|
The game is far from easy, and this is a major turn-off for many fans. But if you are looking for something different, yet still a Zelda game, you might enjoy this. This sequel to the original Legend of Zelda received generally mixed reactions from fans. Once you have a certain amount of points, you can level-up their attack strength, magic meter, or life meter. The music is different as well and does not feature any of the original songs (except for a few opening notes from the main theme of the first game). Beating the game takes patience on the player's part, so don't be surprised if you find yourself visually angry at it from time to time. While most Zelda games have a good blend of both action and puzzles, Zelda II leans more toward action.
The most noticeable difference is that the overhead view from the original and the other 2-D Zelda games has been changed to a side-scrolling perspective (similar to the early Super Mario Bros. The game gives you three lives, and once all three are gone, you have to start all the way back at the starting point. Zelda II: the Adventure of Link for the GBA is a re-release of the same game for the NES released in 1988. games). Each time you level-up, the number of points needed to level-up again increases. Although they are not without merit, the game contains some elements that would remain with the series in sequels to follow.(Note: I will not go over the game's story in this review). When you start the game, you must always start from the same point on the overworld map. Experience Points can be collected mainly by killing enemies.
Swordplay plays a more important part in this game than in other 2-D Zelda games. Leveling-up causes your attacks to be more effective against enemies, your magic meter to drain more slowly after casting spells, and allows you to take less damage after an enemy attack. The only time the game still uses the overhead view is when you are traveling from place to place on the overworld map.Another new addition is the use of Experience Points. Incidentally, Zelda II was the first game in the series to have a magic meter. The new music is not as memorable as in the other games and was not re-used in later games.Overall, if you are looking for a traditional Zelda game, don't buy this.
Being able to use magic was preaty cool though and unlike the first zelda game you can see people walk through the towns instead of standing in one spot which was preaty facinating back than. I am a big Zelda fan and this game was different from other Zelda games like it was a sidescroling rpg type game. I wouldnt recomend buying this game but if you do see it for like a dollar or two than go check it out. If you die three times your done for. That idea could acctully have made this a great game but the thing I realy hated is that this game is like the hardest game ever. Also the enimies are way too hard. I think every Zelda game is worth trying out even this one.
I had emailed this company to cancel my order when I realized I had ordered the wrong Zelda, but they never responded to me, even after 3 or 4 emails.This game is boring and not as much as fun as the other Zelda games
Let you save the game whenever you'd like, instead of having to die first.5. Don't reset your xp points to zero when you run out of lives. The game just doesn't have enough valuable conversation.9. There are 7 or 8 items, and all they basically do is allow you to move on to the next dungeon. Get rid of all the lava and water pits which instantly kill you.8. How does the man in the woods know or care who you are, and why does the riverman refuse to let you cross unless you know him.
Make the spells more interesting and more common to cast. The game had the potential to be a lot better, if they just did a few of the following things-1. I've read the background story in other reviews, and apparently the only way to know it is to read the instruction manuals that come with the game because they sure don't tell you much in the game, a fault of the first one. Also, the ranged sword attack at full health should have had more effect, since it doesn't travel far and most powerful monsters are immune anyways. Hopefully, if you're reading this review and HAVEN'T played the game, you'll get a grasp of how much work this game needs. Most reviewers who dislike this game tend to lambast the side-scrolling nature of the game, and say that "it's not a Zelda game." I don't really have a problem with the idea of a side-scroller, it's just that they didn't do it WELL.The biggest complaint that you'll hear about the game other than the side-scrolling aspect is that it's insanely difficult. A knife just doesn't cut it.
Put more of the story in the game. One reviewer put it aptly- "it's like the designers are trying to piss you off." The poor control scheme, combined with the deadliness and impressive AI of some of the enemies, plus just some of the many cheap-shots in the game make it get very frustrating, easily. It's like the designers thought the concept was "cheating" and only included it in a nerfed form to cater to fans of the original.2. So, you have keys in a dungeon, and "keys" which allow you to get from one dungeon to the next. Make your weapon longer.
