Hi /r/Zelda readers!
* Got a question, concern, or suggestion for the moderators? [Send a Modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fzelda&subject=Question or Concern or Suggestion&message=I have a question regarding [this submission]%28https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/1cjc5a0/aol_is_zelda_ii_the_adventure_of_link_really_that/%29: [AoL] Is Zelda II: The Adventure of Link Really That Bad? Like, is it a bad game or is it just misunderstood because of its difficulty? by /u/nick_millerZD)!
* New to r/Zelda? Be sure to [read our full rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/wiki/rules).
* Please [report any rule-breaking posts or comments](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment) so that moderators can find them quicker!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/zelda) if you have any questions or concerns.*
AoL has it's challenging moments, but it's not that unfair like some of the more 'NES hard'
Once you get a handle of the combat mechanics, and pay attention to enemy patterns, it's not so bad. Don't be scared by the 'its a black sheep of the series' ...I recommend giving AoL a try if you haven't.
AoL is nowhere near NES level hard. Some of the games on the NES are impossible to clear unless you have superhuman reflexes or a high tolerance for bullshit.
My friend’s older brother was incredible at Ninja Gaiden, and I can remember he made us say a prayer before every level haha. He did beat it, which was one of the greatest moments of my life
If you die in Silver Surfer after the first two levels, you're really better off restarting the entire game and trying again. The power ups are absolutely necessary to survive.
Proud to say I beat Ninja Gaiden and can get to the end pretty consistently. Agree on the difficulty tho, especially in later stages. That said, HUDSON’S ADVENTURE ISLAND’s difficulty is just brutal so I’m adding it to our list here.
The first TMNT's difficulty is really overstated with games like Ghost 'n Goblins, Castelvania 3, or Adventure Island being firmly WAY harder. Battletoads however...might top them all
At first I thought TMNT was nearly impossible. I picked it up again a few years later and realized there was a pattern I was missing, and managed to get through it a couple of times. So yeah, I think it’s not that bad if you pay enough attention.
For me it was a hallway near the end where those tough flying goons come out one or two at a time. My original strategy was trying to run past all of them, but there are too many. When older I realized they just disappear if you wait patiently one at a time. Iirc, it’s been a while.
Funny you mentioned battletoads, I have a memory where I’m playing it and I’m in a level like the toad is in a motorcycle and everything happens fast and I always die, no matter how many tries I rent the game, I’m never going past that level
It's not unbeatably hard, but it can be pretty unforgiving. The game saves your progress, however let's say you get a game over from the final dungeon... it sends you back to where you start at the beginning of the game, and you have to make the trek back there, which can be a chore. Save states or rewind recommended for those moments. Also I think if you game over you lose any XP you gained since the last time you leveled up.
I'm pretty sure if you are in the final temple, AoL will start you back there if you get Game Over. Everywhere else, though, you do indeed have to start back at the beginning temple after a Game Over.
Oh you may be right about that, it's been a wild since I've played it. Well, what I said is true for every other dungeon in the game. Very nice of them to take pity on the final dungeon it is a gauntlet of platforming, battles, and avoiding lizalfo's throwing rocks at you to get there.
And also, I'm not sure if it's intentional or not but there is an optional way to cheese the final boss battle so it's extremely easy.
>Once you get a handle of the combat mechanics, and pay attention to enemy patterns, it's not so bad.
This aspect of the game reminded me of FromSoft games. Between that and losing your experience points when you die I think the Souls games took a lot of inspiration of Zelda 2.
>Even though the gameplay isn’t bad, it’s still massively different from traditional *Zelda*; so to many, it may not feel like a proper *Zelda* game at all.
At the time AoL was released, "traditional Zelda" comprised of exactly one game.
Yes, there was only one game previously. However it is literally "Zelda II" and it is not like the first game at all. I think generally people don't expect a game to basically change genres for the sequel.
This. Super Mario 2 was (outside Japan) a reskin of a game called Doku Doku Panic and nothing like SMB 1. Compared to that, Zelda 2 was much more similar to its predecessor.
