Printable View
A good friend of mine said Wonder Boy In Monster World played liked Zelda II "except it doesn't suck." This got me wondering: why does Zelda II get so much hate? I realize the game is radically different from all the other entries to the series, but I don't think the changes make the game bad. I really enjoyed the sidescrolling dungeons, musical score, weapons and items that were found in the game. The hate for Zelda II just reinforces that some people hate change.
Thoughts.
I thought it got lots of love, though I don't see the Monster Land comparisons except the fact that both of them are side-scrollers and have a jump button, etc.
You do not change a winning formula.
People hate and fear change. That about sums it up. Zelda II was an innovative game. A sidescrolling adventure game with loads of RPG elements. But it was different from Zelda. And then when A Link to the Past and every following Zelda game reverted to the original formula, barring the CD-i monstrocities, it was different from every Zelda.
Given all the complaints about how all the Zelda games are too similar to one another that have been cropping up, I think the series is due for another Zelda II, though.
I think Zelda 2 is a great game, certainly on par with the rest of the series. It had a serious tone, fun towns, and was actually a difficult game. I like everything about it. My brother didn't like it at all though, and his complaints were 1) he didn't like the music 2) he didn't like Link's new found ugliness 3) it is too hard 4) he wanted it to be like the origional. That pretty much sims up all the complaints I've heard from anybody.
I think Zelda 2 is better than Link to the Past, to be honest.
Bold statement!Quote:
Originally Posted by nate
As franchise underdogs go, Zelda II seems like a favourite among most people I've spoken to about it. I'm sure if Nintendo were to remake it for DS, it would find a fresh new audience that would more widely appreciate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drixxel
I suppose, but I'm not trying to shock/provoke anybody. That is just my honest opinion. If Zelda II got a DS makeover, like the Mario games enjoyed on the GBA, I'm almost certain it would catch on... like you said basically.
It didn't really suck, no. As I've never been a huge fan of the Zelda franchise (though I concede that OoT was impressive) I didn't come to it with a huge bias. It wasn't a great game, but it was hardly a terrible one.
People are hypocrites. They beg and plead for original and innovative concepts instead of being showered with the same old sequels, but when they do get a creative sequel they shun it, seriously disheartening the developers from trying new ideas.
I love Zelda II. In fact it is probably my favorite game in the series. The genre changes actually works well and is probably one of the most underrated sequels in video games.
Yeah, I had a good time with it. I actually played 2 before the first one, so imagine my surprise as a kid when I found out the first one was top-down.
it may have to do with the way some gamers (especially NES ones at the time) enjoyed jumping right in and playing up a storm.
Zelda II didn't do this as well, as it warranted greater exploration and poking around with items and random old men in towns.
I have not spent enough time with Z-II to really have a clear opinion on it.
But it really does slow down the pace.
I imagine that it can be a lot like how I see the Metroid series (unenjoyable until after you [or rather 'I'] find the right upgrades.
It gets much better when you get a few more moves. If you jump into Zelda II again make sure you put a dungeon or two behind you before you give up. I tend to like the slow pace at the beginning, it makes you appriciate you upgrades a little more.
Wow, Zelda II is getting more love here than I've seen it get on any other internet forums I've posted on.
I completely forgot that Zelda II was the first Zelda game that I ever played. While I think the other games in the series are fine, fine additions, I still don't comprehend all the negativity that Zelda II gets. All the changes that were made, I honestly think they are what make the game shine. The dungeon designs were pretty sweet and challenging and the music was off the charts. Words cannot describe how thrilled I was when I found out that the dungeon theme was updated for Super Smash Bros. Melee.
Zelda II make always be looked upon as the black sheep in the eyes of the majority, but I still think it's one of the best NES games ever.
I was a bit put off by Link's look and that little "sword" (knife really) that he wielded. I was also upset about the music, but all three grew on me in time. What finally made Zelda II a hit with me was the enemies that have high-low attack and block. Fighting those guys was easily as much fun as I've had in any NES game.
What is it with NES sequels anyway? It seems like part two is always the oddball. Mario 2, Zelda 2, Final Fantasy 2.. The moral of this story is that, with the exception of Mario 2, the oddball ends up being one of my very favorites in each series.
Embrace change.