As someone who loves Zelda 2 I agree with most of this video. Knowing the game very well means I can breeze past some of it's flaws. Nostalgia is a powerful drug, but I do think this game is pretty cool at times.
I absolutely love this game. Kids had trouble with it, but it was still easier than Zelda 1 second quest. When you mentioned redoing the first game with harder dungeons, I wondered if you forgot about second quest.
Zelda 2 gave us the names of the Sages and Mido. They gave us Dark/Shadow Link. They gave us the idea of Zelda being a legacy name. It gave us the freakin' Triforce of courage!
Man, I'd buy that the first day. Heck, combining the first two games done right would help younger players understand what an epic adventure the first video game Link went through.
@@onegreengoat9779 I heavily disagree. Remakes can be very important for fixing the flaws of older games and giving them a fresh presentation for a new audience to enjoy. I don't think FFVII particularly needed one, but Zelda 2 could absolutely use it. It has so many little flaws that could be easily fixed with a remake. Plenty of original and creative games still get put out, I don't see the harm in letting a new generation play a better version of an old classic.
Everything you didn't enjoy about this game is what I remember being frustrating, but extremely rewarding eventually as a kid. Games could take weeks, or months to complete, and that was okay! In my case, I didn't have a ton of games, so one or two that were challenging were what made it worthwhile.
I suppose to a younger audience and the current youth, this is just not a great game. It does not give instant gratification. You have to work hard on getting through it. That's what made it fun.
@@AB-80X I don't want instant gratification, I want a game that doesn't needlessly pad itself with bullshit mechanics to give an illusion of depth. It was bad game design in the early 90s and it still is today.
@@tanyaharmon6739 most his complaints are about difficulty. The only thing I slightly agree with is the mirror. Everything else is just exploration. Also there were more hints then npcs. Location of items and expectations set in the start of the games were hint in them selfs that could be used through the entire game.
Thanks for this great video and in-depth analysis. I loved Zelda II, so here’s a positive analysis of the game that I bet you never thought you would get: I’m now totally blind, but in the early 90s, I still had some vision. that vision was still pretty poor, though, so I had no success finishing any video game at all, except for Zelda II. This was possible because of the simple fact that most of the game’s screens had very high contrast. Yes, the cryptic portions of it and the tediousness of leveling up were a pain, but it was the only game I could complete, so I put up with it; for instance, those skulls. I found that the best way to ramp up points for me was to keep leveling up my attack as much as possible by pounding away at one of the skulls in the fifth palace. Those skulls looked like nothing but round, white blobs to me, by the way, but it was enough to let me fight them. The high contrast and ease of use for a kid with lousy eyesight probably means that the graphics were awful, but I could beat the game. I couldn’t do that with Mario or any of the other timeless classics. To me, this advantage was enough to nullify all the annoyances. Beating a game felt so wonderful to me after so much frustration with video games in general and with Nintendo games in particular that I felt it was worth the trouble.
I need to add this: I definitely can level the same criticisms against this game on an intellectual level. Emotionally, the value for me is, yes, nostalgic, but it also goes beyond that. The game was empowering for me. It affirmed to me that my abilities as a legally blind boy were mainly limited by my physical disability and how I let the prejudices of others influence how I thought of what that said about my mind. See? I thought. I can too do the same things lots of other kids can do if I have the elements with which to succeed. Finishing Zelda II was not just proving I too could beat a Nintendo game. It proved that I could beat one of the most difficult and trying video games of that time. Zelda II is special to many people despite its distinct flaws. To some it's especially special in ways likely no one predicted.
Out of all of games we played as a family my oldest brother was the only one to ever beat Zelda 2. That's between me (not even 10 years old), 2 older brothers, my mother and my aunt. I could get pretty far sure. After watching my brother play it so much I remembered all the routes and obscure things you needed to do. He also had a strategy for each mob. One that worked wonders on nearly everything was a falling side stab and holding crouch throughout all of it. This leads into a double hit and if the don't move their shield one hit will land. Around 12 years old Dad, Mom, my little sis and I moved 3000 miles away from everyone else in the family. I wasn't very happy. Still, I had all these games my brothers and the rest of the family could beat! It was time to ascend! One summer break with no friends I decided to sit down and beat all these NES games that everyone else has beat. Both Zelda's, Mario 3, Battle Toads, and 1-3 Double Dragon. I was probably 13 at the time. Link turned out to be my last one because of the strategies I ended up bringing to it. Like you said Liam, it's close or similar to an arcade game. I realized that with the life system. My strategy was to stack every life I could prior to going to the final dungeon. I learned this after beating all the other games. This means after you complete the boss in every dungeon you don't grab the free level up at the end. You backtrack and leave the dungeon out the front door and proceed to the next task. Leave all of the level ups in the overworld alone. This way if you ever die you still have all the extra lives for later. Once you hit max level through combat and have finished every dungeon it's time to go back through all of them. Completing them at this point gives you an extra life. Along with the overworld ones you have yet to grab you should get somewhere between 20 and 40 lives I think. It's been a long time. I think it was 45 actually now that I'm thinking about it. I probably lost 10 or 15 lives in death mountain. The final castle was insane to map in my head. All I remember from watching my brother is he fell through a bunch of screens to find the lightning boss. I had 3 lives when I found him. Finished him after losing a life. Now, for Shadow Link. First thing I did, since I was nearly dead from the previous boss, was rush him in a straight up fight to see how badass he really was. It was like a karate grand master beating my ass. So now with 1 life and never wanting to play again but also not wanting to fail in mind I had to think of everything I could do. I ended up doing pretty good damage to him this time around but hr was chunking life away faster than I was. I ended up getting stuck in the corner and stabbing while crouched. I swear I never knew about this cheese. My brother never did it. I ended up beating Shadow Link with half a bar of health and 0 lives left. Even if I cheesed it I still felt so accomplished for overcoming something my brother had and no one else could in the family. All in all I'd only be able to recommend this game to someone who has something to prove. Not to the rest of the world but to yourself. I read about the person in your comments that is blind today but beat that game when he was going blind as a child. You gave me motivation to share this. You are the true hero of Hyrule. Thank you @Tony
You all are great I beat this game as a kid an the feeling of overcoming the challenges of this game is its own reward. This seems like it has a soulsbourne feel to the gameplay. Greatest game I've had the privilege to play
@@tonytypesalot You're totally blind? How do you write these comments? Do you have someone help you? This would take me at least 30 minutes to an hour to type out something with this level of detail and expressiveness with all of the typos and reformulation of thoughts. It would take so long to try and read this out to a computer and have to listen back to it and correct it, I'd hope at least you have a human to help with that. If you have no way of seeing and no one to tell you, this video's creator saw and liked your comment by the way.
I always appreciated how Melee kinda gave love to zelda 2. The temple and the Zelda Stage in the Adventure mode felt like a big ol' smooch to Zelda 2 enjoyers.
That's something I truly admire about the Smash Bros series. You can tell that Sakurai truly cares about the history of a given game or series, and he tries to bring as much as he can to even just their movesets. Aside from the original 12, nearly every character's moveset is nearly entirely built off of existing moves and attacks from their respective games. I love that.
That opening music alone is one of the most memorable pieces of video game music to me... This game is literally burnt into my mind just like Zelda I and Kid Icarus, those 3 games I spent almost my entire childhood on playing over and over. I can't count how many times I played and beaten them in all possible ways that I could imagine as a kid. After watching your vidoe and hearing your final thought about Zelda II I'm a bit sad. I don't know, did you play it as a kid? I played Zelda 1 and 2 as a kid and I finished Zelda 1 multiple times, I found all the secrets, every piece, I went on a mission I burned every bush and bmbed every wall in the entire game! I had almost NO help, no Nintendo Power, no Internet, no nothing but I did it. And when Zelda 2 came I went in with the same mentality, leave no stone unturned, try every path and git gud! It took me (or us, I played with my sisters) a huge ammount of time to beat it the first time but we did it, again without any help! That means, you can do it without any hints or tips from other sources than the game and the manual, we clearly did it that way! Where I live there was no Nintendo Power Magazine, we had no access to anything like that at this time. Zelda 2 is a hard game, there are times when it really drives you crazy but after learning how it works you know how to progress quite quik and save... but be aware, grinding and farming is involved. We came to the conclusion that you should level up Attack and Life at least 3 times each before closing P1 and you should NEVER close a Palace near level up becuase you'll waste a free level up. With that strategy in mind and a good knowledge of where you can grind, you should not have that much trouble. The only thing that's really crazy is the path to the final Palace, even on maxed out stats (which you should have at that point anyway) this can be a pain. But once you reached the final Palace you're good.
I'll admit I'm one of those people who love this game. lol Always did. Being somebody who's played this game a lot, I'd like to note that many people don't understand the enemies in this game. So I'll say this just to sum up what I'm going to share in this post, the combat system is actually better designed than it actually appears (in most cases... Some enemies like Death Mountain enemies and Lizalfos are still dumb...) I always get annoyed a little every time I see gameplay of this game where people are over-using the jump trick on Iron Knuckles and then they say they find issue with having to use an exploit to defeat the Iron Knuckles because of "inconsistency". lol However, at the same time I understand because the game doesn't make itself clear on how these guys were intended to be fought, so it's understandable that many people miss this odd but engaging design choice in combat. I'll elaborate: Fighting these guys for years, and having a firm understanding of their A.I. as a result, it is clear that the developers wanted you to take the aggressive vs defensive approach to combat. One thing you'll notice all Iron Knuckles have in common is after you hit them, they get much more aggressive for a few seconds until they tire out and return to their normal behavior. Many people don't notice this and will see this behavior as inconsistent and therefore resorting to jumping exploits. It's more of a mechanic that is poorly communicated than a mechanic that is poorly executed. Granted, it's still not perfect, but it's crazy how you will see these enemies differently if you took a defensive approach after every time you hit them. This is especially true for the Red Iron Knuckles and the Blue ones, as the orange ones are kinda just tutorial versions of these enemies and are much easier to brute force. I discovered this because of my refusal to play games using exploits, and felt that if I couldn't play a game like it was intended to be played, the game is not worth playing, and through practice, I discovered the game rewards a combat approach that's almost similar to Dark Souls, certainly ahead of its time and it's a shame that it was poorly communicated. Bottom line is that it's very dangerous to (go alone... lol) be attacking Iron Knuckles during their aggressive moments so the game rewards a "Poke and defend" combat approach (assuming you don't use the jump attack exploit).
@@janek8195 I do understand that it's a combat system that could have been better communicated. Many people dont really know notice quirks or behaviors in A.I., so when the A.I. starts behaving in an unpredictable manner, people will often misinterpret that as inconsistent. Also, playing devil's advocate, I'd go as far as to say it is fair for people to see the poke and defend mechanics as "poke and wait" mechanics and still see it as a flaw. Similar to Egorapter's argument towards the constant blocking mechanics in OOT. I'd argue however Zelda 2's poke and wait mechanics beats OOT forcing you to wait for enemies to drop shield, but I digress. It's absolutely fair for people to say that if players are forced to used an exploit to otherwise avoid the slower paced combat this game has intended could indicate a gameplay element that's still quite niche and even though it's very functional and intuitive for its day, that doesnt mean it's not without flaws.
@@SoulsOfWisdom Z2's mechanics are better than oot because "waiting" actually takes skill - you need to defend high and low rather than just hold the block button. Also, if you're skilled enough at the game you can defend AND attack through the agro phase (I don't think Link drops his guard while attacking like Z1, or if he does it's very briefly). You can brute-force through defensive enemies in oot too, but it's harder to get around them, the knockback you get from hitting their shield is annoying and it slows the fight down. I actually think, for how simple it is, Z2's fight mechanic is amazing. Kinda like boxing, but instead of defending/looking for openings left/right it's high/low.
As an obsessed little 12yr old playtester in the days before the internet, I can give you this 2 definitive statements: I could not complete Original Zelda without clues and tips. I completed Zelda 2 without clues and tips. People slam Zelda 2 for its cryptic nature, but I believe it did so to follow the footsteps of its obtuse predecessor.
I'm conflicted about the Game Overs taking away all your EXP. On the one hand it's really frustrating when it happens... but on the other hand, it makes reaching a new level all the more rewarding. I like that it's up to me whether or not I want to play it safe and grind in a secure environment, (albeit very slowly) or risk venturing into a more dangerous place that also rewards me with more EXP. If a Game Over didn't ruin all my progress, that choice would be gone. I could always just waltz into any cave, dungeon or wilderness, with no rhyme or reason. Why should I be careful? Death is just a minor setback. Then it's almost like... the later zelda games. Yeah, in other Zelda games death is usually JUST a minor setback. But Zelda 2 doesn't have to retroactively be like today's formular, does it? Not punishing the player at all for losing would mean you could just blindly stroll through every dungeon, halfheartedly slashing at the enemies, until you eventually scrape up enough exp to warrant a level-up. I like the sense of dread that comes with a possibility of losing it all. Cuz when you DO get those last few exp you needed for your level, you're like "YES! I DID IT! I LEVELED UP! YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME!" It also adds an element of strategy to how you tackle a dungeon. You don't wanna finish the dungeon while being really close to a level-up, since that would waste all the free exp you get from inserting the gem into the statue. So you always gotta keep an eye on your exp and decide what the best course of action would be. Maybe if they ever remade this game, they could make a compromise. Like, instead of losing ALL exp upon game over, they could just drain a certain amount of exp each time you die. Kinda like how Mario Odyssey takes away 10 coins for each death. That would still create a very different kind of tension, but at least you'd get punished at all. Now, all that being said, the fact that lava is an instant death and it's very easy to get knocked into it is just bullshit. And if this game got a sequel, it would be nice if there was SOME way to restore some of your lives. Not like the Mario games, where extra lives are all over the place, making them utterly pointless, but being able to get back to 3 lives with some effort would be great.
I know this is pretty limited, but once u get enough xp u can use that for extra lives, I think u need to get L8 for everything first, and then I think it's like 9000 xp for an extra life. I grinded in the lizalfos infested forests and even the cemetery with the blue lizalfos in order to have 10 lives before I faced the Thunderbird and Shadow Link. Would be nice to have another way, accessible earlier in the game tho.
you know its funny back in the day i loved these games. the only game i ever had to call nintendo with permission from my parents was demon sword last boss. nothing in that shit made sense. ff and dq great games but demon sword wtf at the end
Couple of things: I noticed you were having a hard time with some enemies but not using Shield spell with them even though that uses far less magic than life spell. Also, this is just me talking with knowledge we couldn't have had back then, but I don't call Guts "Gattsu" even though there's a game with that exact English translation in it, so the first thing I'd do in a Zelda 2 ROM hack is change Bug's name to actually say "Bug" so people can get the reference that Error and Bug are related.
Funny you like dark links patterns but not blue darknuts. Blue dark nuts absolutely have a pattern, they throw the exact same sequence each time you hit them. Dark Link however, has no set pattern. The great palace invisible wall part is purely a secret area (hinted at by the fact that nothing else happens on that elevator screen otherwise). You don't have to find it at all. I just played the game for the first time, spoiler free, and every single mysterious part of the game has hints and very reasonable to figure out imo. There are actually way better clues for what to do in this game than zelda 1 even! I think getting through all the combat is harder than figuring out how to progress on the overworld lol. Not recommending the game to *any* zelda fan is crazy! Great combat, satisfying adventure game and puzzle solving, each area really feels like you beat it when you progress past it, really cool spells. It's a really impressive NES game and overall just really satisfying!
He doesn't like any NES Zelda game. And unlike AVGN seems really confused that yes, every serious gamer with hundreds of Nintendo games subscribed to Nintendo Power.
@@deViant14 the only thing I got hung up on in this game was finding Kasuto, but that's because I didn't read the manual to know the hammer can chop trees. I think the game is totally solvable as a self contained game without Nintendo power :)
They're not Dark Nuts, they're Iron Knuckles. It says it in the booklet for the game. Granted if you're playing this on some sort of port that manual may be unavailable. If you go online to see the enemy list though you will find them.
Aside from Bagu, I felt like most of the hints were pretty well telegraphed (especially for an older game). For example, a villager near the graveyard tells you to go to Error who gives you the location of the grave you need to fall down for palace 3. And the spell spell is obtained in the same town you get the last magic bottle from (which requires having the other 3) which then allows you to obtain the spell. Since the whole town is devoted to you getting the spell, I figured it would be used to reveal a secret at the wall (like one of the villagers says). I actually really enjoyed the puzzle solving which didn’t require tons of backtracking - if I hadn’t used a villager’s hint and I was struggling, it led me to search more around the nearby landmarks or to explore the village more. It made things feel like a true adventure - scouring the lands for the upgrades I needed to prevail over Ganon. But, to be fair, it definitely has at least a few obtuse hints. I’m not saying it’s perfect… just better designed than many give it credit for.
I love Zelda II. Granted, some of that's probably nostalgia, since it was my first Zelda game. At the same time, I found it FAR less cryptic than the original. The clues are there, if you take the time to talk to NPCs and explore the world. And the combat felt more engaging as well. I enjoyed facing off against a single knight, each of us trying to bypass the other's shield. In the original, it felt like I was trying to chase down mindless enemies as they moved randomly around the room. I acknowledge the game has flaws. In particular, the life "dolls" seem pointless. Back in the day I would ignore them until I was ready to assault the final dungeon; nowadays I ignore them entirely. Still, whenever I'm in the mood for retro Zelda gaming, Zelda II is my go-to game.
As somebody who only played this game after finishing alttp and Zelda 1, I was surprised how satisfying it was to complete it. Yeah, it’s a kick-you-in-the-balls game and the death system is garbage, but I enjoyed the frantic combat and leveling up your health and magic feels fantastic. I really would like to see the Zelda franchise return to the 2d style this game had and iron out all the kinks to make it accessible to modern standards. (No, I don’t count the Link’s Awakening remake.)