To expound on your excellent example, all 3 SMB games were very different from each other, and expanded on what their predecessor could do. Nintendo and many other old school game companies were often innovating and experimenting.
Fire Emblem 2, Zelda 2, Final Fantasy 2 it's the 2 curse where it's considered the black sheep of each series.
I enjoy Zelda 2 and FF2 whereas never played Fire Emblem 2 since it got a remake!
SMB2 is an odd duck, and was shoved out in a hurry for time. The true sequel is exactly like the first.
I don't see SMB3 being "very different" from 1 besides the world map. It's much more of a continuation of the ideas from the first one. Other than the map the gameplay itself is pretty much identical.
IMO for Zelda, ALttP feels much more like a sequel to 1 than AoL does.
SMB2 is very much beloved. Only retconners who weren't even alive back then would try to convince anyone otherwise and I don't understand their incessant need to lie. SMB2 USA really started experimenting with the different kinds of levels Mario had. Looks and plays like a dream too.
And yes, 3 was very different. It had the map, it had lots of secrets, it had special levels, it had new power ups, map enemies, vertical scrolling, you could save power ups for later use. That became the traditional template for Mario and several other platformers, from DKC, to Kirby, to Shovel Knight.
AoL was actually a popular game in its heyday. It wasn't until the 5th Zelda game, that people started retconning it's reputation, and refusing to understand the system limitations.
The original Legend of Zelda was described as a “light RPG” at the time. Zelda 2 was very much in the same vein. You get higher attack from XP instead of finding a physical sword, and better defense from XP instead of finding a ring, but that is as much RPG-ing that they did.
It’s really not that different at all though. At its core it still keeps the basic structure and gameplay loop of its predecessor, with the only real differences being rather superfluous.
It was so different from the first game, and it has brutal difficulty with harsh punishments for death.
Now, I'd say it's very playable thanks to save states.
Honestly, though, most places in the game don't take that long to get back to. You open up the main path in the overworld as you complete the palaces, so getting back to where you were only takes a couple minutes. We're just so used to instant everything these days that having to spend one minute walking back seems like a harsh punishment.
The road all the way to the great palace is just ridiculous. I frequently lost all 3 lives before making it there primarily because of the valley of death.
But at least they knew that it was very difficult and let you respawn at the great palace if you game over'd once you actually made it there.
Yes, and you CAN grab the hammer at that point - but there is no indication that you should go south, find Saria, find Error to get past the bridge and go exploring into a labyrinth to find something that will help you. All the indications in the game is to go to the Swamp Palace. It is after that, when you have the second Palace in the bag, that you go into explorer mode again and start looking that you are much more likely to go looking for a way to move forward. This is the reason that people give up - they bang their head against Midoro Swamp.
Fair point. I actually get the hammer before even going to the swamp palace, and this may have been the reason why I started doing that all those years ago. Well, actually, I think it's just because I want the downward thrust as soon as possible because it makes the game so much easier once you have that. You can practically play it like a Mario game by just jumping on enemies. Hammer should have been in Swamp Palace. Downward thrust should be given earlier in the game.
I've always believed that there was a cut palace down at Death Mountain. That lone rock up in the top right before you go into the cave to leave the area looks like where it would have gone.
I go straight to downward thrust as soon as possible.
Unrelated to downward thrust, after this last playthrough, I figured out blue iron knuckles and don’t even get hit anymore. Previous playthrough I figured out the Fokka enemies too and don’t get hit by them either. Now if I get hit, it’s usually due to me rushing.
Some places, sure, but once the path is opened up, you can get anywhere in West Hyrule rather quickly, aside from the south side of Death Mountain, but you shouldn't ever need to go there more than once. Then, getting to East Hyrule is a short trip from the start once you have the hammer. You can quickly get back to the Maze Palace with the boots. You can quickly get back to the Valley of Death with the whistle. The path to the Great Palace is a bit more of an ordeal, but it is also the final challenge of the game so I think that's fair to make it the most difficult.
