Zelda II

[Grazza]

So, now we've got the Restore Points on the 3DS, is anyone playing Zelda II?

 

I like this game quite a lot, but have never completed it. It's actually harder than I remember, which doesn't bode well, but as I say we now have Restore Points on our side! They're very handy to create just before a boss (assuming you've got a decent amount of health).

 

This is the only Zelda I'd consider an action-RPG, and you really do have to put yourself in an RPG mindset. Unlike other Zeldas, you can't rush. Just take your time and hopefully you'll prevail!

[Ville]

Restore points? What do they do?

[Captain Falcon]

The suspend save function of the original version to pick up where I left off was enough for me to get to proceed with getting to the Great Temple at the end of the game. Now I'm there, it will always restart me in the thing if I die, unless I leave it, so it's not even an issue now unless I was wanting to save before the end boss. That was a while ago now mind. In fact, I remember playing the game on the train on my way back from the Zelda Symphony concert so it will probably be coming up to a year since I gave up.

 

Unfortunately, the temples in this game have strange designs (so many dead ends) and every fight feels difficult. Losing swathes of your life on generic monsters is never good and health/magic pick ups are rare at best. I'm temtped to pop over to Zelda Dungeon and get the level map but even with it, I don't really fancy my chances too much.

 

Restore points? What do they do?

 

You can create a hard save and reload it as many times as you want. The game still saves your status if you exit the game but once it's restored when you restart, it's gone. That hard save though will be there until you overwrite it.

[Grazza]

The suspend save function of the original version to pick up where I left off was enough for me to get to proceed with getting to the Great Temple at the end of the game. Now I'm there, it will always restart me in the thing if I die, unless I leave it, so it's not even an issue now unless I was wanting to save before the end boss.

 

That doesn't bode well, because that was the bit I got stuck at on the GameCube! Maybe I can take it room by room, making a Restore Point every time I get somewhere with a decent amount of health.

[Magnus]

Nothing like abusing save states to get through a game!

 

I've done that a few times in different games, but it doesn't usually endear me to them. (Edit: And at a certain point you may as well just use cheat codes.) I didn't actually need them in this game, but it was a pain to get through.

 

Zelda 2 is the one Zelda game I can't stand, and the ridiculous difficulty level is a big part of the reason why. Go away, Zelda 2, and don't come back unless you bring your much superior handheld brothers and sisters with you.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Magnus

[Ronnie]

I love this game, probably even more than the original; played it when it was released back in the day, great times. It's got a fantastic darker style/mood compared to the cutesy modern Zeldas you get these days. Wish the next Zelda could go back to it. Fantastic game, yes it was difficult, but that just made it all the more rewarding. Every little battle was tough and tactical, as it should be. I still remember the sense of doom when those Iron Knuckles appeared on screen, particularly the red or blue ones.

[Ville]

Zelda 2 is the one Zelda game I can't stand, and the ridiculous difficulty level is a big part of the reason why. Go away, Zelda 2, and don't come back unless you bring your much superior handheld brothers and sisters with you.

 

I agree, it's probably the only game in the series that is not fun but frustrating.

 

You can create a hard save and reload it as many times as you want. The game still saves your status if you exit the game but once it's restored when you restart, it's gone. That hard save though will be there until you overwrite it.

 

Awesome, just what this game needs. Think I'm gonna try beating this again at some point...

[Grazza]

Finally completed Zelda II!

 

I still quite like this game, even though I agree with almost every criticism of it. Starting at the same point on the map every time is indeed frustrating, especially before you gain the items that let you take shortcuts. Restore Points don't help a great deal with this because, let's say you create one at the beginning of a Palace, but then "achieve" something like levelling-up or getting a key/item... In circumstances like that, you'll probably just want to Save and accept you've got to make a long journey back to the Palace.

 

For this reason, and the fact you don't have many items/upgrades in general, the first half of the game (Palaces 1-3) is very difficult. The 2nd "half" of the game (Palaces 4-6) is the most enjoyable as you do have a lot of upgrades and items that let you take shortcuts. Then it gets extremely difficult again for the end.

 

The journey to the Great Palace is probably the most difficult section of any video game I've ever played. It's difficult because you have to make a lot of progress in one sequence, which I think is the most frustrating aspect of games - perfect runs, and such. True, you don't have to do it perfectly, but it feels like it! This is where Restore Points really show their worth.

 

Let me make this clear: in no universe is using Restore Points cheating! You have to do every single bit yourself, just not in a perfect sequence, which I already knew I wasn't good enough to do from the GameCube version. I can cope with that! It honestly boggles my mind that anyone managed to do it before Restore Points.