So, Zelda 2 is hands down my favorite Zelda game. For me, it was a feeling of control, and even when things felt cryptic, the world felt alive and vibrant (even if the townsfolk often..."know nothing". The game made me feel more like I was stepping into Link's shoes than the first game ever did. The combat was methodical and timing based and felt like how one would approach a real fight with a weapon like that. The exploration of the world was kept to small enough chunks that, even if you didn't know where to do, you could wander around enough and find a solution. It all culminated in a hell of a final boss fight. Are there problems with the game? Sure, absolutely. Some aspects were too cryptic (the lack of in game explanations on the spells certainly didn't help). But the game felt like the next logical step. When I finished playing through the original Zelda game, I felt burned out, not invigorated. I felt alone in a world of nothing but monsters and cryptic, hidden messages, backwater dungeons with endless swarms that you never make any headway too, and times where the lack of direction made me wander for hours. I always had an idea where to go in Zelda II, even when there were bad directions, and it's one of the few games I beat back when I first got my cartridge, that I beat without a guide or any outside assistance. Graphically, the game felt like a huge step up, the larger sprites made enemies feel less like postage stamps and more like the threats they were intended to be. Looking back, the first game has dated horribly with its graphics and character design. The gameplay is very restrictive and the sense of just not knowing what to do left...at least me, puzzled, confused and stressed. It's a great game, and defined the NES and the genre, but I don't feel like going back to revisit it. Any time I potentially think about it, I brush it aside because of my memories with it. Even though I've gone back and played it through again, several times, I've always gravitated more towards Zelda II.
I remember, 30 years ago, when my dad and brother and I made our final charge to the Great Palace, we grinded for 2-3 hours for 10 extra lives. One thing I absolutely love about this game (though I have no desire to play it again) is the characterization of the individual dungeons: the stone gray castle of dungeon one, the gloomy swamp dungeon, the brick red and knight-laden dungeon 3, the purple dungeon of Wizrobes on Maze Island, the green ocean dungeon, the epic intensity and purple of dungeon 6, and the Great Palace. Each had their own satisfying textures, colors, and enemies, and the boss fights with the curtains and music were so epic. Subsequent Zelda games did this well but it started here.
At the possibility of sounding like an old man yelling at clouds, here it goes ... Full disclaimer, I do think this game is better than the first one, which is not to say I think the first game is terrible. I think I just related more to the side scrolling/RPG elements on a personal level. Also, I'll try to keep the rosy cloud of nostalgia from letting me point out that this game is far from perfect. However, all the things you mentioned as being "negative" actually made me try to become better at it. The thing about the game being too cryptic is doubled for me because I grew up in Mexico and played (and beat) this game before I ever learned English. I believe this may very well have been the first game I ever beat on any system, actually. Anyway, because I had no idea what anyone was saying, all that was left for me to do was explore the map, try new things, backtrack, and yes, die multiple times while attempting to find a new secret. Was it incredibly frustrating? Yes, but again, I took that as a challenge and became better at the game as a result. I saw the "going back to Zelda's chamber" thing as a just punishment for not being good enough at the game. I never thought of the combat as broken, or the AI being weird for not having "clear patterns." I'm my child's mind, I probably thought that the game was responding to how I was playing it. I realize now that that wasn't the case, but I never saw the jump/crouch/stab thing as an exploit, or as a way of cheating. The way I saw it was, if I'm able to pull that move off in the game, then it's a valid strategy and I'm meant to use it. As for the fight with Shadow Link, I had no idea about the "duck in the corner thing," so I had to beat him the old school way. I most definitely would have tried that if I had known, but I do feel a certain clout for not beating him like that ;) I understand why people that liked the first game disliked this one so much. It's kinda the same thing that happened to me and Simon's Quest. I really like that game too, but I can definitely understand why it gets criticized. I would like to give credit to both companies for not resting in their laurels and creating games that were vastly different from their predecessors. I would say they were even ahead of their time, as Simon's Quest was an early attempt at the Metroidvanias that everyone seems to love, and Zelda 2 set the bar pretty high for side scrolling action games, IMO. I hope I didn't coming across as being overly angry :)
The dolls, chances are just glitched. There are 6 of them vs the 4 heart and magic containers but you happen to start off with less lives than health and magic. So I feel they were suppose to give you more of a net to screw up but they forgot to add to your number after death. Really I count Botw as sort of a remake of Zelda 1, I hope its sequel gives us a Zelda 2 feel. Oh and Zelda 2 gave us tons of things to love: special sword moves like the up and down thrust, important names, the Triforce of Courage, the magic meter in general.
Zelda 2 is one of my Favorite games in the series. I first played it in 1988 when I was 8 and had no trouble completing the game back then, although I did have the Nintendo Power magazines so maybe that helped me. Either way, I can still finish this game in one afternoon start to finish, and then I'll usually do a second play through the next day with my save file, since you start out with all the spells and whatever levels you finished the game with, so you can potentially start with everything at level 8 and just breeze through the game, which makes it real fun.
I was 8 in 1988 as well and was able to play and finish this. I wouldn't say I had no trouble. It was difficult. Definitely needed to get tips from Nintendo Power and from friends. The difficulty spike in Death Mountain was kind of sudden.
I love Zelda II, I beat it first when I was 11 and I didn't have Nintendo Power. Everything cryptic in this game can be figured by paying attention to clues given from NPCs and/or thoroughly exploring the over world. It's not even that difficult of a game when you use the leveling system your advantage. I had a much harder time beating games like Mega Man and Metroid growing up.
Zelda 2's combat is like a 2D prototype for what we would eventually get in Souls combat. It can be grueling and unforgiving at times, but it's usually very fair. You can either be defending or attacking, and you can be in 3 positions: standing, crouching, or jumping. Jumping also gives you two additional attack directions. Every enemy in this game is designed to test your application of this system, including those blue knights. The knights are a great example of this because they essentially mirror your attack and defense. You can block their attacks the same way they block your attacks. You can also block the daggers the blue knights throw at you. You fight the blue knights the same way you fight the orange and red knights, except now you need to block as you're closing the distance too. That's essentially an invisible tutorial. They raise the stakes more with the bird knights that add jumping to the mix (they are kinda bullshit hard tbh). The ultimate conclusion of this is when you fight yourself at the end. The RPG mechanics are fun on repeat playthroughs too. You don't have to take the first levelup the game gives you. When that dialogue comes up, you can close it without spending your exp, which can allow you to buy a more expensive upgrade sooner. This is where the lives system and losing your exp comes into play. There's a risk-reward system with saving up your exp for more expensive upgrades. It's rough around the edges for sure, but the fact that they came up with a combat system this good in 1987 is incredible.
As a child under 10, I figured out how to find Life because you "just check everything." People did the same thing in Final Fantasy or Chrono Trigger. You just tested stuff. It's a strong trait of young people. Test the limits. I got all the way to Thunderbird as a kid and I'm no genius. Just try stuff and you figure it out.
Well said. I also beat the game when I was 9, without a guide. It took a couple months but the game was enjoyable, I would argue it’s one of the top 5 best game for the NES.
@@misteree9 I think a lot of people just copy what other TH-camrs say about the game because they allowed that to influence their experience. Games like Zelda 2 Contra, etc. are not that hard. Tmnt is hard only on the last 2 levels, but you get two continues. If you just put in effort to remembering where to go near the end of these games, you end up being able to beat them.
I love the combat (Zelda 1's combat is awful) and yeah, as a guy that played it when it was new, a westerner, and a nerd at that... I was excited that they were "adding Dungeons and Dragons elements to Zelda". I actually dreamed of one day the graphics to be good enough for Link and a party to be combing the catacombs like the tabletop game.
Dr. Cool Indeed, Zelda 1’s combat gets too much credit, what with it being one of the first type of its genre for Western audiences. And yet the Ys series had more dynamic multi-directional combat years prior.
@@osurpless Hardly. YS used the "slam into the enemy to deal damage system". Zelda's combat was based on spacing. Also, YS doesn't precede Zelda, it came out in June of 1987 while Zelda came out in February of 1986
@@roskiart8750 You don’t just slam into enemies, it’s based on how you approach from different angles. Yea, I learned the dates are wrong for the direct comparison, but Xanadu and Romancia (predecessors from Falcom) are earlier and have features like that.
@@osurpless Like knockback? No, they don't. This simple addition changes everything. It made the combat fundamentaly arcade like for Zelda, which is more intuitive than what you see on Xanadu or even YS(where you slam into enemies to fight. Yes, the angle changes the damage outputs but specially in Xanadu you're bound to take unavoidable damage from attacking the enemy. The sword button and knockback ensures you don't get any damage and the enemy the full brunt of it if you time your movements right. It strips away the focus on stats that way) Romancia is 1986 too btw. I think you get the picture wrong. Zelda succeeded where Nihon Falcom can't even hope to reach because it's light on RPG mechanics as the series isn't really an RPG. You can argue (with plenty of merit) that this means the mechanics are simpler, but in practice they're just that much more intuitive. You push the button, sword goes. It's a very fundamental difference.
I really love this game, but I'm well aware it's hard to go back to if you havent allready played it back in it's time. And if I put aside all the great things this game has to offer, i'd say the reason for loving it is not only plain nostalgia but also lies in the magic of grinding a good but hard game in the early childhood. My friends had the original Zelda allready so when I finally got my own NES (+Ice Climber) for chistmas I started making sure I later got Zelda II instead. Naturally, me and my friends became better at the games we owned ourselves. I don't know where I learned the infamous secrets about Bagu, or the mirror, or the dark Link cheat but the game to me grew more and more the better I got at it. The puzzles and dialogue gave atmosphere and rest but the combat, the stress levels, the music, it all came together in a gauntlet of mechanics. It's different but the controls are tight and fluid, way ahead of it's predecessor. But it has also aged a lot and it's very weird overall, I can see it really is a question about wich cartridge you bought at the time. I know this because after I had gotten Castlevania, my friend got Simon's Quest and he still Swears by it as the best 8-bit Castlevania. And the same reason makes Mega Man 1 my favourite Mega Man game.
Once you're good at the game, you can beat it in like three hours, and those three hours are really fun. What's not fun are the fifteen or so hours of playtime it takes to get that good. I 100% agree with everyone's hate of the game, but once you get good, the game is really fun to play.
This comment right here. I fully admit this game is only fun because I know where to go and what to do - and most importantly - HOW to do it. Love/hate is defined by Zelda 2 for me.
yeah, the emphasis on "starting all over" was way too much - yes, you lost any experience you had gained *since you last leveled* which didn't take long to recoup on your way back to where you died. This isn't like Super Mario 1 where you start over at the beginning as though it's your first time. Your abilities and level ups remain. Only thing lost is any new experience points that hadn't been converted to a level yet. And, there are also tons of shortcuts once you progress that make it fairly trivial to get back to where you were after a game over. And if you stay on the dirt roads, you won't encounter random spawns, making it quick & easy to get back on track. I feel like this review makes a much bigger deal out of game overs than it ever really was. I also noticed a lot of spots where there were hidden magic potions which would have helped Liam maintain his magic bar a lot easier. They're hidden, but they're in very predictable spots. Screw the swap though - that area was super hard to even get through without a game over - before you could even get to the dungeon in the middle of the swamp. I think I need to replay Zelda II this weekend!
Yup, it's not THAT unfair. "I couldn't recommend Z2 to any Zelda fan", this guy. Though I'm not saying his opinion is "wrong", it's an opinion, after all. Great video, lots of effort and work!
Also, best use of the extra lives was to skip all of them until you were ready to go to the final palace. That trek is grueling and having as many lives as you can gave you the best chance of making it to the final palace, which is the only one you will respawn at the entrance of if you die (the reason for which is interesting if you want to look it up).
I definitely enjoy Zelda 2. For me, the seemingly random placements of some things was helped by friends telling me where they were, and sometimes just dumb luck. But at the time (playing it when it was fairly new), that wasn't a foreign experience, so it didn't really bother me. In fact - here we go - for a long time, I enjoyed this title more than Zelda 1! Crazy, I know. I beat Zelda 2 loooong before I beat Zelda 1 as a kid, and it's where I got my initial love of the series. I'd love to see a good HD remake that captures the original, while also updating a few things to be more for a modern audience (and maybe a mode that keeps the old stuff just so people can experience it with better graphics).
I’m a 37 year old Zelda fan who grew up playing every single game, and still own them all on original consoles and handhelds, but Zelda II is the only game I’m yet to complete. It’s always been the standout game that’s so different in gameplay and style, and the difficulty and lack of direction has always put me off revisiting it. I loved the original NES game as a kid. But Zelda II wasn’t fun. It wasn’t until I got an N64 as a 14 year old that I discovered my love for Zelda with OoT, and then went back to play a link to the past on an old SNES.
"It’s always been the standout game that’s so different in gameplay and style" It's almost like it's not really a sequel to Zelda 1 (despite the label on the box)... it's Nintendo's early attempt at an RPG game that had Zelda branding attached at the last minute.
Since I haven't seen any Zelda II enjoyers explaining their personnal love to the game like he asked at the end, I'll try to give it a shot. Zelda II is easily one of my favorite Zelda games, well over Zelda I, one of the reasons for that is the battle system, battle system that to me fixed a huge issue Zelda I, it was unfair. You could get destroyed in a nick of time in Zelda I, even with the entire inventory, the game just threw a bunch of enemies at you, made them invulnerable to sword beam and most of your items and you just had to wish you came out alive. While Zelda II fixed that, by having a decent fighting system that made every enemy encounter way more manageable and actually fun! It felt rewarding to dispose of those dark nuts and seeing your exp points grow. Another reason i love Zelda II and main reason too, is the difficulty, I love difficult NES games but I won't lie, a lot of them are unfair, while Zelda II has a level up system that toughens up your character and make it more balanced to survive through the fights, while Ninja Gaiden kind of just hopes you make it out fine of most levels with no evolution to your character either but enemies sure evolve! Another more subjective point and this is the last one, *the story*, it is written in the manual but it's so far one of the most original Zelda stories I've seen so far and so tragic! It was such a good change of paste that it made me love to get on to the adventure and save that princess that suffered from Aganhim and his foolish brother, all to say, Zelda II was pretty grand, could have been better but it was the NES.
I love this game. There's just something really charming about it, even though it's downright abusive to the player sometimes. It's got so many interesting ideas, and beating those tough areas is extremely satisfying. It really feels like you earned that victory by getting really good at the game. It doesn't hand you anything for free, you have to work hard at it to get anywhere.
Almost all the enemies DO have multiple ways to take them on, even if you haven't discovered them. And if you die in Great Palace, you actually restart in Great Palace.
Shigeru Miyamoto in recent years has made it clear in interviews that he isn't incredibly fond of Zelda 2, but acknowledges its cult following and that it'd be rude to pin the blame on one singular aspect or person. Zelda 2, at least in Nintendo's eyes, was a collaborative disappointment. That may also explain why Ocarina of Time was originally envisioned as a 3D remake of Zelda 2.
I feel like when people complain about old NES games being cryptic, this is the case. There are clues, and they failed to find or even look for them. Also they are clues. So what you have to go to the edge of town and jump around stab some stuff, then think a little and go what can i try now ?? Then start trying casting spells. So you waste some magic, you are in a town. You can get your magic refilled. If they just told you what to do, it wouldnt be a clue and people would complain its too easy.
@Robert Hunter He basically said he liked it, but it had it's flaws and is hsrd. Pretty sure he started the review saying people were asking for him to do the game and he was surprised as he thought it was good.
One of my favorite strategies for Zelda II: When you beat the first three temples, do NOT return the crystals to the statues. Use the temples for XP farming. Temple 3 in particular. Temple 1 and 2 for before going to Death Mountain.
Ok so... I enjoy Zelda 2. I think it has some very good, thoughtful systems in place. However, the context in which these systems exists is rough. Like, reaaaalllly rough. Combing the land for one crucial square? Having to do one specific set of inputs to obtain a mirror when you collect no other object in the game this way? Needing to literally walk into an unassuming wall to reveal a hallway? That's garbage dude. I feel like the overworld has more memorable design aspects than you give it credit for, and feel it *usually* telegraphs its secrets in a thoughtful way, but things like the Bagu bot just shit on that thoughtful overworld design. I appreciate how the items you get can cut down on your overworld travel time, and how fairy tiles are fairly abundant throughout the game, and how grinding is always an option instead of going straight to the temples. These aspects give the player some sense of progression in almost a rogue-like sense, where each 3-life run can be spent grinding, searching for secrets to raise your stats, finding an item or learning a move or spell to make your next run easier/less tedious, or if you feel you're prepared, to go and tackle the combat gauntlet that is the next dungeon. I largely feel the dungeon design is a lateral move from that of zelda 1. I think the maps are just as diverse in terms of structure, and found them no less thoughtful than those of zelda 1. The boss designs largely fall into my appreciation for the enemy designs, as each has a unique pattern to be discovered and exploited. This is only enhanced by the progression of Link's skillset throughout the game, leading to what i consider a very rewarding combat system, certainly the system by which I feel this game thrives most. Again, this game has solid mechanics and systems, while being marred by a few glaring instances that disregard the intentional, deliberate design decisions that hold the game together otherwise. All to say, yeah I basically agree with Liam, except I like the game lol. Good video dude :D
@@hdofu yeah lol as he was saying that I was like "unless ur a speedrunner". Those guys are insane😆 I've seen them go through the entire game without the 🕯️
Everything you brought as bogus mechanics or asspulls are plainly told to you by villagers, all of them. They tell you what area to comb and it's not that big and next to a town when hunting bagu. It's all there for you to piece together, no guides needed
In defense of Zelda II. I got this for my 10th birthday in June 1988. I had my NES for a year and a half at this point. NES games were absolutely hit or miss back then. There was no Internet. No TH-cam. There were few or no guides and Nintendo Power. Compared to a lot of the games out at the time, Zelda II was a masterpiece. We did not have OOT or ALTTP to compare it to. Legit 16 bit games were still years off. You HAVE to have lived it to understand it. The guides I had access to ONLY covered the western map and temples. The eastern continent I had to do on my own, or collab with friends and family. I did beat this game later that summer. I can pick up Zelda II any time now and beat it with no guides or videos 100% based on memory.