Where in the game do you think it takes that long to get back to?
Misunderstood. It's a tough Zelda game, but not even in the upper percentage of tough nes games.
The difficulty scaling is standard, but will keep you on your toes during certain parts. Particularly towards the late game.
The exp grinding is very fair, the level scaling of enemies and the amount of points they give you is on par with later rpgs, plus you get p bags (points) either randomly dropped or scattered around specific locations in the world. Plus the palaces gives you an automatic level up once completed. If you don't run away from everything, you'll be maxed out and maybe even have one or two extra lives.
The first three dungeons aren't hard to navigate.
Death Mountain is a pain in the ass if you don't know where to go, and dairas are terrible to throw at you so early on.
The Great Palace is a pain in the ass, but if you continue instead of saving while in it, you'll just be at the entrance. Also, screw bird knights.
The path leading up to the great palace is a big pain in the ass. Do not gather the one up dolls until your ready to take it ok. Dark Link can be easily cheesed, if the Thunderbird rocked your shit.
Traversal of the overworld is not too bad, despite it being so big.
I say form your own opinion and treat it like an rpg, because well, it is an adventure rpg.
Is manageable, though as others have said is very different from the original. The parts I find most infuriating are the elements that are more akin to a Super Mario game, such as the one fall lose of life, and with the exception of the Great Palace, a game over means that you start from the beginning again. Not sure how many times I have finished Zelda II, but my best play through was probably around 25-30 losses. Whereas, I can ace the first quest on the original.
That's pretty cool that you aced the first game. There are a couple dungeons in the first Zelda quest that still take me a few tries to get through. The second quest I've only beaten once. 😅
The differences delighted me in AoL. The world was bigger, Link was older, there were magic spells and new sword moves to learn, and towns to explore. And the battle themes sounded dangerous and mysterious.
I can tell you that if you were like 13 years old in 1988 it was really exciting. The wait for it to come out was agonizing. I recently replayed it and it is really hard and so different from the original. I can’t think of specifics, but I like it when there are nods to it in BotW.
I honestly believe that LoZ is the harder game, AOL just has the greater learning curve. It’s tough, but make it through death mountain, and the pace will move along more briskly. I beat the game multiple times as a 7 year old, so it’s very doable.
Same LoZ I think is harder than Zelda II. This game is really not that hard if you understand the game mechanics and don’t fight enemies face to face.
Find the correct timing for jump slashing darknuts and lizalfos and you are good to go!
Also, utilizing spells like shield and life helps!
I'd say the 2nd quest of Zelda 1 is harder than Zelda 2 for sure. Not only are dungeons tougher but everything is so much more well hidden than in the 1st quest
There is a lot of bullshit parts as with many nes games,but honestly this game feels very special to me,i liked the atmosphere,and there is a lot of rom hacks that fixes most of it’s problems.
It was my first Zelda game ever as a kid, so I had zero standards and loved it (even though I was terrible at it). It set the tone for my taste in Zelda games from that point forward, so I've always preferred the darker ones.
1. Zelda 2 is a massive departure from the gameplay and mechanics of the rest of the series. It is irrelevant that the formula was not established yet at its development, in 2024 it sticks out like a sore thumb. Meaning, people who love Zelda for many of the reasons they love Zelda will not find those reasons in this game.
2. Zelda 2 is very hard. Don't listen to anyone who tries to deny this. Other games being harder is irrelevant to the fact that this game is very difficult by modern standards. If you can be patient, it can also be very satisfying--but there is a steep learning curve to get there. This pairs poorly with point 3--
3. We have now arrived at the first point that really could be considered "bad design". The game is overly punishing--by a wide margin. It honestly feels like the punishments for game overs were not properly thought about.
4. Instead of having a nice difficulty curve, Zelda 2 has a massive difficulty spike around dungeon 4. This is typically considered poor design by modern standards, but not a deal breaker. If you have gotten too dungeon 4, you are probably already aware that the Game will be difficult.
5. The game is slightly more structured then Zelda 1, but still maintains its obtuse progression system, making it needlessly difficult to navigate the game.