This also results in some odd quests, where you find a river man who won't let you cross- that is, until you find a friend of his out in the woods that gives you a letter. Get rid of the 3 lives and just let you continue where you died.4. No boomerangs, arrows, bombs, health jars, or anything that allows you different strategic options.7. Out of 8 total spells, you'll use 3-4 commonly, and even those not very often because they all require too much mana, even at maximum stats.6. Make you have more control over your attacks and jumps.3.
Make the items in the game more useful and easier to use and less of one-trick "keys" that simply allow you to progress to the next stage. Really, it's just cheap.So, if the game were to have done several of these things, much less all of them, it would have been a heck of a lot more fun instead of an exercise in frustration the way it currently is.
The SMB series was already a side scroller, so when it was released, people were not disappointed as all. It's a great game in and of itself, and had it been redesigned in terms of story and not making it Zelda, it would be classic. In the Zelda context, that is a good thing. In terms of sticking to the formula, this is the best thing that ever happened to Zelda. In my opinion, SMB 3 and The Legend of Zelda are the greatest two games on that consol, although there are several close contenders. What if Nintendo hadn't done this game. Of course, the world in Zelda II was much more expansive. Some main parts of the game should be like that though, but then there should be more old-school Zelda overview.
SMB 3 successfully combined a type of overview world, but then you moved and played the stages. Is it a good game. It's a lot of fun. My main message in this article is give Zelda II a chance. Then the battles and actual dungeons are in the side scrolling format. Zelda II didn't stay on top of the charts like its prequel did. But the Level Up idea passed away with this game.
People still bought it, but the general consensus was it was not as good as the original "Legend of Zelda".Zelda II: The Adventure of Link is a misunderstood game. Its not a clone, it's a sequel. Only recently have I bought it for the old NES, and I'm playing it thru for the first time. It has done something no other Zelda before or since did. If they had not released this game on the NES, they might have tried the hybrid experiment on the SNES game, and instead of getting what is arguably the greatest game on the SNES, and in the Zelda series, we would get a game like this. Enjoy it for a video game, a classic in its own right. In the series' context, I think it would have been better if they had not made EVERYTHING side scrolling.
I am just now going thru this game. Its just "Zelda II: The Adventure of Link." It sounds better than "The Legend of Zelda: The Adventure of Link." Too long I guess for those days. One thing was all of the action in Zelda II happened on side scrolling. And yet, earlier when they tried the same thing with Zelda II, it was viewed as a disappointment because Zelda was not a side scroller to begin with. It used a magic system and a level up system. If you want to add to this blurb, feel free to do so] But talking from objectively, I like this game.
Zelda II was to be a smashing success, or so they thought. Its also the only title in the series that does not have "The Legend of Zelda" in it. It not the same as other Zeldas. Bottom Line: Zelda II is a failure in the context of the series. The truth is, we will never know. Had there been some action side scrolling, and then some traditional Zelda overview, it would be viewed differently also. The perspective on this game would be much different if it was not Zelda.
Don't think of it as Zelda. The game, you ask. You navigated in an overhead view. In fact, it is hailed as one of the greatest NES games ever released.
All this has forever damaged Zelda II. It has its own personality. Although Zelda II was viewed as a disappointment, I think it had direct influence on SMB 3. Coming from a Zelda perspective, I'd agree that it is not as good as the others.
To be honest, the author of this article has played this sequel very little. This review was originally written as an article defending Zelda II on one of the retro-gaming sites back in 1999. Nintendo had just released the sequel to one of the best selling games on their consol. Give it a chance. Maybe it would be viewed as innovative.
The game was released to the general public in December 1988, just in time for the Christmas market. Link to the Past is called Zelda III, but its not its official title, just as Zelda Gaiden is not called Zelda VI. Remember, I missed the Zelda craze back in the old NES days (my first exposure was Link to the Past in `91, which is the best Zelda in my opinion). Independently, Zelda II stands proud. Instead, they got a side scroller, a hybrid of overhead and platform gaming. Its an interesting twist for Zelda, and outside of Zelda, it adds to the game play.Without Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, the structure of this seminal series would be drastically different. But for Zelda it doesn't go with the others, and Nintendo learned what the public wants in a Zelda game. Mario was not an overview game to begin with.