I tried this game when I was just getting into Zelda as a teenager. Didn't really hook me and I couldn't finish it. Couldn't finish Zelda 1 either for that matter. I tried it again last year when I marathoned through all the 3d Zeldas and felt like throwing in Zelda 1 and 2 and I finished them. Zelda 1 was an okay game and I don't understand why it gets so much love but Zelda 2 was a lot of fun in a challenging way. I really enjoyed it. Probably for the same reason I've come to really enjoy roguelites. The 8-bit swordplay made for an engaging experience. Every enemy had a strategy you had to learn through trial and error. And I've also gained a certain appreciation for some of the quirks of early 8-bit games. But some of the more frustrating aspects were mitigated because I turned to a guide when, say, certain things were literally lost in translation.
I havent looked into it at all but I wonder if the Japanese version of Zelda 2 had more useful NPC dialogue, is it possible a lot (not all) of the cryptic problem solving is due to a below average localisation?
This was a big reason why Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest is so bad (the NPCs gave you cryptic clues and a lot of the wordplay made no sense when first translated literally and secondly squished to fit within the dialogue box character limit), wouldn't be surprised if it affected Zelda 2 as well.
both zelda1 and 2 suffer from some pretty bad translation,yes. I have no idea how much it impacted the overall experience tho, it might not have done much.
I’d argue the mirror can absolutely still be found without outside help so long as the player is actually observant of the game’s design. Every single house you can enter has something for you. Often it’s an npc with a hint. But sometimes it’s seemingly empty. Now you’re absolutely right that most people playing this nowadays would just leave. But if you’ve paid attention, you’ll realize it’s strange that this house is empty, and so you poke around and find the mirror (which you do NOT actually need to crouch to pick up). There’s more “empty” houses later as well, and just like the mirror, if you just poke around a bit you’ll find clues to secrets written on the wall.
I agree with OP; this game is an overrated "false gem" in my honest opinion. Most of the people defending it only do so because when you were younger, getting games was rare so you forced yourself to find ways to enjoy it. What the hell else are you going to do; play Mario + Duck Hunt for the millionth time, or wander aimlessly for a bit in Zelda II? It's more fun to play in hindsight knowing what to do; aggravation turns into acceptable pass-time when you have no other games or activities to do instead.
I think it took me 4 yrs to beat this game for the first time. I could never find that town that you had to cut down the tree to uncover. I remember one Saturday spending like 3hrs with graph paper marking every square only to get to the end truly confused... I went through that cave and found it with the first forest square I cut down. Here we are 25+ years later and I still love beating this game every few months. Even more than the first one. Sure it’s brutally hard but once you have perfected it over years(decades?) I don’t know... the 10yr old in me still brings out the nostalgia. I would absolutely not recommend it to anyone but I’m always happy to share all the secrets over a few hour walkthrough.
Really enjoyed the video and hearing your take on it! I love Zelda 2. That and Twilight Princess are still my favourite titles, so it's already a bit against the grain. xD I understand why people don't like this game, I really do. It's definitely not for everyone and it's absolutely different from the first game and the others in the series, but here are the reasons that I love it as much as I do. I really enjoy the combat and game play. I'm always trying to gain better skills at mastering it and I get a lot of satisfaction while playing and trying to get better. Seeing how little level up I can get away with and beat it, going through dark areas without the candle, no game over/death runs, just things like that. Maybe it's a bit masochistic, it probably is, but I really enjoy a good challenging NES game! The controls feel really good and tight to me as well. When I control Link, I really feel like I am in absolute control to where dying honestly feels like it was my mistake. I think the game looks nice too, I'm a fan of side scrollers and am a little sad that 2D Zelda never went back to this style. Of course I understand why they never did again. I still hope that Nintendo will remake this one day! :D
I love Zelda 2. It’s actually my favourite 2D Zelda game. The sidescrolling and doubling down on many RPG aspects just clicks more for me. I don’t usually get criticism for the game being too hard or too cryptic, but I think when I watched this, I kinda figured out why my experience with this game is as different as it is. By the time I played Zelda 2, I had already finished Ocarina Of Time, Majoras Mask, and had played as much as I could of the 2D Zelda games by the time I got the GameCube disc with Zelda 2 on it (and eventually the GBA cart). So I was already familiar with the Zelda formula and language of the puzzles it has, little what may be had actually been present in Z2. But more importantly, one of the first games I remember playing, learning the language of its puzzles from a young age and to this day knowing like the back of my hand, is MYST. From its love-it-or-hate-it language of puzzles that kind of throws you into this alien-yet-familiar world, to the world itself encouraging you to take risks, try new things, fail, but learn, I feel like it was probably my early love and understanding of MYST that really got me into Z2 and accept it despite what many call unfair challenges or puzzles. I still can’t say I understand the criticism Z2 (or MYST, for that matter) gets, but I feel like I better understand the circumstances of why it is that I love this game as much as I do now. Thanks for that.
@Robert Hunter But it doesn't. Link's Awakening, the Oracle games, Minish Cap, Four Swords, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks and Link Between Worlds all beg to differ.
@Robert Hunter Actually, Link Between Worlds came out 2013, and don't try to tell me it doesn't count just because the graphics are 3D. Either way, my point is that there's no other Zelda game that tries to be similar to 2, which is true. Regardless of when the last one came out, there are plenty of top-down games, and the 3D games are all quite similar.
I think this game surpassed most other games in its quality because it focuses on something that some games really didn't focus on, and that's skill. In some Zelda games you can just bypass the challenge or get items that make you stupidly overpowered, but this game forced you to replay the same stuff over and over again until you got good. This is the definition of NEShard. I like this game because if you lose, you can blame it on whatever you want, but it's still your fault. If you lose, it's a skill issue. This game forces you to get really good, until eventually you master it, and that is one of the greatest feelings in the world. To go from relying on save states to let me constantly get back to my progress to actually being able to beat it on the real cartridge, that feeling was magical, more magical than the entirety of easier games such as wind waker and Skyward Sword. I had honestly gotten too whiny and nitpicky with video games, to the point where I was starting to lose my interest in gaming, and this game helped me find that interest again, it taught me what challenge is and what skill is all over again. This game will forever hold a special place in my heart, and I will still say till the day I die that this is easily a top three Zelda game, and if someone finds it too hard, they just need to get good.
I found Bagu in the forest within five minutes of talking to the blob in town and knowing I needed to find him. I don't think this game is really that cryptic.
I'm glad so many people had a rad time with that game but dunking on Liam for not getting the cryptic clues and being frustrated with the...*interesting* design choices in a lot of the gameplay isn't the way to go. It's less "Liam ignored these obvious things!" and more "the game makes it hard to find the fun unless you know what you're doing"
People just like to perpetuate the hatred towards Zelda 2 to show the community that they 'belong'. It's kinda become a meme, but it was in no way worse, and in many ways better than the first Legend of Zelda. Overworld, noticeable difficulty gradient, wider variety of dungeons, bosses, enemies, magic, NPCs. When I travelled over the sea, escaped the mountain, or reached the path towards the Final Castle, I really felt I was in another world every time, not just more of the same hidden behind a rock I could now smash. "Guys, look at how much I too hate Zelda 2!!!! Am I included in your club now? Guys? Please???!!!"
6:47 "Whose going to be the first person to find out you can bomb that specific wall in that one square on the overworld?" I think I first discovered that some walls in the world were bombable by trying to kill with a bomb a group of enemies that were clustered close to one such square.
The thing I find most confounding about Zelda 2 is that... I can't think of a way to make it better. With Zelda 1, you had something that clearly represented good, foundational gameplay, just with a ton of jank in the controls, boring dungeon design, unfair overworld elements, and such. It's easy to imagine what a better Zelda 1 would look and play like even before every other 2D Zelda game came out. LttP wasn't so much a bolt from the blue as the promise of Zelda 1 fulfilled. Most of its decisions made in that game's design felt like "yes, that's exactly how it should have been done." Zelda 2 has some good ideas, but I think it's foundations are sufficiently weird that there's no way to make a better version of the same idea without getting completely radical and un-Zelda-like. Take the combat, the best part of Zelda 2. OK, so you want deep, side-scrolling 2D combat. Well, here's the thing. Every idea you might have to increase combat depth is ultimately going to turn it into either a shooter or into Castlevania of some form. Or into the side-scrolling equivalent of Dark Souls. Regardless of which path you pick, the end product is going to play a lot differently from Zelda 2. The only thing I can think of to fix the overworld is to just remove it and make the whole game a side-scroller. Which turns the game into well, Castlevania 2 at worse, Symphony of the Night at best. Either way, you're definitely a lot closer to Metroid territory than Zelda territory. In fact, I think that's kind of the issue. The places where the game is at its best are places where the game is *not* trying to be like Zelda 1. And many of its bad places are when it tries to ape Zelda 1. But if you take out all of the Zelda 1 stuff, you're left with a game that's so completely foreign to the Zelda experience that it's basically a Metroidvania or Soulslike or something else.
@Robert Hunter OK, before I get started, you seem to be having a conversation with someone else. In your post, you repeatedly complain about people liking BotW, a game I didn't even bring up. And since I've never played it, I am certainly not one of these people you seem to be complaining about for liking BotW. I don't hate it, and I don't love it, because I don't know it. So all that is just off-topic. As for the stuff that's at least vaguely on-topic: > "This grand "fulfillment" you seem to believe we felt? That wasn't a thing, nor did it happen." It was a thing for me, so at least one person felt it. And it wouldn't take a long search on TH-cam to see that others agree that LttP felt like a better, more coherent Zelda 1 for the most part. Indeed, though I haven't seen it, I rather suspect the next video in this series argues for exactly this. > "Those who hated Zelda yet still played games on the NES, SNES, whatever? They didn't buy Zelda 3. That simple." Who said anything about "hating Zelda?" Things aren't divided into some binary where you either love something or you hate it. It is very much possible to enjoy a flawed experience, even while recognizing those flaws. It is also possible to recognize the potential in an idea even if the execution didn't quite achieve what it clearly set out to achieve. The latter was my feeling on Zelda 1. It's a game about exploration that sometimes *punishes exploration* (I quit playing the game when it stole 100 hard-earned rupees from me for the crime of exploring the game world). It had boring dungeons whose primary challenge was to just wander around, find keys, and kill a bunch of random monsters. But it had an interesting and unique core gameplay loop, which was built upon and refined in future installments. > "Fewer dungeons than previous games. In the case of the console version Zeldas, rarely does a new Zelda emerge that doesn't have fewer dungeons than the previous Zelda game." Quality is more important than quantity. Link's Awakening may have only had 8 dungeons, but they were all superior to any of the 13 in LttP. The Great Bay Temple in MM by itself is easily worth any 5 key-hunt dungeons from LttP. That's not to say that LttP's dungeon design is bad or something. But dungeon design in Zelda games have gotten much more varied, interesting, and imaginative over the years, which leaves LttP dungeons seeming to be... kind of boring. They work, but there's nothing special about them. Also, dungeons aren't everything. Majora's Mask had tons of mini-dungeons and quests to complete along the way to the actual dungeon. Every dungeon in Link's Awakening required you to complete an Overworld sidequest before it became available. So it's not like later Zelda games are lacking in content or something. If anything, they have a greater variety of stuff to do. It's not just "Overworld containing Dungeons" anymore. > "So why does the overworld need fixing? It's as they intended. We gamers of that era were able to play it just fine." We gamers of that era were willing to tolerate a lot of things that we shouldn't have. That's because we were young, as was the craft of gaming. We evolved, and the craft of gaming evolved. That allows us to look back at something and say, "I really liked that back in the day, but I can see it was actually kinda bad in some respects". As to your particular question, the Overworld of Zelda 2 is... *boring.* It's mostly empty, repetitive tiles. It is nothing more than the empty space between the interesting parts of the game. I found the game tons more enjoyable when I got a walkthrough map that allowed me to just know where everything was without having to trudge though the Overworld. Compare this to LttP for example, where the Overworld is a good chunk of the *meat* of the game. It's not just terrain that you pass through. Indeed, for most Zelda games, the Overworld is a good chunk of the meat of the experience. In Zelda 2, it's just the plate that the meat is served on. > "What's wrong with random battles, that you can actually avoid rather than forced (like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest)?" I didn't say that there was anything wrong with them. But there's nothing especially *right* with them in this game either. The core game experience of a Zelda game is exploration. The random battle mechanic doesn't emphasize exploration. So it's a mechanic that's not doing something productive towards the end goal of the overall game. > "so the only "aping" done here was something that played differently but still looked and sounded like Zelda. It looked like a Zelda game when I played it then and still does now." ... yes, that's what "aping Zelda" means. It has stuff that looks like Zelda, but that stuff doesn't make the game better at being what it's trying to be. My point is that Zelda 2 has an Overworld because it's a sequel to Zelda 1 and Zelda 1 had an Overworld. It's not there because it makes the rest of the game better at being what it's trying to be. It's there simply because it is "supposed" to be there because it's a Zelda game. As for "looked and sounded like Zelda," consider this. Imagine a world where LttP was not a Zelda game. It's gameplay would be exactly the same, just with different sprites, character names, and a few storyline elements. Let's call this "Quest of Thelda". Upon playing such a thing, the consensus opinion would likely be that "Quest of Thelda" has gameplay that is clearly heavily inspired by Zelda 1. Indeed, odds are good that people would say that any future Zelda sequels should take guidance provided by Thelda and not follow the path laid down by Zelda 2. Now, imagine a world where Zelda 2 was not a Zelda game. Again, the gameplay is identical, it would just have different sprites, storyline elements, etc. Would any player of the game have said that the game had any relation to Zelda 1? Odds are good that they would not. Zelda 2 is only Zelda-like on its surface. It doesn't really matter if they set out to make a Zelda 1 sequel that was wholly dissimilar from Zelda 1. Because making a sequel that's completely unlike the original game is a bad idea from the start. > "So to increase combat depth is going to turn into either a shooter or Castlevania of some form? Really? Only those 2 possibilities? The combat element is fine the way it is. It works, it's fair and it didn't become either of those things." And it's not at all deep either. Remember: I was speaking in terms of increasing the depth of the game's combat. Which is needed, because however "fine" you find it, it's just not very deep. The main combat encounters test the player in exactly one dimension: attacking/blocking in one of two directions. Some enemies telegraph their attacks more or less than others, while others have unblockable attacks, and some enemies are too random to be predictable. But that's it. While the combat was interesting for a while, it eventually just became boring. Once you know how to defeat Ironknuckles, the combat becomes something to slog through. > "could write a book on how games have, for the most part, become worse. Dark Souls excluded." It's fine for you to like a game that is unfair to the player by design. But please don't act like this is the one true way for all games to work. As far as I'm concerned, videogaming has never been better than it is today. Instead of serving the needs of one specific kind of player, we have innumerable games across a wide spectrum of experiences. Not every game is directed towards every player, and that's a wonderful place for videogaming to be in.
Zelda 2 is sadly cursed as a product of it's time. Cryptic elements to stretch out playtime, a means to subtly push towards Nintendo Power subscriptions, etc. The NES is full of examples like this. I adore Zelda 2, it's one of my favorites in the series, but I can acknowledge these flaws in it. A modern remake of it would remove a ton of these issues.
If Nintendo is going to remake any Zelda games, the Adventure of Link should be the number 1 game to do it, since it has a lot of potential to be a really good game. It's not that bad on it's own. Definitely good aspects of it, but has some serious flaws, especially the cryptic stuff. They should remake it and fix the flaws.
idk about you but the secret in the Town of Kasuto where you use the Spell to raise the temple was extremely straightforward to me. Wise Man gives me the Spell, says “there is a secret at the edge of town”. Put two and two together, you realize “oh, I should probably use this new Spell I just received to figure out the secret!” I understand if someone wasn’t paying attention that they could miss this, but I honestly think it’s nowhere near as cryptic as you (or AVGN) made it out to be here.
it seems to me you dont know how gaming was on those years, games were really small, they occupy less space than most pics we take nowdays, so they have to make them count. I burned every bush, bombed every wall in Zelda 1, so by the time I got to Zelda 2, I was alredy prepared. I cant remember feeling with no clue like you said, most of those things seemed organic, at least if you were looking
I didn't know to which comment I should reply until I saw yours, emperorhiram. I totally agree with you. My first 3 games on the Nintendo was Mario, Zelda 1, Zelda 2 and super pitfall. The last one is a crappy game, but full of "jump into this enemy on purpose" moments. It's just the way we played back then. Hours and hours doing everything possible. It was worse for me and my friends because we didn't speak English. So even the hints were lost to us. Still lots of fun. The review was pretty fair, though. The game could be better.
I know it is full of BS, but Zelda 2 is my favourite Zelda game nonetheless. I don't remember if I played it before Zelda 1, but it partially set my early expectations for the series, and I remember feeling somewhat disappointed that the RPG elements didn't make it into the games which came later. I've always had a fondness for this style of game: side scrolling adventure/RPG games where you get a mix of challenging combat and character development, all while exploring and making progress through the game world. Progress in Zelda 2 is challenging, but destroying a tricky boss, learning a new ability, or unlocking a new part of the world felt rewarding. The game world of Zelda 2 is enjoyable to me, and I think the music and overall atmosphere of is great. I'm sure a big part of my fondness for the game is down to nostalgia, but whenever I see the title screen and hear those first few notes of music, it puts me in the mood for adventure. There are not too many games like Zelda 2, but games like Simon's Quest, The Goonies 2, and especially Faxanadu gave me a similar feeling. Faxanadu in particular, is a strong contender for my favourite game on the NES.
I’ve always loved Zelda 2. I remember playing this all the time as a kid. Considering I got all the way to Shadow Link without any help (except the manual) all at the age of 8, I don’t really have much sympathy for people that say the game is too cryptic. My only complaint is that Shadow Link is almost impossible without using cheap strats. I finally beat it a few years ago by applying the cheap trick mentioned here. Edit: I especially struggle with concerns about finding Bagu. You’re told he’s in the forest, and you can comb the forest quickly by dodging the enemies. I mean-would you rather an MMO-style arrow pointing to where to go to complete your quest? If it’s an inconvenience, then it’s a few minutes at most.