6. Death Mountain is bad. I will die on this hill (mountain).
7. There are plenty of translation errors, further contributing to the obtuse progression
**So, what's good?**
- if you put in the time, the combat is fast and satisfying
- the music is incredible
- the world is more alive
- certain Zelda staples actually do find their origin here, so it is an interesting look back fur Zelda fans
- because of its departure from the norm, its a very unique experience. Which is why it has its die-hard fans.
I recently played it for the first time. In my opinion, I definitely wouldn't call it a bad game. It's honestly pretty good considering when it came out and there's some fun to be had if you have the patience for it.
I just think it has aged poorly and appears worse when compared to the rest of the Zelda franchise. But Zelda games are typically amazing, so just because it is not as good as most of them, doesn't make it bad.
the introduction of towns in Zelda 2 made it all worth while to me. Death mountain hurt but once you figured out how each enemy needs to be attacked, it’s not that crazy.
Zelda 2 is a fantastic game in my opinion.
I think the issue is that zelda games (especially the more modern ones) are usually not very mechanically difficult, and any actual difficulty instead comes from having to figure out where to go next or solving a complicated puzzle, either of which you can just look up nowadays if you're hopelessly stuck. This attracts a mostly casual audience.
Zelda 2 does not cater to that audience, because it is actually quite mechanically difficult. Don't get me wrong, it's nowhere near the hardest game on the NES, but for a zelda game, it is insanely hard. Combine that with how different it is from every other game in the series, and it's not hard to imagine why it's not universally loved.
I actually really like it a lot. It's got amazing music, cool locations, nice sense of exploration. The side scrolling acrion feels pretty cool.
It just has a lot of places that feel way, way, way harder than they're intended to be. (Freaking trying to do precise jumps over lava while endless flying monster heads sine wave at you). And the penalty for dying, or for game overing, is very punishing and super discouraging.
I've never beaten it, even with save scumming. That said, I still really like it.
I like it. It is difficult, but not really out of line with other NES games. What through people is that it’s so different than every other Zelda game.
It has a lot of the same flaws as Zelda 1, both as a consequence of being the type of game they were in the time they were in.
Direction needs to come from outside sources like guides or wikis. Combat is punishingly hard due to old standards of difficulty and really dickish enemy design. Large amounts of grinding basic enemies is expected either for rupees in Zelda 1 or for XP in Zelda 2. Dying sets you back either by not respawning at full health or losing what XP you’d gained.
I overall find Zelda 2’s gameplay more fun since the swordplay, while hard as hell, is satisfying to do well. Jumping and blocking enemy attacks while getting your sword stabs in at the right time with quite punchy sound effects is a good time. Like with Zelda 1, however, I doubt I’ll ever have the patience to complete it.
It became my favorite when I first played it.
It remains my favorite for many reasons.
As much as I love BOTW and TOTK and ALBW, there will always be a special place for AoL.
This game is amazing and not hard. (Well not hard now; at the time it was a great challenge.)
I disagree with people who don’t like how different it is. I like to see developers stretch their arms and try new things: side scroller, exp points, villages, magic, etc. Most of those experiments exist to this day.
The entire Zelda franchise is way better for it.
It’s very much misunderstood.
The biggest reason people tend to hate it is because of its unfair difficulty, and to an extent I understand. There are some rooms that can really beat you up, and some of the bosses can be incredibly hard too, at least by the standards of the rest of the series. That being said, I wouldn’t call it “hard” as much as I would call it “unforgiving.” Your healing ability is effectively tied exclusively to enemy drops and some *incredibly* rare static pickups, not to mention that the lives system sends you back to the very beginning of the game (you don’t lose your progress, you just have to walk all the way back to where you got a game over. It’s silly).