 

Happily, once you get to the Great Palace, things are much easier. Although there are a few tough enemies, many of the rooms contain unlimited, magic-restoring creatures (which you can then use to Heal). Again, Restore Points are very useful to make when you've maxed-out everything. Thus, you can make your way steadily through the Great Palace - I can imagine this was very frustrating on the NES if you spent hours doing it and then failed.

 

The penultimate boss probably requires the most skill out of any Zelda boss, but is easy enough to work out what to do. Not that I want modern Zelda bosses to be that difficult, but it is a true test of skill. The final boss, on the other hand, is absolutely baffling - until you read the very simple method needed to beat it; thereafter it becomes easy.

 

I thought I had read that, at the end of the game, you enter a representation of the overworld from the original Zelda? How can I have missed this?

 

 

So, overall, I am ecstatic to have completed Zelda II, helping hand or not. Whilst I agree with the criticisms of it, I'm convinced the dislike towards it stems from an understandable resentment that it is so hard to complete in its original form. Other than that, there is much to like, such as the introduction of towns, the combat, bosses and general side-scrolling action. It's still a hard, hard game, but has now become manageable for a lot of us.

[Ville]

Great to hear, man! Just finished Metroid and now Ice Climber (yes, Ice fucking Climber!), gonna start the Zeldas soon I think...looking forward to it!

 

Any Zelda games you haven't beaten yet? I only have 3 left, i.e. Zelda 1, Zelda 2 and Oracle of Seasons. CD-i crapfests don't count...

 

Edit: Shit, just remembered, I've still yet to complete both Four Swords games. They're so boring in single player, why no online Nintendo... xS

Edited September 18, 2012 by Ville

[Grazza]

Great to hear, man! Just finished Metroid and now Ice Climber (yes, Ice fucking Climber!), gonna start the Zeldas soon I think...looking forward to it!

 

I'm going through my Ambassador games in much the same way as you, but I haven't played much of Ice Climber yet - perhaps that's next! So far, I have completed Kid Icarus (3D Classics - not an Ambassador game, but it's still NES), Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Zelda II, Wario Ware, Metroid Fusion and Minish Cap, although the last two were so good that was no problem.

 

Any Zelda games you haven't beaten yet? I only have 3 left, i.e. Zelda 1, Zelda 2 and Oracle of Seasons. CD-i crapfests don't count...

 

Oracle of Ages, Oracle of Seasons and the GBA/DSi Ware version of Four Swords. I'm not sure that last one really counts. Four Swords Adventure on GameCube was pretty decent to play single player, whereas the GBA one was just a bonus on the Link to the Past cartridge, wasn't it? I always understood that one to be multiplayer-only. Now I've got the free, DSi Ware version, I see it is possible to play on my own, but unlike the GameCube game, you have to keep stopping and switching between Links.

 

As long as I can complete the Oracle games, I will consider myself to have completed them all. The annoying thing is I once had the Oracle of Seasons cartridge but didn't even find the first dungeon. Then I decided to give up gaming. Funny how we go through different moods like that. Thankfully the GameCube and Wind Waker came along to snap me out of it in spectacular fashion.

[Ronnie]

I played Ice Climber when it was first released on the NES, one of my all time favourite retro games Wrecking Crew is also pretty fun once you get the hang of it

[Captain Falcon]

I thought I had read that, at the end of the game, you enter a representation of the overworld from the original Zelda? How can I have missed this?

 

 

Depending on your interpretation of miss, you either did, or didn't...

 

As the above image shows, the bottom left part of the big map, which is the Zelda II map has that bit in the bottom corner entitled Death Mountain - a part you go go through about a third of the way in the game... bloody frustrating it was too.

 

The shape and layout of that bit is identical to the original map of the first Zelda game - which they've handily put on to compare against.

 

So no, you didn't miss it as you did get to explore a version of the Zelda one map. Conversely, yes you did miss it because you didn't notice it happening :p

 

 

Hope that helps

 

Also, how on earth could you not find the first dungeon in OoS - you mustn't have been trying very hard.

[Grazza]

Hope that helps

 

Yes, thanks Captain Falcon. I had misunderstood when I read it before.

 

Also, how on earth could you not find the first dungeon in OoS - you mustn't have been trying very hard.

 

Indeed. It's not a criticism of the game. It just happened at a time in my life when I was in a bad state of mind, hence the "Argh, I'm giving up gaming" attitude. It wasn't because of OoS. I had also bought a Dreamcast and hadn't been able to enjoy any of its games, even though I knew they were good. Quite dark days, to be honest, and they might explain why I rate the GameCube, Wind Waker and Mario Sunshine so highly (as they broke me out of it).