@OSC Worldview Glad to hear someone was able to beat Shadow Link without cheesing. I tried so many times, but I was also pretty young. I’ll try it the next time I play.
There’s such a weird disconnect between different types of players, which I think is why there’s such a polarized and divided genre market today. I watch these videos about the early Zelda games-games I first played to completion without guides or assistance* at ages 6 and 7-and it seems like the content creator and I grew up on different planets playing entirely different games. On precedent taken from other games before Zelda II alone, talking to the slime multiple times to wake it up was design intuitive. There are only a couple of design indicated locations his master could reasonably be located, “North of the river,” and finding that “random bush” wasn’t something that took longer than a few seconds. Like, even as a second grader, I had enough familiarity with games to know that they wouldn’t put something game-critical in the middle of some vast swath of forest. It’d be located in a smaller swath, probably near the center, as per typical design practice. In this case, the central tree in the middle of a small swath of forest in the area you’re told to look. Searching for other non-critical secrets was fun. They’re secrets, they’re not supposed to be hinted at. They’re like the early version of “Easter eggs.” Though, almost all secrets were located in an area intuitive to search by any kid with gameplay experience, especially with games developed with the same development philosophy. Like, the content creator describes having to bomb walls that look like other walls while showing an extremely suspiciously designed wall that they blew up in the most suspicious and suggestive nook. There’s only one wall in that game that has a hole in a completely random spot, and it contains a completely non-critical item. I still found it as a kid. I know Miyamoto has said they designed Zelda with community interaction in mind, but I’ve always assumed he meant more experienced players would help less experienced players. The “first kid” to find the secrets would be a player more clued in to the design language built into the game by a team following a familiar syntax due to the kid’s play experience with games speaking the same language in the same syntax. I think two things happened. One, some kids just played more games than other kids, and learned how better to read the signs and signals designed into games to lead their attention. Two, genre distinction wasn’t as clear at the time. People were playing games as if they were all designed the same way, regardless of intended experience. This view perspective persists into today. You’re not going to learn how to read cues in Zelda by playing hours of straight forward, score-oriented games like Galaga and Digdug, for instance. It helped to play other games by Nintendo, but especially action adventure and role-playing inspired games of the same type (even by other developers). As a kid, my primary (and dumb) problem with Zelda II’s design was that there was side-scrolling at all. In my mind, side scrolling was for an entirely different type of play than I got out of Legend of Zelda, and the change bugged me. I never liked Castlevania, which had been extremely popular the year Zelda I came out, and I felt Zelda II was attempting to “copy” Castlevania to make it popular in the same way with the same players. That made me feel alienated as a kid. So, I guess my issue with Zelda II was emotional rather than critical. But pretty much none of what’s being said here applied to players with experience with similar games or games following the same design philosophy and practices. It’s not like upsetting, but I think care should be taken in doing this type of games criticism not to make certain perspectives seem “correct” or “normal,” as it inspires modern developers to try to design to those perspectives, which are actually not universal or any kind of legitimate baseline. *I called the Nintendo Hotline during the kidnapped kid quest in Zelda II because I mixed up the cardinal directions provided as the hint, and for some reason didn’t see fit to just try the other way. The dude just told me to try the other way. I think I just really wanted a reason to call that number once.
I just recently played this game as part of a zelda-a-thon but i dont think i could have compleated it without using save states every 10 seconds lol. Its a shame because this game is hidden potential.
My biggest problem with this game is that you instantly die when you fall into a pit/water/lava. And it’s just so super easy to do so when you have enemies flying in from off-screen. It would be way better if doing so only made you lose one health square (by the way, why is the health squares, and not hearts??) Also, this game is too horizontal. I know there are elevators, but why are there no ladders or ropes to climb to make use of the vertical space?
I still really like this one, it's underrated, from this game many elements became standarts in genre. And it's very lore heavy. Yeah, it's not good though. Your combat description is basically Sekiro.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with the Sekiro part, but Sekiro isn't a particularly great game. People keep saying that you shouldn't compare it to Dark Souls, because reasons (there never is a real reason for it, seriously, most of the time it's just a order not to). However, anyone who has played Dark Souls (especially DS3) will immediately feel like they are playing a underwhelming version of a game they have already played. They used the same engine and the same mechanics (respawning enemies, bonfires, Boss Fog, How items work, the entire gameplay framework, etc..), only that they removed many of the great features of Dark Souls (RPG elements, Multiplayer, actual replay-ability, etc..).
"it's about finidng rhythm in enemies movement to make a hit" and "finding ways to cheese the enemies that bother you the most" was worded almost the same as in a Sekiro review published about the same time, so it was amusing.
Zelda II is one game that's basically only enjoyable with save states since it removes several of the problems. It's a hard game to enjoy otherwise if you didn't play it as a kid.
Zelda 2 has "the video game problem" but amped up to 11: the game is no fun the first time you play it, but so much more fun the second time. I will never stop loving it, because once you get good the game is actually fun.
What I like most about Zelda 2 is the need for a Nintendo power to beat it LOL.. I know this is going to be a very unpopular opinion but I appreciate a game I can't beat in one sitting..
Shiggerator There’s definitely things in this game that should be less cryptic but I agree that there’s something special about a game that challenges you in ways no other game does. Specially back then where the internet didn’t exist.
Zelda 2 was the game my parents got me when I asked for a Zelda game for Christmas when I was a kid. I played the game a lot growing up but never beat it due to the issues you noted. I think you were beyond fair in this video.
I was 8 when I got LoZ and 9 when I got AoL I discovered every single secret without any guides, 1-900 numbers, internet etc Being obsessed with the games certainly helped, and I understand Millennials, Zoomers etc who just want to blast through the series and their frustration when they run into these two games
Nice to hear, why so many People dislike the game. If I would grew up with this as a sequal, I would probably be disappointed and not like it. But i did not and played it About a year ago, along with Zelda 1. And I have to say, I like Zelda 2. I do not hope there will be another Zelda Game based on this style, but I liked it for one Adventure. Interestingly, you mentioned exactly the two spots I googled the solution, that is the magical Mirror and the hut in the Woods, I could not find them and wonderered how People in the past solved it without Google. Regarding the puzzles, I think in this game it is inverting the Overall Philosophy that means, the overworld is now more About puzzles, Talking to different People, Walking throw a giantic map and put the pieces together, planing your way through the swamp and Forests and try not to Encounter the stronger enemies (for example: avoid swamp!). We have many mazes out there, and have to back track, comparable to finding keys. Although some parts of the Dungeons are unfair, as I once get stucked in a temple and could not turn back!, I nevertheles like the fact, you can really fail during your Progress. It gives me the Feeling I miss in many games, the possibility to really just fail. Not failing in the sense of "oh the enemy defeated you. Come back and try again", but inthe sense of "making the wrong decissions", like "Damn it, If I would not have used my magic for higher jumps to get an Advantage for the last enemiy, I could turn into a fairy and Escape the pit. But I cant. Now I am doomed to die down there lonley and pathetic =( " It gives me the Feeling of an Adventure, not as if I am on a playground there parents created a fake Adventure but actually I was never in real danger. It is more like "here is your world. Now learn how to deal with it or die!" I really love this mechanic About the game. And yes, there are even enemies, you probably can not defeat in a fair fight. But this is also good. Enemies are not here to "test" you as usually in games, but to "kill" you. They do not care, if it is unfair, if he throws his Sword permanently. It is your enemy, not your teacher, who wants you secretly to pass the test. You enemy is cruel, mercyless and Maybe even stronger than you. So come back when you are healthy, run throught he enemies, take the Damage you get, and hurry to Escape your bully if you are not strong enough! Only, they should not have added the blue iron knuckle as a Semi-Boss in later Dungeons, one time this terrible rider, was enough. I actually played it twice (well last time I am techniqly stuck at the Dark Link Boss but have done everything else), and enjoyed it again. Zelda 1 I did not actually. I enjoyed it the first time, but it is to monotonous for me. It is not bad, I just want to Play it again. Maybe I will Change my mind in the future. Overall I am glad the way Zelda went after A Link to the Past :D
I have to know ARE BITS THE LITTLE RED BASTARDS? I played Zelda 2 for the first time and it took me so long to figure out what they did and when I did I went on a murder spree
I was young when this came out. My dad and I loved the first Zelda, and this was definitely on my Christmas/Income Tax return list. We didn't have many games, so when we did get one it was a treat. Back then, I was a little confused that it had changed so much from the first one, but truthfully everyone wasn't so critical of games. I was very happy with it, and being the only game in my "back log" that I hadn't beaten may've played a huge roll in my enjoyment. I was able to finish it, multiple times on original hardware. Now though, not sure I would even attempt it without save states. That game is a beautiful mess, but I love it and it will always remind me of some great memories.
I honestly thought this game was a myth for years. I loved Zelda, but everyone I asked said this game didn't exist. The Link on the Cover Art is cute though.
'I don't know if I can recommend Zelda II to anyone Zelda fan.' I'd recommend this game to fans who want to prove their mettle. Zelda II offers some of the best, most distilled side-scrolling combat/dueling mechanics available - and in many ways, it's distilled down to a point that's largely unrivaled today. I can't really think of any other games besides Nidhogg (_released 27 years later_) that refines arms-length swordplay down to the level that this game does - and it does it all on the super limited NES hardware. Enemies are your equals in this game - and if you manage to stop Ganon, you earned it. To me, Zelda II is for those who want to prove they have what it takes to beat the games their parents beat. Slightly more matured NES graphics, iconic musical themes, the inception of many of the towns, characters & sages of future Zelda games - and an unrivaled, brutally sharp 1v1 combat system that tests you more as a gamer than any other Zelda game in the series. This game yields to none - and is meant for those who want to beat it.
The wo most important words regarding Zelda 2 are: Game Genie. As a kid I always liked this game, and I was always enthusiastic about tackling it, but in the end I knew there was only one way to make real progress without losing your mind and having it break your heart with a game over screen.
I loved action adventure games with RPG elements as a kid and there were very few of them at the time. This appealed to me and was my very first Zelda game so I had no pre-conceived notions about it. Did require a lot of intuition and guesswork to get through the cryptic parts though as I didn't have a guide.
When I was a kid, I asked my folks for "The Legend of Zelda" for my birthday. They gave me this game; apparently they didn't know about the original and I had never heard of the sequel. Well I was a little bummed at first, but if being a kid in 1991 taught us anything, it is that you play what you have. So I started to play this game day and night. It climbed my personal favorites list for the sole reason that I was good at it and none of my friends were (they all had the good Zelda game, lucky jerks). I managed to eventually beat the game despite the fact I never once saw a copy of any "Nintendo Power". I had to talk to a friend who had a subscription. He was about as helpful as the villagers saying, "There's a hidden town under a forest tile that you have to find with the hammer"; so guess who chopped down every forest tile in the game until I found the stupid thing? Anyway, these days, I can still beat this game in 80-100 minutes, whereas I still have trouble with the original. I think like certain other things in my life that I disliked and grew to love (coffee, beer, sea salt and vinegar potato chips) it is an acquired taste. Hate on this game as much as you like, I love it. All of your complaints are valid, but here I stand, I can do no other.
Ok, not to be a Zelda 2 overt apologist but I can elucidate the whole "SPELL" thing. The place you cast it was supposed to be called "CAST" not "KASUTO". Yep, you were supposed to put two and two together to figure out "CAST SPELL". Dumb; yes. Cryptic bullshit; absolutely. Another tragic mistransliteration in a game absolutely riddled with them? You bet. Back in the day we really did have to "Get the power, Nintendo Power" to really get anywhere. This was actually worse in Japan, if you can believe it. Several games pointed you to purchasing their own produced game guides in the game's booklet. If you ever get around to watching some good ol' Game Center CX episodes you'll see them whip them out sometimes.
30 years ago, I learned fighting the dark knights with a particular timed jumping attack that rapidly hits high to low. If I remember correctly, you jump and start the attack animation and then holding down or just let the landing animation force your retracting animation hit low. You can make quick work with knights with this technique.
TIL the "Darknuts" in this game are actually Iron Knuckles according to the wiki, despite being more similar to Darknuts (sword + shield) than Iron Knuckles seen in the N64 games
After i recently replayed Zelda 2 (via the Redux romhack which i highly recommend) i have a theory on why Nintendo never made another game in this style outside the obvious fan backlash. It's because post Zelda 2 there has been A SHITTON of sidescrolling exploration style games in the market, especially nowadays with indies and stuff. I feel like for Nintendo to make a successor to Zelda 2 they'd have to flip the genre on its head, spice it up with something new you know? Like didn't Miyamoto or someone else said the reason we don't have a new F-Zero is because they legit don't know what to do with it aka "Oh shit GX was too awesome!"? And in regards to the Metroidvania genre think it's super hard to come up with something new and exciting because Indies have been doing this for years now. It's not just about one upping the "big boys" (Super Metroid and SotN) who already "perfected" the formula. This is just about Nintendo pushing their creativity because i too would be just fine with a "Zero Mission" style remake or something with less clunky controls and some goddamn checkpoints especially for the Great Palace or should i say the freaking path to the Great Palace. Then again we have awesome romhacks like "Redux" which already shows how great Zelda 2 can be if balanced right.
This was my first Zelda, even before playing the original. It's the game that made me fall in love with Zelda, but even I admit that this game was full of questionable design choices.
Zelda 2 had a lot of potential, and I think more than any other game it deserves a remake because I think a remake can iron out it's problems and turn Zelda to into a solid action-platformer.
You do not understand how one would find stuff.. Back when we played new games on NES as kids. We tried EVERYTHING! It was part of the fun .. Not a reason to complain. ;p
definitely this.Heck my mom used to play the nes back then and made an extended map for the first zelda marking caves and such.Which we of course found by extensively bombing every wall and burning every bush :P
@@Kraviken very few games offered maps or logical strategies. and some supplemental reading material left a lot to be desired. i... think both zelda games at launch came with maps, but i was never lucky with that. i cant remember the exact title of one book, it covered the first three mega man games. but, at a young age, it instilled into me the wrong boss order for MM3. and stupidly, i still follow it nearly thirty years later. :P
About finding patterns and rhythms, Zelda II showed how important this is. In Breath of the Wild the Lynels were terrifying death machines at first, but once I got the pattern down and exploited it, they simply became the source of better equipment. Not exactly difficult, just time consuming. So I guess I owe a thank you to this game for that.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
As someone who loves Zelda 2 I agree with most of this video. Knowing the game very well means I can breeze past some of it's flaws. Nostalgia is a powerful drug, but I do think this game is pretty cool at times.
Agreed, I wrote such a long thing about it but this was all I was trying to say.
I've only played the first two games, and I like Zelda 2 more, especially since I used to be so scared of the Game Over screen.
Vinny, watching you play this game, is how I discovered you and why I subscribe to you.
*its
I absolutely love this game. Kids had trouble with it, but it was still easier than Zelda 1 second quest. When you mentioned redoing the first game with harder dungeons, I wondered if you forgot about second quest.
Zelda 2 gave us the names of the Sages and Mido. They gave us Dark/Shadow Link. They gave us the idea of Zelda being a legacy name. It gave us the freakin' Triforce of courage!
It also gave us the hammer.
And the dungeon theme
All that stuff is found in the manual. Guess we don’t have to play the game then.
linkAKAdude Are you stupid?
Also Smash Link's downward aerial attack
Down thrust.. best move in any Zelda game
Totally. Bouncing on the heads of your enemies is delightfully unsportsmanlike and satisfies your inner sadist like nothing else.
Literally is what made the game playable
It does pretty good in real life, too.
Can't believe they copied the pogo from Hollow Knight smh...
@@vajoynus not as good as the jumping crouch stab
Zelda 2 needs a Remastering more than just about any game in the Nintendo library. It's a clean up away from showing everyone what true classic it is.
Man, I'd buy that the first day. Heck, combining the first two games done right would help younger players understand what an epic adventure the first video game Link went through.
I'd buy a switch just for that.
@@onegreengoat9779 So true.
@@onegreengoat9779 I heavily disagree. Remakes can be very important for fixing the flaws of older games and giving them a fresh presentation for a new audience to enjoy. I don't think FFVII particularly needed one, but Zelda 2 could absolutely use it. It has so many little flaws that could be easily fixed with a remake. Plenty of original and creative games still get put out, I don't see the harm in letting a new generation play a better version of an old classic.
@@shiggerator6816 I couldn't have said it better myself.
Everything you didn't enjoy about this game is what I remember being frustrating, but extremely rewarding eventually as a kid. Games could take weeks, or months to complete, and that was okay! In my case, I didn't have a ton of games, so one or two that were challenging were what made it worthwhile.
Zelda 1 took me 3 or 4 years to complete. Zelda 2 took me about 1 year.
I suppose to a younger audience and the current youth, this is just not a great game. It does not give instant gratification. You have to work hard on getting through it. That's what made it fun.
@@AB-80X that doesn't excuse bad design that's more of a dismal.
@@AB-80X I don't want instant gratification, I want a game that doesn't needlessly pad itself with bullshit mechanics to give an illusion of depth. It was bad game design in the early 90s and it still is today.
@@tanyaharmon6739 most his complaints are about difficulty. The only thing I slightly agree with is the mirror. Everything else is just exploration. Also there were more hints then npcs. Location of items and expectations set in the start of the games were hint in them selfs that could be used through the entire game.