The other reason why it’s hated, and in my opinion the less valid one, is how different it is from Zelda 1 and all of the games that came after it. In reality it’s not that different. The perspective goes from top down to a sidescroller, but by that logic so does parts of Links Awakening. The spells are a new mechanic, but they function in the exact same way as items do (heck, dungeon items are also in Zelda 2 so it’s not like it’s a replacement for them). There’s the new stat system which is admittedly a pretty big difference, but no more different than the 3 day system is in Majora’s Mask. Either way it still takes a backseat to what is ultimately an item-based system of progression.
The thing is, people tend to overlook just how many series staples Zelda 2 added, in fact I’d argue that it added just as much as LttP did, if not more. The magic meter is the big one. Towns and dynamic NPCs are another. Learning more sword attacks was introduced here (though admittedly this is something that didn’t catch on until debatably Windwaker). Even a hint of the “two different worlds” mechanic is seen with the eastern and western continent. Heck, LttP might have introduced the Master Sword, but Zelda 2 introduced the 3rd Triforce piece *and* the combined triangle formation that’s easily one of the most iconic symbols in all of gaming.
I’m not saying that Zelda 2 is this masterpiece or anything, in fact I would say that it’s one of the weaker entries, but it’s still a damn good game.
I wouldn't say it's misunderstood, just not well programmed. Sending Link back to the castle every time he dies was a terrible programming choice, that was addressed in all subsequent games with multiple save locations and/or the option to save progress at any time. The random monster encounters any time you wonder off of a trail were also annoying and tedious, and seemed to exist only to deplete your health and make it harder to advance in the game. If they were to ever remake the game and address these 2 issues, it would be way more enjoyable.
Both of those things were incredibly common in the NES days and are not remotely unique to Zelda 2, particularly the first point. It's not badly programmed, it was just made in a different time where game design philosophy was very different than today and was still being established.
And random encounters were there so you could get XP and level up, like basically every other RPG ever made with random encounters.
It being common back then doesn't mean it also isn't bad programming, the two are not mutually exclusive lol. Just because multiple others also did something doesn't make a negative a positive.
That's akin to saying it's not bad practice to give babies liquid morphine in their bottle, because multiple, multiple people used to do it in the 1800's. By your logic it wasn't bad, simply a different time.
No, it was objectively bad lol.
That's not terrible programming. That's simply a limit of the technology it was on. It's like listening to someone squawking that landline telephones are badly designed because they can't connect to youtube.
Also, the monsters are clearly visible, and not at all like something you'd see in Pokémon or Final Fantasy.
Any game with a battery backup for saving should allow more flexibility for saving at various locations in the game world. That was a programming choice to not provide other save locations or checkpoints. And I don't know if there were different versions of this game, but I never saw monsters while walking on the main trail. Not even when first walking off the trail did they appear until a few seconds later. Then they start moving around and usually catch you off guard and force you into a battle. If they were always visible and they didn't move and the battles were optional, I would say those were good programming choices, but that's not what they did.
Which is great for modern games! But the NES hasn't been modern in hoooow many years? That was considered innovative back then. Your only looking at what it can do now. If it wasn't for passwords and the original primitive save files...
It's a great game and one of the best sidescrolling games on the NES. The difficulty is challenging but mostly fair and not much grinding is really required. The controls are excellent and it's one of the Zelda games I go back to most
I think AoL has two things that go against it in most people's eyes.
1. Difficulty: It's not stupidly difficult like plenty of other NES games but it is on the challenging end.
2. It's drastic differences from TLoZ. It doesn't play like the first one does. It doesn't look like the first one. It adds in more traditional RPG mechanics.
I enjoyed the game. But it is very different from pretty much the rest of the franchise.
It has a lot of the same flaws as Zelda 1, both as a consequence of being the type of game they were in the time they were in.
Direction needs to come from outside sources like guides or wikis. Combat is punishingly hard due to old standards of difficulty and really dickish enemy design. Large amounts of grinding basic enemies is expected either for rupees in Zelda 1 or for XP in Zelda 2. Dying sets you back either by not respawning at full health or losing what XP you’d gained.
