda games and was too intimidated to play it due to its reputation. After biting the bullet and struggling with it immensely, the feeling I got after finishing it was powerful. I felt confident enough to take on any game possible, regardless of difficulty. Zelda II was the game that made me shed my fears of being brutalized by a video game, and now I yearn for that challenge. Because of this, Zelda II holds a special place for me, and I can’t say that about any other game, much less any other Zelda title.
------
Attribution: https://erockreviews.blogspot.com