Thanks for this great video and in-depth analysis. I loved Zelda II, so here’s a positive analysis of the game that I bet you never thought you would get: I’m now totally blind, but in the early 90s, I still had some vision. that vision was still pretty poor, though, so I had no success finishing any video game at all, except for Zelda II. This was possible because of the simple fact that most of the game’s screens had very high contrast. Yes, the cryptic portions of it and the tediousness of leveling up were a pain, but it was the only game I could complete, so I put up with it; for instance, those skulls. I found that the best way to ramp up points for me was to keep leveling up my attack as much as possible by pounding away at one of the skulls in the fifth palace. Those skulls looked like nothing but round, white blobs to me, by the way, but it was enough to let me fight them. The high contrast and ease of use for a kid with lousy eyesight probably means that the graphics were awful, but I could beat the game. I couldn’t do that with Mario or any of the other timeless classics. To me, this advantage was enough to nullify all the annoyances. Beating a game felt so wonderful to me after so much frustration with video games in general and with Nintendo games in particular that I felt it was worth the trouble.
I need to add this: I definitely can level the same criticisms against this game on an intellectual level. Emotionally, the value for me is, yes, nostalgic, but it also goes beyond that. The game was empowering for me. It affirmed to me that my abilities as a legally blind boy were mainly limited by my physical disability and how I let the prejudices of others influence how I thought of what that said about my mind. See? I thought. I can too do the same things lots of other kids can do if I have the elements with which to succeed. Finishing Zelda II was not just proving I too could beat a Nintendo game. It proved that I could beat one of the most difficult and trying video games of that time. Zelda II is special to many people despite its distinct flaws. To some it's especially special in ways likely no one predicted.
Out of all of games we played as a family my oldest brother was the only one to ever beat Zelda 2. That's between me (not even 10 years old), 2 older brothers, my mother and my aunt. I could get pretty far sure. After watching my brother play it so much I remembered all the routes and obscure things you needed to do. He also had a strategy for each mob. One that worked wonders on nearly everything was a falling side stab and holding crouch throughout all of it. This leads into a double hit and if the don't move their shield one hit will land.
Around 12 years old Dad, Mom, my little sis and I moved 3000 miles away from everyone else in the family. I wasn't very happy. Still, I had all these games my brothers and the rest of the family could beat! It was time to ascend!
One summer break with no friends I decided to sit down and beat all these NES games that everyone else has beat. Both Zelda's, Mario 3, Battle Toads, and 1-3 Double Dragon. I was probably 13 at the time. Link turned out to be my last one because of the strategies I ended up bringing to it. Like you said Liam, it's close or similar to an arcade game. I realized that with the life system.
My strategy was to stack every life I could prior to going to the final dungeon. I learned this after beating all the other games. This means after you complete the boss in every dungeon you don't grab the free level up at the end. You backtrack and leave the dungeon out the front door and proceed to the next task. Leave all of the level ups in the overworld alone. This way if you ever die you still have all the extra lives for later. Once you hit max level through combat and have finished every dungeon it's time to go back through all of them. Completing them at this point gives you an extra life. Along with the overworld ones you have yet to grab you should get somewhere between 20 and 40 lives I think. It's been a long time. I think it was 45 actually now that I'm thinking about it.
I probably lost 10 or 15 lives in death mountain. The final castle was insane to map in my head. All I remember from watching my brother is he fell through a bunch of screens to find the lightning boss. I had 3 lives when I found him. Finished him after losing a life. Now, for Shadow Link. First thing I did, since I was nearly dead from the previous boss, was rush him in a straight up fight to see how badass he really was. It was like a karate grand master beating my ass. So now with 1 life and never wanting to play again but also not wanting to fail in mind I had to think of everything I could do. I ended up doing pretty good damage to him this time around but hr was chunking life away faster than I was. I ended up getting stuck in the corner and stabbing while crouched.
I swear I never knew about this cheese. My brother never did it. I ended up beating Shadow Link with half a bar of health and 0 lives left. Even if I cheesed it I still felt so accomplished for overcoming something my brother had and no one else could in the family.
All in all I'd only be able to recommend this game to someone who has something to prove. Not to the rest of the world but to yourself.
I read about the person in your comments that is blind today but beat that game when he was going blind as a child. You gave me motivation to share this. You are the true hero of Hyrule. Thank you @Tony
You all are great I beat this game as a kid an the feeling of overcoming the challenges of this game is its own reward. This seems like it has a soulsbourne feel to the gameplay. Greatest game I've had the privilege to play
@@tonytypesalot You're totally blind? How do you write these comments? Do you have someone help you? This would take me at least 30 minutes to an hour to type out something with this level of detail and expressiveness with all of the typos and reformulation of thoughts. It would take so long to try and read this out to a computer and have to listen back to it and correct it, I'd hope at least you have a human to help with that. If you have no way of seeing and no one to tell you, this video's creator saw and liked your comment by the way.
I always appreciated how Melee kinda gave love to zelda 2. The temple and the Zelda Stage in the Adventure mode felt like a big ol' smooch to Zelda 2 enjoyers.
Slain back from hell is pretty close as well as khimera (free on steam)
Some of Link's moveset in Smash comes directly from Zelda 2, as well. Particularly his down ariels.
That's something I truly admire about the Smash Bros series. You can tell that Sakurai truly cares about the history of a given game or series, and he tries to bring as much as he can to even just their movesets. Aside from the original 12, nearly every character's moveset is nearly entirely built off of existing moves and attacks from their respective games. I love that.
10:26 "Obviously this theory has no ground."
(Link proceeds to fall through the ground.)
Well played, Liam.
That opening music alone is one of the most memorable pieces of video game music to me... This game is literally burnt into my mind just like Zelda I and Kid Icarus, those 3 games I spent almost my entire childhood on playing over and over. I can't count how many times I played and beaten them in all possible ways that I could imagine as a kid.
After watching your vidoe and hearing your final thought about Zelda II I'm a bit sad. I don't know, did you play it as a kid? I played Zelda 1 and 2 as a kid and I finished Zelda 1 multiple times, I found all the secrets, every piece, I went on a mission I burned every bush and bmbed every wall in the entire game! I had almost NO help, no Nintendo Power, no Internet, no nothing but I did it. And when Zelda 2 came I went in with the same mentality, leave no stone unturned, try every path and git gud! It took me (or us, I played with my sisters) a huge ammount of time to beat it the first time but we did it, again without any help!
That means, you can do it without any hints or tips from other sources than the game and the manual, we clearly did it that way! Where I live there was no Nintendo Power Magazine, we had no access to anything like that at this time.
Zelda 2 is a hard game, there are times when it really drives you crazy but after learning how it works you know how to progress quite quik and save... but be aware, grinding and farming is involved. We came to the conclusion that you should level up Attack and Life at least 3 times each before closing P1 and you should NEVER close a Palace near level up becuase you'll waste a free level up. With that strategy in mind and a good knowledge of where you can grind, you should not have that much trouble. The only thing that's really crazy is the path to the final Palace, even on maxed out stats (which you should have at that point anyway) this can be a pain. But once you reached the final Palace you're good.
I'll admit I'm one of those people who love this game. lol Always did. Being somebody who's played this game a lot, I'd like to note that many people don't understand the enemies in this game. So I'll say this just to sum up what I'm going to share in this post, the combat system is actually better designed than it actually appears (in most cases... Some enemies like Death Mountain enemies and Lizalfos are still dumb...)
I always get annoyed a little every time I see gameplay of this game where people are over-using the jump trick on Iron Knuckles and then they say they find issue with having to use an exploit to defeat the Iron Knuckles because of "inconsistency". lol However, at the same time I understand because the game doesn't make itself clear on how these guys were intended to be fought, so it's understandable that many people miss this odd but engaging design choice in combat. I'll elaborate:
Fighting these guys for years, and having a firm understanding of their A.I. as a result, it is clear that the developers wanted you to take the aggressive vs defensive approach to combat. One thing you'll notice all Iron Knuckles have in common is after you hit them, they get much more aggressive for a few seconds until they tire out and return to their normal behavior. Many people don't notice this and will see this behavior as inconsistent and therefore resorting to jumping exploits. It's more of a mechanic that is poorly communicated than a mechanic that is poorly executed. Granted, it's still not perfect, but it's crazy how you will see these enemies differently if you took a defensive approach after every time you hit them. This is especially true for the Red Iron Knuckles and the Blue ones, as the orange ones are kinda just tutorial versions of these enemies and are much easier to brute force. I discovered this because of my refusal to play games using exploits, and felt that if I couldn't play a game like it was intended to be played, the game is not worth playing, and through practice, I discovered the game rewards a combat approach that's almost similar to Dark Souls, certainly ahead of its time and it's a shame that it was poorly communicated.
Bottom line is that it's very dangerous to (go alone... lol) be attacking Iron Knuckles during their aggressive moments so the game rewards a "Poke and defend" combat approach (assuming you don't use the jump attack exploit).
Oh hi!
Yes, thank you! It was kinda annoying basically hearing him say that he can't exploit the game properly.
@@janek8195 I do understand that it's a combat system that could have been better communicated. Many people dont really know notice quirks or behaviors in A.I., so when the A.I. starts behaving in an unpredictable manner, people will often misinterpret that as inconsistent.
Also, playing devil's advocate, I'd go as far as to say it is fair for people to see the poke and defend mechanics as "poke and wait" mechanics and still see it as a flaw. Similar to Egorapter's argument towards the constant blocking mechanics in OOT. I'd argue however Zelda 2's poke and wait mechanics beats OOT forcing you to wait for enemies to drop shield, but I digress. It's absolutely fair for people to say that if players are forced to used an exploit to otherwise avoid the slower paced combat this game has intended could indicate a gameplay element that's still quite niche and even though it's very functional and intuitive for its day, that doesnt mean it's not without flaws.
@@SoulsOfWisdom Z2's mechanics are better than oot because "waiting" actually takes skill - you need to defend high and low rather than just hold the block button. Also, if you're skilled enough at the game you can defend AND attack through the agro phase (I don't think Link drops his guard while attacking like Z1, or if he does it's very briefly). You can brute-force through defensive enemies in oot too, but it's harder to get around them, the knockback you get from hitting their shield is annoying and it slows the fight down.
I actually think, for how simple it is, Z2's fight mechanic is amazing. Kinda like boxing, but instead of defending/looking for openings left/right it's high/low.
No enemy exploitation? You would certainly hate Dark Souls then.
As an obsessed little 12yr old playtester in the days before the internet, I can give you this 2 definitive statements:
I could not complete Original Zelda without clues and tips.
I completed Zelda 2 without clues and tips.
People slam Zelda 2 for its cryptic nature, but I believe it did so to follow the footsteps of its obtuse predecessor.
@Robert Hunter If you were as smart and sophisticated as you pretend to be, you wouldn't feel it necessary to be this pithy and condescending.
Funny how ironic this comment is.
i beat this in the summer of 1989 when i was 10 years old. its not that difficult
@@jimslav6973 stfu Jim
@@wozthescott2804 *"stfu Jim"*
Derp.
I'm conflicted about the Game Overs taking away all your EXP. On the one hand it's really frustrating when it happens... but on the other hand, it makes reaching a new level all the more rewarding.
I like that it's up to me whether or not I want to play it safe and grind in a secure environment, (albeit very slowly) or risk venturing into a more dangerous place that also rewards me with more EXP.
If a Game Over didn't ruin all my progress, that choice would be gone. I could always just waltz into any cave, dungeon or wilderness, with no rhyme or reason. Why should I be careful? Death is just a minor setback. Then it's almost like... the later zelda games.
Yeah, in other Zelda games death is usually JUST a minor setback. But Zelda 2 doesn't have to retroactively be like today's formular, does it?
Not punishing the player at all for losing would mean you could just blindly stroll through every dungeon, halfheartedly slashing at the enemies, until you eventually scrape up enough exp to warrant a level-up.
I like the sense of dread that comes with a possibility of losing it all.
Cuz when you DO get those last few exp you needed for your level, you're like "YES! I DID IT! I LEVELED UP! YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME!"
It also adds an element of strategy to how you tackle a dungeon. You don't wanna finish the dungeon while being really close to a level-up, since that would waste all the free exp you get from inserting the gem into the statue. So you always gotta keep an eye on your exp and decide what the best course of action would be.
Maybe if they ever remade this game, they could make a compromise. Like, instead of losing ALL exp upon game over, they could just drain a certain amount of exp each time you die.
Kinda like how Mario Odyssey takes away 10 coins for each death.
That would still create a very different kind of tension, but at least you'd get punished at all.
Now, all that being said, the fact that lava is an instant death and it's very easy to get knocked into it is just bullshit. And if this game got a sequel, it would be nice if there was SOME way to restore some of your lives. Not like the Mario games, where extra lives are all over the place, making them utterly pointless, but being able to get back to 3 lives with some effort would be great.
I know this is pretty limited, but once u get enough xp u can use that for extra lives, I think u need to get L8 for everything first, and then I think it's like 9000 xp for an extra life. I grinded in the lizalfos infested forests and even the cemetery with the blue lizalfos in order to have 10 lives before I faced the Thunderbird and Shadow Link. Would be nice to have another way, accessible earlier in the game tho.
I'm convinced when they made dark souls they had this exact dilemma and that's why you drop your souls on death
I beat the first 2 games under the age of ten. No Nintendo Power. These were the only games worth $60 back then. (Besides FF and Dragon Warrior.)
truf
Dragon Warrior was my jam too... I think I stayed home from school for a week when that came out.
😂
I remember saving up $28 to but this at a flea market. I had rented it and borrowed my uncle's copy prior to that.
you know its funny back in the day i loved these games. the only game i ever had to call nintendo with permission from my parents was demon sword last boss. nothing in that shit made sense. ff and dq great games but demon sword wtf at the end
"The only games worth $60 back then."
Castlevania?
Ninja Gaiden?
Metroid?
I was blown away when i found out that the hyrule temple theme from smash bros melee is actually from zelda 2.
Couple of things: I noticed you were having a hard time with some enemies but not using Shield spell with them even though that uses far less magic than life spell. Also, this is just me talking with knowledge we couldn't have had back then, but I don't call Guts "Gattsu" even though there's a game with that exact English translation in it, so the first thing I'd do in a Zelda 2 ROM hack is change Bug's name to actually say "Bug" so people can get the reference that Error and Bug are related.
Funny you like dark links patterns but not blue darknuts. Blue dark nuts absolutely have a pattern, they throw the exact same sequence each time you hit them. Dark Link however, has no set pattern.
The great palace invisible wall part is purely a secret area (hinted at by the fact that nothing else happens on that elevator screen otherwise). You don't have to find it at all.
I just played the game for the first time, spoiler free, and every single mysterious part of the game has hints and very reasonable to figure out imo. There are actually way better clues for what to do in this game than zelda 1 even! I think getting through all the combat is harder than figuring out how to progress on the overworld lol.
Not recommending the game to *any* zelda fan is crazy! Great combat, satisfying adventure game and puzzle solving, each area really feels like you beat it when you progress past it, really cool spells. It's a really impressive NES game and overall just really satisfying!
He doesn't like any NES Zelda game. And unlike AVGN seems really confused that yes, every serious gamer with hundreds of Nintendo games subscribed to Nintendo Power.
@@deViant14 the only thing I got hung up on in this game was finding Kasuto, but that's because I didn't read the manual to know the hammer can chop trees. I think the game is totally solvable as a self contained game without Nintendo power :)
Didn't expect to see you here
They're not Dark Nuts, they're Iron Knuckles. It says it in the booklet for the game. Granted if you're playing this on some sort of port that manual may be unavailable. If you go online to see the enemy list though you will find them.
Aside from Bagu, I felt like most of the hints were pretty well telegraphed (especially for an older game). For example, a villager near the graveyard tells you to go to Error who gives you the location of the grave you need to fall down for palace 3. And the spell spell is obtained in the same town you get the last magic bottle from (which requires having the other 3) which then allows you to obtain the spell. Since the whole town is devoted to you getting the spell, I figured it would be used to reveal a secret at the wall (like one of the villagers says). I actually really enjoyed the puzzle solving which didn’t require tons of backtracking - if I hadn’t used a villager’s hint and I was struggling, it led me to search more around the nearby landmarks or to explore the village more. It made things feel like a true adventure - scouring the lands for the upgrades I needed to prevail over Ganon. But, to be fair, it definitely has at least a few obtuse hints. I’m not saying it’s perfect… just better designed than many give it credit for.
I love Zelda II. Granted, some of that's probably nostalgia, since it was my first Zelda game. At the same time, I found it FAR less cryptic than the original. The clues are there, if you take the time to talk to NPCs and explore the world. And the combat felt more engaging as well. I enjoyed facing off against a single knight, each of us trying to bypass the other's shield. In the original, it felt like I was trying to chase down mindless enemies as they moved randomly around the room.
I acknowledge the game has flaws. In particular, the life "dolls" seem pointless. Back in the day I would ignore them until I was ready to assault the final dungeon; nowadays I ignore them entirely. Still, whenever I'm in the mood for retro Zelda gaming, Zelda II is my go-to game.
The life dolls are key to my last dungeon Strat. Save them all before you go so you have more lives and it makes the final level much easier
As somebody who only played this game after finishing alttp and Zelda 1, I was surprised how satisfying it was to complete it. Yeah, it’s a kick-you-in-the-balls game and the death system is garbage, but I enjoyed the frantic combat and leveling up your health and magic feels fantastic. I really would like to see the Zelda franchise return to the 2d style this game had and iron out all the kinks to make it accessible to modern standards. (No, I don’t count the Link’s Awakening remake.)
So, Zelda 2 is hands down my favorite Zelda game. For me, it was a feeling of control, and even when things felt cryptic, the world felt alive and vibrant (even if the townsfolk often..."know nothing". The game made me feel more like I was stepping into Link's shoes than the first game ever did. The combat was methodical and timing based and felt like how one would approach a real fight with a weapon like that. The exploration of the world was kept to small enough chunks that, even if you didn't know where to do, you could wander around enough and find a solution. It all culminated in a hell of a final boss fight.
Are there problems with the game? Sure, absolutely. Some aspects were too cryptic (the lack of in game explanations on the spells certainly didn't help). But the game felt like the next logical step. When I finished playing through the original Zelda game, I felt burned out, not invigorated. I felt alone in a world of nothing but monsters and cryptic, hidden messages, backwater dungeons with endless swarms that you never make any headway too, and times where the lack of direction made me wander for hours.