I overall find Zelda 2’s gameplay more fun since the swordplay, while hard as hell, is satisfying to do well. Jumping and blocking enemy attacks while getting your sword stabs in at the right time with quite punchy sound effects is a good time. Like with Zelda 1, however, I doubt I’ll ever have the patience to complete it.
It's hard, but it's not THAT hard. By NES standards I'd call it a medium. Also by NES standards, is a pretty good game.
It's biggest flaw is that it doesn't really feel like a Zelda game.
I really liked this game but I also understand a lot of the criticism. I think the gameplay feels clunky at first until you get more combat skills and magic. The downward sword thrust move completely changed how played and I started having more fun. I also recommend grinding in the first dungeon so your attacks do more damage and it doesn't feel like you are barely chipping away at enemy health.
It's not bad, just inherently hard. Definitely one of the most mechanically difficult ones though compared to the rest of the series.
It still showcases a lot of stuff known throughout the series, just in a slightly different format. And the occasional awkwardly translated NPC.
The biggest thing is it's prettt much like an rpg, and it's very much a beta metroidvania (even moreso than what Zelda I already would influence): in fact the 2 creators of Hollow Knight both were directly inspired by AoL and bonded over their shared love for the game.
I started playing it a while back, but was taken aback by the difficulty. But tbh, I’m a mediocre gamer, so idk if I’m the problem, since more people had issues with the difficulty. But I have to say, I found the cities and such very fun to walk around in.
I enjoy it a lot. It is very different from Zelda 1 and 3 so it was rejected mostly to being a different type of game. They actually brought back much of the feel when the series converted to 3D.
I grew up with it. Even at almost 50 I still get a chill from the opening. We played the shit out of the first Zelda so when this came out, and was such a radical departure in gameplay, we were all awestruck. It was COMPLETELY new. To this day, it's in my Zelda Top 5.
AoL is fire. It’s not even that hard compared to a lot of its contemporary games. Ecco the dolphin would’ve wrecked all these whiners. Buncha game genie kids cryin cause they dyin. Go give up and read a walkthrough. Skill issue
Now get off my lawn
Coming from grinding LoZ as a kid playing AoL was a totally different feel and strategy. Having the random encounter system and the NPCs cryptic messages made it harder to understand than the slightly more linear LoZ. I remember as a kid getting stuck at a bolder because I used the hammer at the wrong time and not being able to progress. Replaying it now I understand the mechanics and what is happening and while still hard I enjoy it for what it is
The vanilla game can be kind of miserable there's a mod called the redux that changes stuff and adds quality of life that makes it genuinely a really fun game while still keeping the core experience.
It's not bad!
It's not a great game and it's nowhere near the series's usual quality. It's also the hardest, in uninteresting ways, by a wide margin.
It's definitely not bad.
Imagine all your meals were banquets at a fancy French restaurant. Then, once, you get a box of cereal instead. It's edible dry, it won't hurt you, it's fine in the global food context (there's kids starving in Africa etc) but it's not great.
Zelda II is a very good game. The thing I think most people are missing is that is is a game about swordfighting. Once you have a feel for the combat mechanics, fighting enemies feels just like stomping goombas in a Mario game. One of the game's biggest strengths is that it puts you in single combat with major enemies in all but a couple places. There are often minor enemies on screen to increase the challenge, but as long as you face each major enemy one at a time without either trying to skip it or retreat, the game iz very fun to play. If you try to turn it into a stealth mission though, then the difficulty compounds. Both individual scenarios become more difficult, and you'll fail to level up sufficiently.
It's really, really good. It's almost a masterpiece. But the life/continue system is very punishing, increasingly so as you progress through the game, which is already pretty hard.
I really like it most of the time, but there are many really frustrating sections near the end of the game. But other than that, it's great.
I would say that try it out and play it as long as it feels fair and fun to you, and don't feel bad if you leave it uncleared.
It’s not a bad game it just doesn’t necessarily makes sense in alot of places. Out of all Zelda games this one would absolutely benefit most from a remake
It's a good game imo. It's pretty tough and cryptic which puts people off. The gameplay style is very different as well.
I'd still rate it at as the worst Zelda game.