This marks the first time the full-length article has been posted on Amazon.The Failure of Link.12/19/1999Let's imagine ourselves back in the Golden Days of Video Games. No one does. It's a good game. [I bought it last Thursday along with playstation and some other stuff].
It is possible they might have tried the hybrid on SNES version. Its influence reaches SMB 3 and Super Mario World. It actually sold fairly well. The biggest controversy of this game was it was a 2D scroller, instead of an overhead game like the original was. Currently, I'm at the second palace. They came in with the expectation of another game with an overhead view. But without it, we might not have the hybrid of the overview/side scrolling found in SMB 3 and Super Mario World, which both are great games.
This is the only Zelda game it incorporate the numerical sequence into its official title. It will always be viewed from the perspective it is not as good as the other Zelda games. All we are saying is give Zelda II a chance. If Nintendo had not made this game, they would have made this mistake (remember, it's a mistake only in context of the series) at a much worst time.What about Super Maria Brothers 3. When they did make the hybrid, they stuck with the basically formula of side scrolling, but they had a little overview too. For other RPG games this is a defining feature, which helps support my belief that almost all RPG games are, whether directly or indirectly, are influenced by the Zelda games (especially the first one).
And what the first one doesn't cover, the second one gets. People expected the wrong things from this game. The main problem with it is the fact that it is side-scrolling. Nintendo took the hybrid idea into its other cash cow, Mario, of which it was much more suited.
But Nintendo heard no end to the furor caused by this game. Think of it as an independent game, and you decide of its fun or not. Lets concentrate on the game itself. They had misread the audience, and disappointed them because Nintendo did not give them what their expectations were.
This was one of Nintendo's biggest missteps in its history (another is going cartridge for N64, which is much more expensive than CD, thus scaring off third party developers, and having fewer games than what should have been). The public reaction to this game was NOT what Nintendo wanted. That's the problem. Lets look at it outside of the series. Zelda II: The Adventure of Link*.The Legend of Zelda, one of the very first RPGs and a blueprint for which almost all games in this genre since its release has at least some roots in this game, was a phenomenal success, and stayed on the Nintendo Power Charts at Number 1 or 2 for literally years. The Legend of Zelda is a great series, and without this under their belt, Nintendo might have put out a disappointing Zelda game at a much more crucial time in the series' evolution. Nintendo learned from its mistake, and never tried this again.
Did Nintendo do a good job doing a hybrid of side scrolling action and overhead view. I issued a truncated version of this on the NES Amazon page of Zelda II in 2004. People didn't think it was as good as the original. SMB 3 is the game Zelda II could have been.
It's a great game. Then, we wouldn't get a game for the SNES comparable to Link to the Past. Just an interesting side note.[Artilce Blurb: Is Zelda II the failure its made out to be. What would have happened had Nintendo not released this game. People came in with a mind set of what a Zelda game is supposed to be, and were inevitable disappointed with this. The magic was refined and reused. That's not to say it is a good game though.
The year was 1988. Forget its Zelda, and don't think it should be overhead. The true question, which cannot be answered, is this: "What would the public think if this had been released first, instead of The Legend of Zelda." Who knows. Nintendo had, along with Mario, a cash cow it was not about to give up.
In my opinion, yes. As it stands in the series, its out of balance. Its fun to play.
For the game itself, its fun, and it has the feel of classic. I'm not looking thru the eyes of nostalgia when I play this game. In this view, Zelda II is out of balance.
I'm a big Zelda fan. I don't agree with this. In terms of lessons learned, this is by far the most important game in the series.
But outside of it, had its been released on its own, it's a good game that deserves your attention.*An interesting note about its title.
|