I always had an idea where to go in Zelda II, even when there were bad directions, and it's one of the few games I beat back when I first got my cartridge, that I beat without a guide or any outside assistance.
Graphically, the game felt like a huge step up, the larger sprites made enemies feel less like postage stamps and more like the threats they were intended to be. Looking back, the first game has dated horribly with its graphics and character design. The gameplay is very restrictive and the sense of just not knowing what to do left...at least me, puzzled, confused and stressed. It's a great game, and defined the NES and the genre, but I don't feel like going back to revisit it. Any time I potentially think about it, I brush it aside because of my memories with it. Even though I've gone back and played it through again, several times, I've always gravitated more towards Zelda II.
I remember, 30 years ago, when my dad and brother and I made our final charge to the Great Palace, we grinded for 2-3 hours for 10 extra lives. One thing I absolutely love about this game (though I have no desire to play it again) is the characterization of the individual dungeons: the stone gray castle of dungeon one, the gloomy swamp dungeon, the brick red and knight-laden dungeon 3, the purple dungeon of Wizrobes on Maze Island, the green ocean dungeon, the epic intensity and purple of dungeon 6, and the Great Palace. Each had their own satisfying textures, colors, and enemies, and the boss fights with the curtains and music were so epic. Subsequent Zelda games did this well but it started here.
At the possibility of sounding like an old man yelling at clouds, here it goes ...
Full disclaimer, I do think this game is better than the first one, which is not to say I think the first game is terrible. I think I just related more to the side scrolling/RPG elements on a personal level. Also, I'll try to keep the rosy cloud of nostalgia from letting me point out that this game is far from perfect. However, all the things you mentioned as being "negative" actually made me try to become better at it.
The thing about the game being too cryptic is doubled for me because I grew up in Mexico and played (and beat) this game before I ever learned English. I believe this may very well have been the first game I ever beat on any system, actually. Anyway, because I had no idea what anyone was saying, all that was left for me to do was explore the map, try new things, backtrack, and yes, die multiple times while attempting to find a new secret. Was it incredibly frustrating? Yes, but again, I took that as a challenge and became better at the game as a result. I saw the "going back to Zelda's chamber" thing as a just punishment for not being good enough at the game.
I never thought of the combat as broken, or the AI being weird for not having "clear patterns." I'm my child's mind, I probably thought that the game was responding to how I was playing it. I realize now that that wasn't the case, but I never saw the jump/crouch/stab thing as an exploit, or as a way of cheating. The way I saw it was, if I'm able to pull that move off in the game, then it's a valid strategy and I'm meant to use it.
As for the fight with Shadow Link, I had no idea about the "duck in the corner thing," so I had to beat him the old school way. I most definitely would have tried that if I had known, but I do feel a certain clout for not beating him like that ;)
I understand why people that liked the first game disliked this one so much. It's kinda the same thing that happened to me and Simon's Quest. I really like that game too, but I can definitely understand why it gets criticized. I would like to give credit to both companies for not resting in their laurels and creating games that were vastly different from their predecessors. I would say they were even ahead of their time, as Simon's Quest was an early attempt at the Metroidvanias that everyone seems to love, and Zelda 2 set the bar pretty high for side scrolling action games, IMO.
I hope I didn't coming across as being overly angry :)
The dolls, chances are just glitched. There are 6 of them vs the 4 heart and magic containers but you happen to start off with less lives than health and magic. So I feel they were suppose to give you more of a net to screw up but they forgot to add to your number after death.
Really I count Botw as sort of a remake of Zelda 1, I hope its sequel gives us a Zelda 2 feel.
Oh and Zelda 2 gave us tons of things to love: special sword moves like the up and down thrust, important names, the Triforce of Courage, the magic meter in general.
Zelda 2 is one of my Favorite games in the series. I first played it in 1988 when I was 8 and had no trouble completing the game back then, although I did have the Nintendo Power magazines so maybe that helped me. Either way, I can still finish this game in one afternoon start to finish, and then I'll usually do a second play through the next day with my save file, since you start out with all the spells and whatever levels you finished the game with, so you can potentially start with everything at level 8 and just breeze through the game, which makes it real fun.
Yes.
I'm pretty sure that having Nintendo power helped exponentially.
I was 8 in 1988 as well and was able to play and finish this. I wouldn't say I had no trouble. It was difficult. Definitely needed to get tips from Nintendo Power and from friends. The difficulty spike in Death Mountain was kind of sudden.
I love Zelda II, I beat it first when I was 11 and I didn't have Nintendo Power. Everything cryptic in this game can be figured by paying attention to clues given from NPCs and/or thoroughly exploring the over world. It's not even that difficult of a game when you use the leveling system your advantage. I had a much harder time beating games like Mega Man and Metroid growing up.
Yeah Mega Man, is just much harder Zelda 2, is a good start in difficulty it’s just death mountain really.
Zelda 2's combat is like a 2D prototype for what we would eventually get in Souls combat. It can be grueling and unforgiving at times, but it's usually very fair. You can either be defending or attacking, and you can be in 3 positions: standing, crouching, or jumping. Jumping also gives you two additional attack directions. Every enemy in this game is designed to test your application of this system, including those blue knights. The knights are a great example of this because they essentially mirror your attack and defense. You can block their attacks the same way they block your attacks. You can also block the daggers the blue knights throw at you. You fight the blue knights the same way you fight the orange and red knights, except now you need to block as you're closing the distance too. That's essentially an invisible tutorial. They raise the stakes more with the bird knights that add jumping to the mix (they are kinda bullshit hard tbh). The ultimate conclusion of this is when you fight yourself at the end.
The RPG mechanics are fun on repeat playthroughs too. You don't have to take the first levelup the game gives you. When that dialogue comes up, you can close it without spending your exp, which can allow you to buy a more expensive upgrade sooner. This is where the lives system and losing your exp comes into play. There's a risk-reward system with saving up your exp for more expensive upgrades.
It's rough around the edges for sure, but the fact that they came up with a combat system this good in 1987 is incredible.
As a child under 10, I figured out how to find Life because you "just check everything." People did the same thing in Final Fantasy or Chrono Trigger. You just tested stuff. It's a strong trait of young people. Test the limits. I got all the way to Thunderbird as a kid and I'm no genius. Just try stuff and you figure it out.
Well said. I also beat the game when I was 9, without a guide. It took a couple months but the game was enjoyable, I would argue it’s one of the top 5 best game for the NES.
@@misteree9 I think a lot of people just copy what other TH-camrs say about the game because they allowed that to influence their experience. Games like Zelda 2 Contra, etc. are not that hard. Tmnt is hard only on the last 2 levels, but you get two continues. If you just put in effort to remembering where to go near the end of these games, you end up being able to beat them.
@@SeveredLegs that’s true.
I love the combat (Zelda 1's combat is awful) and yeah, as a guy that played it when it was new, a westerner, and a nerd at that... I was excited that they were "adding Dungeons and Dragons elements to Zelda". I actually dreamed of one day the graphics to be good enough for Link and a party to be combing the catacombs like the tabletop game.
Dr. Cool Indeed, Zelda 1’s combat gets too much credit, what with it being one of the first type of its genre for Western audiences. And yet the Ys series had more dynamic multi-directional combat years prior.
Zelda 3 was originally envisioned as a party RPG game, I believe.
@@osurpless Hardly. YS used the "slam into the enemy to deal damage system". Zelda's combat was based on spacing. Also, YS doesn't precede Zelda, it came out in June of 1987 while Zelda came out in February of 1986
@@roskiart8750 You don’t just slam into enemies, it’s based on how you approach from different angles.
Yea, I learned the dates are wrong for the direct comparison, but Xanadu and Romancia (predecessors from Falcom) are earlier and have features like that.
@@osurpless Like knockback? No, they don't. This simple addition changes everything. It made the combat fundamentaly arcade like for Zelda, which is more intuitive than what you see on Xanadu or even YS(where you slam into enemies to fight. Yes, the angle changes the damage outputs but specially in Xanadu you're bound to take unavoidable damage from attacking the enemy. The sword button and knockback ensures you don't get any damage and the enemy the full brunt of it if you time your movements right. It strips away the focus on stats that way)
Romancia is 1986 too btw.
I think you get the picture wrong. Zelda succeeded where Nihon Falcom can't even hope to reach because it's light on RPG mechanics as the series isn't really an RPG.
You can argue (with plenty of merit) that this means the mechanics are simpler, but in practice they're just that much more intuitive. You push the button, sword goes. It's a very fundamental difference.
"I can't understand the appeal it has to those who like it... maybe they just like the good aspects of it?"
Bruh. ; )
I love Z2:AoL. Good video!
I really love this game, but I'm well aware it's hard to go back to if you havent allready played it back in it's time. And if I put aside all the great things this game has to offer, i'd say the reason for loving it is not only plain nostalgia but also lies in the magic of grinding a good but hard game in the early childhood. My friends had the original Zelda allready so when I finally got my own NES (+Ice Climber) for chistmas I started making sure I later got Zelda II instead. Naturally, me and my friends became better at the games we owned ourselves. I don't know where I learned the infamous secrets about Bagu, or the mirror, or the dark Link cheat but the game to me grew more and more the better I got at it. The puzzles and dialogue gave atmosphere and rest but the combat, the stress levels, the music, it all came together in a gauntlet of mechanics. It's different but the controls are tight and fluid, way ahead of it's predecessor. But it has also aged a lot and it's very weird overall, I can see it really is a question about wich cartridge you bought at the time. I know this because after I had gotten Castlevania, my friend got Simon's Quest and he still Swears by it as the best 8-bit Castlevania. And the same reason makes Mega Man 1 my favourite Mega Man game.
Once you're good at the game, you can beat it in like three hours, and those three hours are really fun.
What's not fun are the fifteen or so hours of playtime it takes to get that good. I 100% agree with everyone's hate of the game, but once you get good, the game is really fun to play.
This comment right here. I fully admit this game is only fun because I know where to go and what to do - and most importantly - HOW to do it. Love/hate is defined by Zelda 2 for me.
16:55 I mean, you get the hammer after Death Mountain, which allows you to skip it completely, so...
yeah, the emphasis on "starting all over" was way too much - yes, you lost any experience you had gained *since you last leveled* which didn't take long to recoup on your way back to where you died. This isn't like Super Mario 1 where you start over at the beginning as though it's your first time. Your abilities and level ups remain. Only thing lost is any new experience points that hadn't been converted to a level yet.
And, there are also tons of shortcuts once you progress that make it fairly trivial to get back to where you were after a game over. And if you stay on the dirt roads, you won't encounter random spawns, making it quick & easy to get back on track. I feel like this review makes a much bigger deal out of game overs than it ever really was. I also noticed a lot of spots where there were hidden magic potions which would have helped Liam maintain his magic bar a lot easier. They're hidden, but they're in very predictable spots.
Screw the swap though - that area was super hard to even get through without a game over - before you could even get to the dungeon in the middle of the swamp.
I think I need to replay Zelda II this weekend!
Yup, it's not THAT unfair.
"I couldn't recommend Z2 to any Zelda fan", this guy. Though I'm not saying his opinion is "wrong", it's an opinion, after all.
Great video, lots of effort and work!
5:21 "as that one has way more enemies that are impossible to avoid in complete darkness..."
Speedrunners: "Hold my player 2 controller..."
Also, best use of the extra lives was to skip all of them until you were ready to go to the final palace. That trek is grueling and having as many lives as you can gave you the best chance of making it to the final palace, which is the only one you will respawn at the entrance of if you die (the reason for which is interesting if you want to look it up).
I definitely enjoy Zelda 2. For me, the seemingly random placements of some things was helped by friends telling me where they were, and sometimes just dumb luck. But at the time (playing it when it was fairly new), that wasn't a foreign experience, so it didn't really bother me. In fact - here we go - for a long time, I enjoyed this title more than Zelda 1! Crazy, I know. I beat Zelda 2 loooong before I beat Zelda 1 as a kid, and it's where I got my initial love of the series. I'd love to see a good HD remake that captures the original, while also updating a few things to be more for a modern audience (and maybe a mode that keeps the old stuff just so people can experience it with better graphics).
I’m a 37 year old Zelda fan who grew up playing every single game, and still own them all on original consoles and handhelds, but Zelda II is the only game I’m yet to complete. It’s always been the standout game that’s so different in gameplay and style, and the difficulty and lack of direction has always put me off revisiting it. I loved the original NES game as a kid. But Zelda II wasn’t fun. It wasn’t until I got an N64 as a 14 year old that I discovered my love for Zelda with OoT, and then went back to play a link to the past on an old SNES.
"It’s always been the standout game that’s so different in gameplay and style"
It's almost like it's not really a sequel to Zelda 1 (despite the label on the box)... it's Nintendo's early attempt at an RPG game that had Zelda branding attached at the last minute.
Since I haven't seen any Zelda II enjoyers explaining their personnal love to the game like he asked at the end, I'll try to give it a shot.
Zelda II is easily one of my favorite Zelda games, well over Zelda I, one of the reasons for that is the battle system, battle system that to me fixed a huge issue Zelda I, it was unfair. You could get destroyed in a nick of time in Zelda I, even with the entire inventory, the game just threw a bunch of enemies at you, made them invulnerable to sword beam and most of your items and you just had to wish you came out alive.
While Zelda II fixed that, by having a decent fighting system that made every enemy encounter way more manageable and actually fun! It felt rewarding to dispose of those dark nuts and seeing your exp points grow.
Another reason i love Zelda II and main reason too, is the difficulty, I love difficult NES games but I won't lie, a lot of them are unfair, while Zelda II has a level up system that toughens up your character and make it more balanced to survive through the fights, while Ninja Gaiden kind of just hopes you make it out fine of most levels with no evolution to your character either but enemies sure evolve!
Another more subjective point and this is the last one, *the story*, it is written in the manual but it's so far one of the most original Zelda stories I've seen so far and so tragic! It was such a good change of paste that it made me love to get on to the adventure and save that princess that suffered from Aganhim and his foolish brother, all to say, Zelda II was pretty grand, could have been better but it was the NES.
I love this game. There's just something really charming about it, even though it's downright abusive to the player sometimes. It's got so many interesting ideas, and beating those tough areas is extremely satisfying. It really feels like you earned that victory by getting really good at the game. It doesn't hand you anything for free, you have to work hard at it to get anywhere.
Exactly like that, couldn’t have said it better. My favourite game of all time!
Almost all the enemies DO have multiple ways to take them on, even if you haven't discovered them. And if you die in Great Palace, you actually restart in Great Palace.
Shigeru Miyamoto in recent years has made it clear in interviews that he isn't incredibly fond of Zelda 2, but acknowledges its cult following and that it'd be rude to pin the blame on one singular aspect or person. Zelda 2, at least in Nintendo's eyes, was a collaborative disappointment. That may also explain why Ocarina of Time was originally envisioned as a 3D remake of Zelda 2.
YOU'RE TOLD THAT THE GRAVE IS SOUTH OF THE KING'S TOMB!
Yeah I feel like Liam had some real Talk-To-NPCs-itis when playing through this game.
You are also told there's a secret on the edge of the town in New Kasuto, the same town you get the spell spell. Put 2 and 2 together, it's not hard.
I feel like when people complain about old NES games being cryptic, this is the case. There are clues, and they failed to find or even look for them. Also they are clues. So what you have to go to the edge of town and jump around stab some stuff, then think a little and go what can i try now ?? Then start trying casting spells. So you waste some magic, you are in a town. You can get your magic refilled. If they just told you what to do, it wouldnt be a clue and people would complain its too easy.
@Robert Hunter Except AVGN didn't say Zelda 2 sucked.
@Robert Hunter He basically said he liked it, but it had it's flaws and is hsrd. Pretty sure he started the review saying people were asking for him to do the game and he was surprised as he thought it was good.
I think without Zelda 2, Nintendo's first forray into 3D could have been much more dicey.
It’s only love-love for me! Though the game over back to start is now quite archaic
One of my favorite strategies for Zelda II: When you beat the first three temples, do NOT return the crystals to the statues. Use the temples for XP farming. Temple 3 in particular. Temple 1 and 2 for before going to Death Mountain.
Ok so... I enjoy Zelda 2. I think it has some very good, thoughtful systems in place. However, the context in which these systems exists is rough. Like, reaaaalllly rough. Combing the land for one crucial square? Having to do one specific set of inputs to obtain a mirror when you collect no other object in the game this way? Needing to literally walk into an unassuming wall to reveal a hallway? That's garbage dude. I feel like the overworld has more memorable design aspects than you give it credit for, and feel it *usually* telegraphs its secrets in a thoughtful way, but things like the Bagu bot just shit on that thoughtful overworld design. I appreciate how the items you get can cut down on your overworld travel time, and how fairy tiles are fairly abundant throughout the game, and how grinding is always an option instead of going straight to the temples. These aspects give the player some sense of progression in almost a rogue-like sense, where each 3-life run can be spent grinding, searching for secrets to raise your stats, finding an item or learning a move or spell to make your next run easier/less tedious, or if you feel you're prepared, to go and tackle the combat gauntlet that is the next dungeon. I largely feel the dungeon design is a lateral move from that of zelda 1. I think the maps are just as diverse in terms of structure, and found them no less thoughtful than those of zelda 1. The boss designs largely fall into my appreciation for the enemy designs, as each has a unique pattern to be discovered and exploited. This is only enhanced by the progression of Link's skillset throughout the game, leading to what i consider a very rewarding combat system, certainly the system by which I feel this game thrives most. Again, this game has solid mechanics and systems, while being marred by a few glaring instances that disregard the intentional, deliberate design decisions that hold the game together otherwise.