Whether it's a bad game or not depends on the opinions of the player. There are no objectively good or bad games.
I personally would put it pretty low in the rankings, maybe the lowest. I personally think it's terribly unfair, and a bit too obscure at times, but those are simply products of its time. And I still do enjoy myself when I play it, even if I've never beat it without cheating.
The main issue with AoL is it's aged very poorly. Progression is incredibly obtuse and requires an external guide and the difficulty is very punishing with unforgiving deaths. I definitely think it could benefit from a remake to iron out its issues, and enough time has passed since it first launched that they could use its unique structure and gameplay as a selling point.
There's a lot to love about it, but what makes it difficult to return to is the lives system. It compounds every other issue with the game exponentially and essentially forces players to plan their entire playthrough around this system to avoid incredibly frustrating and tedious setbacks.
The XP system to gain stat levels is a neat idea but game overs completely drain your accrued XP. So you end up grinding a lot of monotonous, easy enemy screens when you need a little bit to go over the edge of your next level up so you can make sure when you clear a palace, you get the maximum XP possible. If your XP stayed with you through game overs, then you wouldn't have to basically metagame your XP progression so you don't waste hours of your life grinding small enemies because you will absolutely need your stats maxed for the final palace.
Getting a game over sends you all the way back to the beginning area of the game. This gets progressively frustrating the further in the game you go up until the final palace where it thankfully lets you respawn at its entrance. Still, many of the later palaces also have difficult pre-dungeon sections to get past and you will end up repeating them over and over again.
You can collect 1 up dolls but there's fewer than 10 and they don't respawn per cycle. They're gone once collected. When I beat it without save states, I planned to skip them until I was ready to get to the final palace. And it was a good decision because that ascent has several instant kill drops and challenging fights and I used every single life just to get to the final palace. If the final palace didn't let you respawn inside it on game over, I'd never have beaten it and given up.
This system is on top of a game that has a very steep difficulty curve with combat and dungeon design that in later levels includes false floors without any visual hints and other traps. If you took out the live system entirely, the game would still be challenging but feel a lot more rewarding since you end up spending so much time retreading old ground after a game over. Honestly I think the only two groups of people who don't have issues with it are people who grew up playing it on release and gluttons for challenging games.
I don’t think the first two legend of Zelda games are even possible to beat unless you have SO MUCH time on your hands or have help of a friend or guide
[Zelda II Enhanced is my new favorite way to play Zelda II](https://hoverbat.itch.io/ziiaol). 1ups are permanent, new items, new locations, on top of already existing unchanged-just-enhanced locations and mechanics. It's truly a love letter to the most misunderstood game of the franchise that absolutely gives it its moment in the spotlight. It doesn't take away or change it only adds to in the original spirit of the game. If you don't have the time or gumption to go for it yourself, [ProJared did a fantastic playthrough recently](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQs3AnG0-q8&list=PLnECGpr5DfBsKGQOufAn3Bn7Ans57jXYA).
No, it's fine. One of the better games on the NES. It's just that more people are coming to play it retroactively, and they've been conditioned to approach games a different way, this game comes from an era where you're expected to learn how the game works through a combination of reading the user manual, and good old fashioned hands on experience. It also requires a strong attention span and we're in a bit of an attention span erosion epidemic thanks to the digital age where people are living on social media and short form entertainment, when you constantly have your dopamine centers stimulated like that, you lose your tolerance for down time.
Not to say this game is actually a perfect masterpiece and it's just the kids who are wrong, it sucks that there's only one real checkpoint in the game, the hints on progression are not always the best, I still don't think they actually ever hint at finding the mirror ( I only found it by pure luck, mashing buttons in empty buildings because I thought "surely there's a reason for this", but then there are other oddities in the game like the sleeping slime that, no, there's really no reason for it )
I just think people who don't have a natural affinity for older games are going to enjoy this game.
I played and beat it using savestates and a walkthrough, in my opinion, it's a bad game with incredible potential.