 

Nowadays, of course, I would love to get my hands on downloadable versions of OoA and OoS, and would play them with much more tenacity.

[Captain Falcon]

Nowadays, of course, I would love to get my hands on downloadable versions of OoA and OoS, and would play them with much more tenacity.

 

I'm sure Nintendo will get them on the e-shop in time. I still have my copies of both of them as well as the sheet of paper I wrote down all my passwords on. I guess if they do release them, you won't be able to get to the secret GBA shop and buy the Advance rings but they cost 100 rupees and didn't do a thing anyway if I recall.

[Ville]

@Grazza Yeah, I went through Zelda 1 just now. It was surprisingly dull, same enemies and dungeons tiles recycled over and over again...

 

Now going through Zelda II, and good lord is this game one huge pile of crap or what. Even with the save state function, it's not fun to play at all...At Darunia town now.

[Ville]

Zelda II finished. Even with quicksaving, really awful. This game is not a classic, not worthy of even being called a Zelda game. Just an absolute turd...can't recommend this for anyone, stay away.

[Ronnie]

Zelda II finished. Even with quicksaving, really awful. This game is not a classic, not worthy of even being called a Zelda game. Just an absolute turd...can't recommend this for anyone, stay away.

 

No, don't stay away, it's an outstanding game, classic quality Zelda before it got all cutesy and colourful like we have now. But hey we can't all agree.

 

Now, if you want games that aren't worthy of being called Zelda games, see Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures.

[Ville]

No, don't stay away, it's an outstanding game, classic quality Zelda before it got all cutesy and colourful like we have now. But hey we can't all agree.

 

Now, if you want games that aren't worthy of being called Zelda games, see Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures.

 

Heh, what console have you been playing it on? Have you ever beaten it?

 

I agree, it looks great, and the music is good, although somewhat repetitive especially in the dungeons. Gameplay mechanic is interesting and fun, yes, but there are some serious issues which end up ruining the whole game. Like:

 

-no health items except the very rare fairies, and magic refills are not dropping very often either

-after you lose your (three) lives, it's back to the starting location, and all exp gets nulled!

-instant deaths from pits and lava pools

-some enemies are rather cheap and hard to kill without losing half your health

 

The end result is a game which is punishing and frustrating as hell. Even with quicksaving, I had to play really carefully and save all the time just to make sure I could make it through the dungeons. The lack of health / magic refills is just ridiculous: one time I actually had to backtrack from the boss' door to the town just to refill my meters o_O Now that is just awful game design! It wouldn't be so bad if you could continue from the dungeons when you die, but no, lose all your lives and back to the start it is. And did I mention that you also lose all your exp? Combine all of this with sudden deaths and cheap enemies and voilà, you got yourself one crappy game. Looks and sounds good, but plays absolutely awfully. I can't even imagine what kind of traumas the children who played through this back in the day have suffered...must have been pure torture. Get killed by the same enemy 3 times → start from Zelda's palace → travel all over the fucking map again → go through the dungeon again → get killed by the same enemy again → repeat until your psyche can take no more.

 

So quality? Yes, can't deny that. But outstanding, classic, fun? Heeeeeell no : D

[Ronnie]

I played it on the NES when it was first released, on the Wii Virtual Console and now on the 3DS a few months ago. Yes it's incredibly challenging, but so what, it's hugely enjoyable, satisfying when you do accomplish things and makes you approach every dangerous situation with huge care and attention. Every battle was tactical, rather than the brainless button bashing of modern Zelda (Skyward Sword apart, which was inspired by Zelda II). And anyway, even if you do start from the beginning after you die, more often than not it's very quick to get back to where you were with shortcuts (the hammer, raft etc...)

 

IMO it was a fantastic time when Zelda wasn't all cutesy, linear and piss easy to get through like it is today, with hearts everywhere so you hardly ever die.

 

But to say that people should avoid this game at all costs, that it's an absolute turd and barely 'deserves to be called a Zelda game', all because (boohoo) you had to be careful throughout and do a little backtracking... is a little ridiculous.

[Grazza]

What I don't understand, @Ville, is that all your criticisms (which I agree with) are about difficulty, yet you don't seem to have had any difficulty completing the game yourself. You breezed through it!

[Ville]

What I don't understand is that all your criticisms (which I agree with) are about difficulty, yet you don't seem to have had any difficulty completing the game yourself. You breezed through it!

 

Well that's the thing, I used a map and a walkthrough and the restore point thingy, and it was still frustrating! : o I mean what the hell, if that is not sucky gameplay design, I don't know what is...

 

@Ronnie Haha, yeah I made some rather heavy statements, let's revise a bit, shall we:

 

But to say that people should avoid this game at all costs

Ok, that was a bit hasty. If you're interested in the game, do give it a try, people. Still, don't be surprised if it's really frustrating...