All to say, yeah I basically agree with Liam, except I like the game lol. Good video dude :D
Also the cave to the west is not impossible in the darkness, it just requires paying close attention for bats
@@hdofu yeah lol as he was saying that I was like "unless ur a speedrunner". Those guys are insane😆 I've seen them go through the entire game without the 🕯️
Everything you brought as bogus mechanics or asspulls are plainly told to you by villagers, all of them. They tell you what area to comb and it's not that big and next to a town when hunting bagu. It's all there for you to piece together, no guides needed
@Robert Hunter th-cam.com/video/W31xbiC-BB8/w-d-xo.html
You're supposed to explore every part of Hyrule when playing a Zelda game. That's part of the gameplay. Why wouldn't you want to do that anyway?
In defense of Zelda II. I got this for my 10th birthday in June 1988.
I had my NES for a year and a half at this point.
NES games were absolutely hit or miss back then. There was no Internet. No TH-cam. There were few or no guides and Nintendo Power.
Compared to a lot of the games out at the time, Zelda II was a masterpiece. We did not have OOT or ALTTP to compare it to. Legit 16 bit games were still years off.
You HAVE to have lived it to understand it.
The guides I had access to ONLY covered the western map and temples. The eastern continent I had to do on my own, or collab with friends and family.
I did beat this game later that summer.
I can pick up Zelda II any time now and beat it with no guides or videos 100% based on memory.
I tried this game when I was just getting into Zelda as a teenager. Didn't really hook me and I couldn't finish it. Couldn't finish Zelda 1 either for that matter. I tried it again last year when I marathoned through all the 3d Zeldas and felt like throwing in Zelda 1 and 2 and I finished them. Zelda 1 was an okay game and I don't understand why it gets so much love but Zelda 2 was a lot of fun in a challenging way. I really enjoyed it. Probably for the same reason I've come to really enjoy roguelites. The 8-bit swordplay made for an engaging experience. Every enemy had a strategy you had to learn through trial and error. And I've also gained a certain appreciation for some of the quirks of early 8-bit games. But some of the more frustrating aspects were mitigated because I turned to a guide when, say, certain things were literally lost in translation.
@Tom Ffrench Metroid came out a year before Zelda 2 so I think that one is more the pioneer of the metroidvanias
I havent looked into it at all but I wonder if the Japanese version of Zelda 2 had more useful NPC dialogue, is it possible a lot (not all) of the cryptic problem solving is due to a below average localisation?
This was a big reason why Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest is so bad (the NPCs gave you cryptic clues and a lot of the wordplay made no sense when first translated literally and secondly squished to fit within the dialogue box character limit), wouldn't be surprised if it affected Zelda 2 as well.
both zelda1 and 2 suffer from some pretty bad translation,yes. I have no idea how much it impacted the overall experience tho, it might not have done much.
I’d argue the mirror can absolutely still be found without outside help so long as the player is actually observant of the game’s design.
Every single house you can enter has something for you. Often it’s an npc with a hint. But sometimes it’s seemingly empty.
Now you’re absolutely right that most people playing this nowadays would just leave. But if you’ve paid attention, you’ll realize it’s strange that this house is empty, and so you poke around and find the mirror (which you do NOT actually need to crouch to pick up).
There’s more “empty” houses later as well, and just like the mirror, if you just poke around a bit you’ll find clues to secrets written on the wall.
I agree with OP; this game is an overrated "false gem" in my honest opinion. Most of the people defending it only do so because when you were younger, getting games was rare so you forced yourself to find ways to enjoy it. What the hell else are you going to do; play Mario + Duck Hunt for the millionth time, or wander aimlessly for a bit in Zelda II? It's more fun to play in hindsight knowing what to do; aggravation turns into acceptable pass-time when you have no other games or activities to do instead.
I think it took me 4 yrs to beat this game for the first time. I could never find that town that you had to cut down the tree to uncover. I remember one Saturday spending like 3hrs with graph paper marking every square only to get to the end truly confused... I went through that cave and found it with the first forest square I cut down. Here we are 25+ years later and I still love beating this game every few months. Even more than the first one. Sure it’s brutally hard but once you have perfected it over years(decades?) I don’t know... the 10yr old in me still brings out the nostalgia. I would absolutely not recommend it to anyone but I’m always happy to share all the secrets over a few hour walkthrough.
Really enjoyed the video and hearing your take on it! I love Zelda 2. That and Twilight Princess are still my favourite titles, so it's already a bit against the grain. xD
I understand why people don't like this game, I really do. It's definitely not for everyone and it's absolutely different from the first game and the others in the series, but here are the reasons that I love it as much as I do. I really enjoy the combat and game play. I'm always trying to gain better skills at mastering it and I get a lot of satisfaction while playing and trying to get better. Seeing how little level up I can get away with and beat it, going through dark areas without the candle, no game over/death runs, just things like that. Maybe it's a bit masochistic, it probably is, but I really enjoy a good challenging NES game! The controls feel really good and tight to me as well. When I control Link, I really feel like I am in absolute control to where dying honestly feels like it was my mistake. I think the game looks nice too, I'm a fan of side scrollers and am a little sad that 2D Zelda never went back to this style. Of course I understand why they never did again. I still hope that Nintendo will remake this one day! :D
I love Zelda 2. It’s actually my favourite 2D Zelda game. The sidescrolling and doubling down on many RPG aspects just clicks more for me.
I don’t usually get criticism for the game being too hard or too cryptic, but I think when I watched this, I kinda figured out why my experience with this game is as different as it is.
By the time I played Zelda 2, I had already finished Ocarina Of Time, Majoras Mask, and had played as much as I could of the 2D Zelda games by the time I got the GameCube disc with Zelda 2 on it (and eventually the GBA cart). So I was already familiar with the Zelda formula and language of the puzzles it has, little what may be had actually been present in Z2.
But more importantly, one of the first games I remember playing, learning the language of its puzzles from a young age and to this day knowing like the back of my hand, is MYST. From its love-it-or-hate-it language of puzzles that kind of throws you into this alien-yet-familiar world, to the world itself encouraging you to take risks, try new things, fail, but learn, I feel like it was probably my early love and understanding of MYST that really got me into Z2 and accept it despite what many call unfair challenges or puzzles.
I still can’t say I understand the criticism Z2 (or MYST, for that matter) gets, but I feel like I better understand the circumstances of why it is that I love this game as much as I do now. Thanks for that.
I laugh when people say this is the black sheep of the series. It was so popular back in the day and very difficult to find in stores.
But it is. It's so wildly different and strange compared to the rest of the series. You know "black sheep" doesn't imply it's bad or even unpopular?
@Robert Hunter But it doesn't. Link's Awakening, the Oracle games, Minish Cap, Four Swords, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks and Link Between Worlds all beg to differ.
@Robert Hunter Actually, Link Between Worlds came out 2013, and don't try to tell me it doesn't count just because the graphics are 3D. Either way, my point is that there's no other Zelda game that tries to be similar to 2, which is true. Regardless of when the last one came out, there are plenty of top-down games, and the 3D games are all quite similar.
I think this game surpassed most other games in its quality because it focuses on something that some games really didn't focus on, and that's skill. In some Zelda games you can just bypass the challenge or get items that make you stupidly overpowered, but this game forced you to replay the same stuff over and over again until you got good. This is the definition of NEShard. I like this game because if you lose, you can blame it on whatever you want, but it's still your fault. If you lose, it's a skill issue. This game forces you to get really good, until eventually you master it, and that is one of the greatest feelings in the world. To go from relying on save states to let me constantly get back to my progress to actually being able to beat it on the real cartridge, that feeling was magical, more magical than the entirety of easier games such as wind waker and Skyward Sword. I had honestly gotten too whiny and nitpicky with video games, to the point where I was starting to lose my interest in gaming, and this game helped me find that interest again, it taught me what challenge is and what skill is all over again. This game will forever hold a special place in my heart, and I will still say till the day I die that this is easily a top three Zelda game, and if someone finds it too hard, they just need to get good.
I found Bagu in the forest within five minutes of talking to the blob in town and knowing I needed to find him.
I don't think this game is really that cryptic.
I'm glad so many people had a rad time with that game but dunking on Liam for not getting the cryptic clues and being frustrated with the...*interesting* design choices in a lot of the gameplay isn't the way to go. It's less "Liam ignored these obvious things!" and more "the game makes it hard to find the fun unless you know what you're doing"
People just like to perpetuate the hatred towards Zelda 2 to show the community that they 'belong'. It's kinda become a meme, but it was in no way worse, and in many ways better than the first Legend of Zelda. Overworld, noticeable difficulty gradient, wider variety of dungeons, bosses, enemies, magic, NPCs. When I travelled over the sea, escaped the mountain, or reached the path towards the Final Castle, I really felt I was in another world every time, not just more of the same hidden behind a rock I could now smash.
"Guys, look at how much I too hate Zelda 2!!!! Am I included in your club now? Guys? Please???!!!"
6:47 "Whose going to be the first person to find out you can bomb that specific wall in that one square on the overworld?"
I think I first discovered that some walls in the world were bombable by trying to kill with a bomb a group of enemies that were clustered close to one such square.
The thing I find most confounding about Zelda 2 is that... I can't think of a way to make it better.
With Zelda 1, you had something that clearly represented good, foundational gameplay, just with a ton of jank in the controls, boring dungeon design, unfair overworld elements, and such. It's easy to imagine what a better Zelda 1 would look and play like even before every other 2D Zelda game came out. LttP wasn't so much a bolt from the blue as the promise of Zelda 1 fulfilled. Most of its decisions made in that game's design felt like "yes, that's exactly how it should have been done."
Zelda 2 has some good ideas, but I think it's foundations are sufficiently weird that there's no way to make a better version of the same idea without getting completely radical and un-Zelda-like.
Take the combat, the best part of Zelda 2. OK, so you want deep, side-scrolling 2D combat. Well, here's the thing. Every idea you might have to increase combat depth is ultimately going to turn it into either a shooter or into Castlevania of some form. Or into the side-scrolling equivalent of Dark Souls. Regardless of which path you pick, the end product is going to play a lot differently from Zelda 2.
The only thing I can think of to fix the overworld is to just remove it and make the whole game a side-scroller. Which turns the game into well, Castlevania 2 at worse, Symphony of the Night at best. Either way, you're definitely a lot closer to Metroid territory than Zelda territory.
In fact, I think that's kind of the issue. The places where the game is at its best are places where the game is *not* trying to be like Zelda 1. And many of its bad places are when it tries to ape Zelda 1. But if you take out all of the Zelda 1 stuff, you're left with a game that's so completely foreign to the Zelda experience that it's basically a Metroidvania or Soulslike or something else.
BotW to me was a remake of 1 in many ways.
@Robert Hunter OK, before I get started, you seem to be having a conversation with someone else. In your post, you repeatedly complain about people liking BotW, a game I didn't even bring up. And since I've never played it, I am certainly not one of these people you seem to be complaining about for liking BotW. I don't hate it, and I don't love it, because I don't know it.
So all that is just off-topic. As for the stuff that's at least vaguely on-topic:
> "This grand "fulfillment" you seem to believe we felt? That wasn't a thing, nor did it happen."
It was a thing for me, so at least one person felt it. And it wouldn't take a long search on TH-cam to see that others agree that LttP felt like a better, more coherent Zelda 1 for the most part. Indeed, though I haven't seen it, I rather suspect the next video in this series argues for exactly this.
> "Those who hated Zelda yet still played games on the NES, SNES, whatever? They didn't buy Zelda 3. That simple."
Who said anything about "hating Zelda?" Things aren't divided into some binary where you either love something or you hate it. It is very much possible to enjoy a flawed experience, even while recognizing those flaws. It is also possible to recognize the potential in an idea even if the execution didn't quite achieve what it clearly set out to achieve.
The latter was my feeling on Zelda 1. It's a game about exploration that sometimes *punishes exploration* (I quit playing the game when it stole 100 hard-earned rupees from me for the crime of exploring the game world). It had boring dungeons whose primary challenge was to just wander around, find keys, and kill a bunch of random monsters.
But it had an interesting and unique core gameplay loop, which was built upon and refined in future installments.
> "Fewer dungeons than previous games. In the case of the console version Zeldas, rarely does a new Zelda emerge that doesn't have fewer dungeons than the previous Zelda game."
Quality is more important than quantity. Link's Awakening may have only had 8 dungeons, but they were all superior to any of the 13 in LttP. The Great Bay Temple in MM by itself is easily worth any 5 key-hunt dungeons from LttP.
That's not to say that LttP's dungeon design is bad or something. But dungeon design in Zelda games have gotten much more varied, interesting, and imaginative over the years, which leaves LttP dungeons seeming to be... kind of boring. They work, but there's nothing special about them.
Also, dungeons aren't everything. Majora's Mask had tons of mini-dungeons and quests to complete along the way to the actual dungeon. Every dungeon in Link's Awakening required you to complete an Overworld sidequest before it became available. So it's not like later Zelda games are lacking in content or something. If anything, they have a greater variety of stuff to do. It's not just "Overworld containing Dungeons" anymore.
> "So why does the overworld need fixing? It's as they intended. We gamers of that era were able to play it just fine."
We gamers of that era were willing to tolerate a lot of things that we shouldn't have. That's because we were young, as was the craft of gaming. We evolved, and the craft of gaming evolved. That allows us to look back at something and say, "I really liked that back in the day, but I can see it was actually kinda bad in some respects".
As to your particular question, the Overworld of Zelda 2 is... *boring.* It's mostly empty, repetitive tiles. It is nothing more than the empty space between the interesting parts of the game. I found the game tons more enjoyable when I got a walkthrough map that allowed me to just know where everything was without having to trudge though the Overworld.
Compare this to LttP for example, where the Overworld is a good chunk of the *meat* of the game. It's not just terrain that you pass through. Indeed, for most Zelda games, the Overworld is a good chunk of the meat of the experience.
In Zelda 2, it's just the plate that the meat is served on.
> "What's wrong with random battles, that you can actually avoid rather than forced (like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest)?"
I didn't say that there was anything wrong with them. But there's nothing especially *right* with them in this game either. The core game experience of a Zelda game is exploration. The random battle mechanic doesn't emphasize exploration. So it's a mechanic that's not doing something productive towards the end goal of the overall game.
> "so the only "aping" done here was something that played differently but still looked and sounded like Zelda. It looked like a Zelda game when I played it then and still does now."
... yes, that's what "aping Zelda" means. It has stuff that looks like Zelda, but that stuff doesn't make the game better at being what it's trying to be.
My point is that Zelda 2 has an Overworld because it's a sequel to Zelda 1 and Zelda 1 had an Overworld. It's not there because it makes the rest of the game better at being what it's trying to be. It's there simply because it is "supposed" to be there because it's a Zelda game.
As for "looked and sounded like Zelda," consider this. Imagine a world where LttP was not a Zelda game. It's gameplay would be exactly the same, just with different sprites, character names, and a few storyline elements. Let's call this "Quest of Thelda".
Upon playing such a thing, the consensus opinion would likely be that "Quest of Thelda" has gameplay that is clearly heavily inspired by Zelda 1. Indeed, odds are good that people would say that any future Zelda sequels should take guidance provided by Thelda and not follow the path laid down by Zelda 2.
Now, imagine a world where Zelda 2 was not a Zelda game. Again, the gameplay is identical, it would just have different sprites, storyline elements, etc.
Would any player of the game have said that the game had any relation to Zelda 1? Odds are good that they would not. Zelda 2 is only Zelda-like on its surface.
It doesn't really matter if they set out to make a Zelda 1 sequel that was wholly dissimilar from Zelda 1. Because making a sequel that's completely unlike the original game is a bad idea from the start.
> "So to increase combat depth is going to turn into either a shooter or Castlevania of some form? Really? Only those 2 possibilities? The combat element is fine the way it is. It works, it's fair and it didn't become either of those things."
And it's not at all deep either. Remember: I was speaking in terms of increasing the depth of the game's combat. Which is needed, because however "fine" you find it, it's just not very deep. The main combat encounters test the player in exactly one dimension: attacking/blocking in one of two directions. Some enemies telegraph their attacks more or less than others, while others have unblockable attacks, and some enemies are too random to be predictable.
But that's it. While the combat was interesting for a while, it eventually just became boring. Once you know how to defeat Ironknuckles, the combat becomes something to slog through.
> "could write a book on how games have, for the most part, become worse. Dark Souls excluded."
It's fine for you to like a game that is unfair to the player by design. But please don't act like this is the one true way for all games to work.
As far as I'm concerned, videogaming has never been better than it is today. Instead of serving the needs of one specific kind of player, we have innumerable games across a wide spectrum of experiences. Not every game is directed towards every player, and that's a wonderful place for videogaming to be in.
Zelda 2 is sadly cursed as a product of it's time. Cryptic elements to stretch out playtime, a means to subtly push towards Nintendo Power subscriptions, etc. The NES is full of examples like this. I adore Zelda 2, it's one of my favorites in the series, but I can acknowledge these flaws in it.
A modern remake of it would remove a ton of these issues.
You dont need to crouch to get the mirror. And what else would you do in a completely empty room with only one prop?
Leave? Not unreasonable for a player to walk into an empty house and exit, especially when the game itself is a little odd re:world design.
@@didgeridont4918 there are no truly empty houses in the game
Except in old kasuto
This. Always search empty houses, unless you’re playing Breath of Fire.
Some people get it, others just don't. I suppose that's the result of wanting it served on a platter.
If Nintendo is going to remake any Zelda games, the Adventure of Link should be the number 1 game to do it, since it has a lot of potential to be a really good game. It's not that bad on it's own. Definitely good aspects of it, but has some serious flaws, especially the cryptic stuff. They should remake it and fix the flaws.
The Yiga Clan are probably the ones behind attempting to revive Ganon here.
idk about you but the secret in the Town of Kasuto where you use the Spell to raise the temple was extremely straightforward to me. Wise Man gives me the Spell, says “there is a secret at the edge of town”. Put two and two together, you realize “oh, I should probably use this new Spell I just received to figure out the secret!”
I understand if someone wasn’t paying attention that they could miss this, but I honestly think it’s nowhere near as cryptic as you (or AVGN) made it out to be here.
it seems to me you dont know how gaming was on those years, games were really small, they occupy less space than most pics we take nowdays, so they have to make them count.