 

it's an absolute turd

True, a turd is bad and bad only, not accurate here. Zelda II is more like a beautiful, inviting cake that has spam inside o_O Eww...

 

barely 'deserves to be called a Zelda game', all because (boohoo) you had to be careful throughout and do a little backtracking

My reasoning here is that Zelda II has been the only Zelda game that has been genuinely frustrating to play and beat. It was made by a different team than 1 or 3, and it shows. Now don't get me wrong, I really wanted to enjoy this game, but was rather disappointed, especially after Metroid and Zelda 1 which were at least somewhat fun to beat.

 

As for the difficulty, I agree that the modern games can be too easy, but Zelda II goes way overboard with being "challenging". I don't have any problem with the enemy difficulty, but the lose-your-lives-and-go-back-to-the-start-with-zero-exp system is just unnecessarily annoying. Feels like a really artificial, cheap way to extend gameplay time...Compare with Zelda 1, which is also quite challenging, but has plenty of health items, no lives and lets you restart from the dungeon entrance even after death. Makes a big difference...

 

So yeah, for me a Zelda game = quality and fun. Same thing with Marios, you can still play them today and they're still enjoyable. Not Zelda II, it has quality presentation and music, but also mirrors some of the worst aspects of the NES era, i.e. punishing difficulty and mindless repetition. Thus it ends up standing out like a sore thumb among the other Nintendo classics...

 

PS. You really beat this without save states? Extra respect for you man, that's hc : D

Edited September 22, 2012 by Ville

[EEVILMURRAY]

-no health items except the very rare fairies, and magic refills are not dropping very often either

-after you lose your (three) lives, it's back to the starting location, and all exp gets nulled!

-instant deaths from pits and lava pools

-some enemies are rather cheap and hard to kill without losing half your health

 

The end result is a game which is punishing and frustrating as hell. Even with quicksaving, I had to play really carefully and save all the time just to make sure I could make it through the dungeons. The lack of health / magic refills is just ridiculous: one time I actually had to backtrack from the boss' door to the town just to refill my meters o_O Now that is just awful game design! It wouldn't be so bad if you could continue from the dungeons when you die, but no, lose all your lives and back to the start it is. And did I mention that you also lose all your exp? Combine all of this with sudden deaths and cheap enemies and voilà, you got yourself one crappy game. Looks and sounds good, but plays absolutely awfully. I can't even imagine what kind of traumas the children who played through this back in the day have suffered...must have been pure torture. Get killed by the same enemy 3 times → start from Zelda's palace → travel all over the fucking map again → go through the dungeon again → get killed by the same enemy again → repeat until your psyche can take no more.

So basically your argument is "The game is really hard".

 

If only more games like this were just as challenging. Unlike the original Zelda, which was challenging, but was simply boring to play.

[Magnus]

I think Fallout 3 would have been a lot better if, instead of being able to save anywhere, you started back at the Vault any time you died. And isn't the max level 30? That's way too excessive. They should only have given you 8 and reset any experience points you had towards the next level when you died.

 

Hardcore mode in New Vegas would have had nothing on that.

[Jonnas]

So basically your argument is "The game is really hard".

 

If only more games like this were just as challenging. Unlike the original Zelda, which was challenging, but was simply boring to play.

 

There's a difference between difficulty that stems from genuine challenge and difficulty that stems from bad, frustrating game design.

 

It's one thing to restart a level when you die, it's another to restart a world. The RPG elements in Zelda II are archaic and amazingly frustrating. Aspects such as these seemed to bother Ville much more than the difficulty involved in defeating enemies.

 

I'm only going by the comments I've seen Ville make about the game, but it seems perfectly understandable.

[Ville]

There's a difference between difficulty that stems from genuine challenge and difficulty that stems from bad, frustrating game design.

 

It's one thing to restart a level when you die, it's another to restart a world. The RPG elements in Zelda II are archaic and amazingly frustrating. Aspects such as these seemed to bother Ville much more than the difficulty involved in defeating enemies.

 

I'm only going by the comments I've seen Ville make about the game, but it seems perfectly understandable.

 

Exactly. There's nothing challenging about being forced to go back to the start again and again and again and again and again, it's just a cheap-ass way to extend the game's length...

 

Compare with an NES shooter I just finished, Gun Nac. The final level was genuinely challenging, i.e. I had to try it 10-20 times and change the difficulty before being able to beat it. Yet it was still fun to do, because the game lets you restart the level after dying. In other words, you have the possibility to really hone those most difficult parts instead of having to trawl through the whole fucking game just to get that part first...Now that's good game design.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Ville