I burned every bush, bombed every wall in Zelda 1, so by the time I got to Zelda 2, I was alredy prepared. I cant remember feeling with no clue like you said, most of those things seemed organic, at least if you were looking
I didn't know to which comment I should reply until I saw yours, emperorhiram. I totally agree with you. My first 3 games on the Nintendo was Mario, Zelda 1, Zelda 2 and super pitfall. The last one is a crappy game, but full of "jump into this enemy on purpose" moments.
It's just the way we played back then. Hours and hours doing everything possible.
It was worse for me and my friends because we didn't speak English. So even the hints were lost to us. Still lots of fun.
The review was pretty fair, though. The game could be better.
I know it is full of BS, but Zelda 2 is my favourite Zelda game nonetheless. I don't remember if I played it before Zelda 1, but it partially set my early expectations for the series, and I remember feeling somewhat disappointed that the RPG elements didn't make it into the games which came later.
I've always had a fondness for this style of game: side scrolling adventure/RPG games where you get a mix of challenging combat and character development, all while exploring and making progress through the game world. Progress in Zelda 2 is challenging, but destroying a tricky boss, learning a new ability, or unlocking a new part of the world felt rewarding. The game world of Zelda 2 is enjoyable to me, and I think the music and overall atmosphere of is great. I'm sure a big part of my fondness for the game is down to nostalgia, but whenever I see the title screen and hear those first few notes of music, it puts me in the mood for adventure.
There are not too many games like Zelda 2, but games like Simon's Quest, The Goonies 2, and especially Faxanadu gave me a similar feeling. Faxanadu in particular, is a strong contender for my favourite game on the NES.
I’ve always loved Zelda 2. I remember playing this all the time as a kid. Considering I got all the way to Shadow Link without any help (except the manual) all at the age of 8, I don’t really have much sympathy for people that say the game is too cryptic.
My only complaint is that Shadow Link is almost impossible without using cheap strats. I finally beat it a few years ago by applying the cheap trick mentioned here.
Edit: I especially struggle with concerns about finding Bagu. You’re told he’s in the forest, and you can comb the forest quickly by dodging the enemies. I mean-would you rather an MMO-style arrow pointing to where to go to complete your quest? If it’s an inconvenience, then it’s a few minutes at most.
@OSC Worldview Glad to hear someone was able to beat Shadow Link without cheesing. I tried so many times, but I was also pretty young. I’ll try it the next time I play.
There’s such a weird disconnect between different types of players, which I think is why there’s such a polarized and divided genre market today.
I watch these videos about the early Zelda games-games I first played to completion without guides or assistance* at ages 6 and 7-and it seems like the content creator and I grew up on different planets playing entirely different games.
On precedent taken from other games before Zelda II alone, talking to the slime multiple times to wake it up was design intuitive.
There are only a couple of design indicated locations his master could reasonably be located, “North of the river,” and finding that “random bush” wasn’t something that took longer than a few seconds.
Like, even as a second grader, I had enough familiarity with games to know that they wouldn’t put something game-critical in the middle of some vast swath of forest. It’d be located in a smaller swath, probably near the center, as per typical design practice. In this case, the central tree in the middle of a small swath of forest in the area you’re told to look.
Searching for other non-critical secrets was fun. They’re secrets, they’re not supposed to be hinted at. They’re like the early version of “Easter eggs.”
Though, almost all secrets were located in an area intuitive to search by any kid with gameplay experience, especially with games developed with the same development philosophy.
Like, the content creator describes having to bomb walls that look like other walls while showing an extremely suspiciously designed wall that they blew up in the most suspicious and suggestive nook.
There’s only one wall in that game that has a hole in a completely random spot, and it contains a completely non-critical item. I still found it as a kid.
I know Miyamoto has said they designed Zelda with community interaction in mind, but I’ve always assumed he meant more experienced players would help less experienced players. The “first kid” to find the secrets would be a player more clued in to the design language built into the game by a team following a familiar syntax due to the kid’s play experience with games speaking the same language in the same syntax.
I think two things happened.
One, some kids just played more games than other kids, and learned how better to read the signs and signals designed into games to lead their attention.
Two, genre distinction wasn’t as clear at the time. People were playing games as if they were all designed the same way, regardless of intended experience. This view perspective persists into today.
You’re not going to learn how to read cues in Zelda by playing hours of straight forward, score-oriented games like Galaga and Digdug, for instance. It helped to play other games by Nintendo, but especially action adventure and role-playing inspired games of the same type (even by other developers).
As a kid, my primary (and dumb) problem with Zelda II’s design was that there was side-scrolling at all.
In my mind, side scrolling was for an entirely different type of play than I got out of Legend of Zelda, and the change bugged me.
I never liked Castlevania, which had been extremely popular the year Zelda I came out, and I felt Zelda II was attempting to “copy” Castlevania to make it popular in the same way with the same players. That made me feel alienated as a kid.
So, I guess my issue with Zelda II was emotional rather than critical.
But pretty much none of what’s being said here applied to players with experience with similar games or games following the same design philosophy and practices.
It’s not like upsetting, but I think care should be taken in doing this type of games criticism not to make certain perspectives seem “correct” or “normal,” as it inspires modern developers to try to design to those perspectives, which are actually not universal or any kind of legitimate baseline.
*I called the Nintendo Hotline during the kidnapped kid quest in Zelda II because I mixed up the cardinal directions provided as the hint, and for some reason didn’t see fit to just try the other way. The dude just told me to try the other way. I think I just really wanted a reason to call that number once.
I just recently played this game as part of a zelda-a-thon but i dont think i could have compleated it without using save states every 10 seconds lol. Its a shame because this game is hidden potential.
My biggest problem with this game is that you instantly die when you fall into a pit/water/lava. And it’s just so super easy to do so when you have enemies flying in from off-screen. It would be way better if doing so only made you lose one health square (by the way, why is the health squares, and not hearts??) Also, this game is too horizontal. I know there are elevators, but why are there no ladders or ropes to climb to make use of the vertical space?
I still really like this one, it's underrated, from this game many elements became standarts in genre. And it's very lore heavy. Yeah, it's not good though.
Your combat description is basically Sekiro.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with the Sekiro part, but Sekiro isn't a particularly great game. People keep saying that you shouldn't compare it to Dark Souls, because reasons (there never is a real reason for it, seriously, most of the time it's just a order not to). However, anyone who has played Dark Souls (especially DS3) will immediately feel like they are playing a underwhelming version of a game they have already played. They used the same engine and the same mechanics (respawning enemies, bonfires, Boss Fog, How items work, the entire gameplay framework, etc..), only that they removed many of the great features of Dark Souls (RPG elements, Multiplayer, actual replay-ability, etc..).
"it's about finidng rhythm in enemies movement to make a hit" and "finding ways to cheese the enemies that bother you the most" was worded almost the same as in a Sekiro review published about the same time, so it was amusing.
Zelda II is one game that's basically only enjoyable with save states since it removes several of the problems. It's a hard game to enjoy otherwise if you didn't play it as a kid.
Zelda 2 has "the video game problem" but amped up to 11: the game is no fun the first time you play it, but so much more fun the second time.
I will never stop loving it, because once you get good the game is actually fun.
What I like most about Zelda 2 is the need for a Nintendo power to beat it LOL.. I know this is going to be a very unpopular opinion but I appreciate a game I can't beat in one sitting..
There's a big difference between needing more time to beat a game and needing outside help.
Shiggerator There’s definitely things in this game that should be less cryptic but I agree that there’s something special about a game that challenges you in ways no other game does. Specially back then where the internet didn’t exist.
Zelda 2 was the game my parents got me when I asked for a Zelda game for Christmas when I was a kid. I played the game a lot growing up but never beat it due to the issues you noted. I think you were beyond fair in this video.
I was 8 when I got LoZ and 9 when I got AoL
I discovered every single secret without any guides, 1-900 numbers, internet etc
Being obsessed with the games certainly helped, and I understand Millennials, Zoomers etc who just want to blast through the series and their frustration when they run into these two games
Being a kid when this game came out, it really wasn't that difficult. Explore, share info, play the game, beat the game. That's what we did.
That's what everyone does
If this didn't have the Zelda name attached, we would NOT be even discussing this video game at all.
Kids today have no idea how games were played in thr golden age.
Nice to hear, why so many People dislike the game. If I would grew up with this as a sequal, I would probably be disappointed and not like it. But i did not and played it About a year ago, along with Zelda 1. And I have to say, I like Zelda 2. I do not hope there will be another Zelda Game based on this style, but I liked it for one Adventure. Interestingly, you mentioned exactly the two spots I googled the solution, that is the magical Mirror and the hut in the Woods, I could not find them and wonderered how People in the past solved it without Google.
Regarding the puzzles, I think in this game it is inverting the Overall Philosophy that means, the overworld is now more About puzzles, Talking to different People, Walking throw a giantic map and put the pieces together, planing your way through the swamp and Forests and try not to Encounter the stronger enemies (for example: avoid swamp!). We have many mazes out there, and have to back track, comparable to finding keys.
Although some parts of the Dungeons are unfair, as I once get stucked in a temple and could not turn back!, I nevertheles like the fact, you can really fail during your Progress. It gives me the Feeling I miss in many games, the possibility to really just fail. Not failing in the sense of "oh the enemy defeated you. Come back and try again", but inthe sense of "making the wrong decissions", like "Damn it, If I would not have used my magic for higher jumps to get an Advantage for the last enemiy, I could turn into a fairy and Escape the pit. But I cant. Now I am doomed to die down there lonley and pathetic =( " It gives me the Feeling of an Adventure, not as if I am on a playground there parents created a fake Adventure but actually I was never in real danger. It is more like "here is your world. Now learn how to deal with it or die!" I really love this mechanic About the game. And yes, there are even enemies, you probably can not defeat in a fair fight. But this is also good. Enemies are not here to "test" you as usually in games, but to "kill" you. They do not care, if it is unfair, if he throws his Sword permanently. It is your enemy, not your teacher, who wants you secretly to pass the test. You enemy is cruel, mercyless and Maybe even stronger than you. So come back when you are healthy, run throught he enemies, take the Damage you get, and hurry to Escape your bully if you are not strong enough! Only, they should not have added the blue iron knuckle as a Semi-Boss in later Dungeons, one time this terrible rider, was enough.
I actually played it twice (well last time I am techniqly stuck at the Dark Link Boss but have done everything else), and enjoyed it again. Zelda 1 I did not actually. I enjoyed it the first time, but it is to monotonous for me. It is not bad, I just want to Play it again. Maybe I will Change my mind in the future.
Overall I am glad the way Zelda went after A Link to the Past :D
7:52 CHUCHU? Surely you meant BIT and BOT ;P
I have to know ARE BITS THE LITTLE RED BASTARDS? I played Zelda 2 for the first time and it took me so long to figure out what they did and when I did I went on a murder spree
@@Error403HRD 😂yeah they're the jellies from zelda 2. The blue one's called bot.
@@michael--a--sometimes just had to make sure lol, thanks
I was young when this came out. My dad and I loved the first Zelda, and this was definitely on my Christmas/Income Tax return list. We didn't have many games, so when we did get one it was a treat. Back then, I was a little confused that it had changed so much from the first one, but truthfully everyone wasn't so critical of games. I was very happy with it, and being the only game in my "back log" that I hadn't beaten may've played a huge roll in my enjoyment. I was able to finish it, multiple times on original hardware. Now though, not sure I would even attempt it without save states. That game is a beautiful mess, but I love it and it will always remind me of some great memories.
I honestly thought this game was a myth for years. I loved Zelda, but everyone I asked said this game didn't exist. The Link on the Cover Art is cute though.
Who said this game didn’t exist? Lol I was probably playing it before they existed xd
'I don't know if I can recommend Zelda II to anyone Zelda fan.'
I'd recommend this game to fans who want to prove their mettle. Zelda II offers some of the best, most distilled side-scrolling combat/dueling mechanics available - and in many ways, it's distilled down to a point that's largely unrivaled today. I can't really think of any other games besides Nidhogg (_released 27 years later_) that refines arms-length swordplay down to the level that this game does - and it does it all on the super limited NES hardware. Enemies are your equals in this game - and if you manage to stop Ganon, you earned it.
To me, Zelda II is for those who want to prove they have what it takes to beat the games their parents beat. Slightly more matured NES graphics, iconic musical themes, the inception of many of the towns, characters & sages of future Zelda games - and an unrivaled, brutally sharp 1v1 combat system that tests you more as a gamer than any other Zelda game in the series. This game yields to none - and is meant for those who want to beat it.
The wo most important words regarding Zelda 2 are:
Game Genie.
As a kid I always liked this game, and I was always enthusiastic about tackling it, but in the end I knew there was only one way to make real progress without losing your mind and having it break your heart with a game over screen.
I loved action adventure games with RPG elements as a kid and there were very few of them at the time. This appealed to me and was my very first Zelda game so I had no pre-conceived notions about it. Did require a lot of intuition and guesswork to get through the cryptic parts though as I didn't have a guide.
Bagu's location design is okay because you will eventually stumble upon him from doing a dozen corpse runs to the 2nd dungeon.
When I was a kid, I asked my folks for "The Legend of Zelda" for my birthday. They gave me this game; apparently they didn't know about the original and I had never heard of the sequel. Well I was a little bummed at first, but if being a kid in 1991 taught us anything, it is that you play what you have. So I started to play this game day and night. It climbed my personal favorites list for the sole reason that I was good at it and none of my friends were (they all had the good Zelda game, lucky jerks). I managed to eventually beat the game despite the fact I never once saw a copy of any "Nintendo Power". I had to talk to a friend who had a subscription. He was about as helpful as the villagers saying, "There's a hidden town under a forest tile that you have to find with the hammer"; so guess who chopped down every forest tile in the game until I found the stupid thing? Anyway, these days, I can still beat this game in 80-100 minutes, whereas I still have trouble with the original. I think like certain other things in my life that I disliked and grew to love (coffee, beer, sea salt and vinegar potato chips) it is an acquired taste. Hate on this game as much as you like, I love it. All of your complaints are valid, but here I stand, I can do no other.
Ok, not to be a Zelda 2 overt apologist but I can elucidate the whole "SPELL" thing. The place you cast it was supposed to be called "CAST" not "KASUTO". Yep, you were supposed to put two and two together to figure out "CAST SPELL". Dumb; yes. Cryptic bullshit; absolutely. Another tragic mistransliteration in a game absolutely riddled with them? You bet. Back in the day we really did have to "Get the power, Nintendo Power" to really get anywhere. This was actually worse in Japan, if you can believe it. Several games pointed you to purchasing their own produced game guides in the game's booklet. If you ever get around to watching some good ol' Game Center CX episodes you'll see them whip them out sometimes.
30 years ago, I learned fighting the dark knights with a particular timed jumping attack that rapidly hits high to low. If I remember correctly, you jump and start the attack animation and then holding down or just let the landing animation force your retracting animation hit low. You can make quick work with knights with this technique.
TIL the "Darknuts" in this game are actually Iron Knuckles according to the wiki, despite being more similar to Darknuts (sword + shield) than Iron Knuckles seen in the N64 games
After i recently replayed Zelda 2 (via the Redux romhack which i highly recommend) i have a theory on why Nintendo never made another game in this style outside the obvious fan backlash. It's because post Zelda 2 there has been A SHITTON of sidescrolling exploration style games in the market, especially nowadays with indies and stuff.
I feel like for Nintendo to make a successor to Zelda 2 they'd have to flip the genre on its head, spice it up with something new you know? Like didn't Miyamoto or someone else said the reason we don't have a new F-Zero is because they legit don't know what to do with it aka "Oh shit GX was too awesome!"?
And in regards to the Metroidvania genre think it's super hard to come up with something new and exciting because Indies have been doing this for years now. It's not just about one upping the "big boys" (Super Metroid and SotN) who already "perfected" the formula.
This is just about Nintendo pushing their creativity because i too would be just fine with a "Zero Mission" style remake or something with less clunky controls and some goddamn checkpoints especially for the Great Palace or should i say the freaking path to the Great Palace. Then again we have awesome romhacks like "Redux" which already shows how great Zelda 2 can be if balanced right.
This is my favorite Zelda game. I wish they would remake it
This was my first Zelda, even before playing the original. It's the game that made me fall in love with Zelda, but even I admit that this game was full of questionable design choices.
Zelda 2 had a lot of potential, and I think more than any other game it deserves a remake because I think a remake can iron out it's problems and turn Zelda to into a solid action-platformer.
You do not understand how one would find stuff..
Back when we played new games on NES as kids. We tried EVERYTHING! It was part of the fun ..
Not a reason to complain. ;p
definitely this.Heck my mom used to play the nes back then and made an extended map for the first zelda marking caves and such.Which we of course found by extensively bombing every wall and burning every bush :P
earthbound zero was like this too. that game does NOT hold your hand.
@@locke103 We did have game manuals though. And some times included maps with tips. But not all could aford the magazins.
@@Kraviken very few games offered maps or logical strategies. and some supplemental reading material left a lot to be desired. i... think both zelda games at launch came with maps, but i was never lucky with that.
i cant remember the exact title of one book, it covered the first three mega man games. but, at a young age, it instilled into me the wrong boss order for MM3. and stupidly, i still follow it nearly thirty years later. :P
While it's way too cryptic, this game left a huge mark on the series to come. OOT would take massive inspiration, and again breath of the wild would.
I'm kinda amused by how this game got released before Castlevania 2... essentially, Zelda became a metroidvania BEFORE CASTLEVANIA.
But what did castlevania bring to metroidvania that wasn't allready in the first Metroid?
About finding patterns and rhythms, Zelda II showed how important this is. In Breath of the Wild the Lynels were terrifying death machines at first, but once I got the pattern down and exploited it, they simply became the source of better equipment. Not exactly difficult, just time consuming. So I guess I owe a thank you to this game for that.