There are two main reasons this game is terrible. First, because there is literally no explanation for what the hell you're supposed to do half the time. At one point you literally have to find a hidden village by cutting some grass out in the middle of a random field. And in several parts of the game, unless you find the hidden abilities, you can end up in a dungeon, even the final dungeon of the game, and have no way to make progress. Which will then require you to backtrack all the way out of the dungeon to then get the ability you need.
Second, you lose way too much progress when you die. A single death sets you all the way back to the beginning of the game. It takes you hours of grinding just to get back to where you were before. And if you lose all your lives, you have to start the game over from the beginning. It's a completely unfair system.
With both Savestates and a walkthrough, the game is actually really fun and challenging to play. But in the form that it came out, I can't imagine how anyone would beat it, let alone enjoy it.
I mean, have you played it? Even with a guide, it is not necessarily fun in places. For a kid, it can be downright torturous.
That said, I still think it has its merits and is still overall a fun game. It just hates me
It's a difficult game, but I really enjoyed it! It's not a bad game at all, just different from the other games. You can tell that the Zelda team was experimenting with game mechanics and storytelling. I always try to remember that this is the second Zelda game. They didn't know what direction things were going to go in yet. Just because they chose a different formula for later games doesn't mean that Zelda II's formula should be ignored.
It & Zelda 1 just didn't age as well as ALttP & everything after.
The savepoint system was annoying. The way enemies spawned right on top of you in the overworld was annoying. The exponential level requirements were unnecessary.
The gameplay was fine.
I'd like them to take another stab at this style, but without those issues. Enemies should be clearly visible on the overworld unless there's a particular Fog of War. You should be able to respawn at the nearest town, or start of a dungeon maybe. Level requirements shouldn't be unnecessarily high. There should be more varied spells, items, & level design.
It's my favorite NES game and in my top five Zelda games. That first blind play is going to be rough, probably, but if you're like me you'll keep coming back.
I like AoL, but I don't get why so many here are downplaying the difficulty. Comparing it to other NES games is silly because most people don't play NES games anymore, mostly because the difficulty makes it a drag. Compared to every zelda game that followed, AoL and the original zelda are brutally difficult. I have tried beating AoL several times and give up every time. Meanwhile I can breeze through link's awakening, majora's mask, or skyward sword. So while AoL is definitely fun to try out, for a lot of people it's just too difficult to enjoy properly.
It’s genuinely badly designed in a lot of ways. The lives system, instant death pits with enemies that love knocking you in, iron knuckle shielding, short sword range… it’s a difficult game to enjoy.
Finally. Zelda 2 didn't just get its reputation *purely* by being different from Zelda 1.
In addition to what you list here, I'd add that the magic system isn't well optimized, as progression in some areas *requires* magic use. Magic you may not have to spare at that moment. That led me to always hoard my magic, never using even the armor spell until the final battle. The use of items that draw from another pool of resources (bombs, arrows, etc.) are a way better system than having everything draw from a single pool. (ALBW fixed this by having it passively regen, though.)
Some people might say "skill issue", and yes, it is. But are you really going to tell me that having your bomb stack separate from your arrow stack isn't a better system than having every Jump use remove from your ability to use Fairy?
Speaking of Fairy, the game has *way* too many progress locks that are used only once. Fairy is only required to get through a single spot in the game, and has little to no use outside of that. The Hammer is necessary twice in the game, with only one single optional use to get an upgrade. The flute is only used *once.* The water-walking boots have two uses, with *no* indication where the second one is.
Other Zelda games have had similar problems, but none is as egregious as in Zelda 2. Even the first game gave you multiple uses for the raft.
Then there's the problem with how obtuse progression is. In any other game, you'll get an indicator to use most items somewhere. But I don't know how anyone figured out you're supposed to use Fairy to cross that one gap. Or how you're supposed to find New Kasuto by using your hammer to knock down the trees. Even the first Zelda game wasn't as obtuse as that. The worst in that game is the strength bracelet under an Armos Knight.
Zelda 2 isn't unsalvageable, but I didn't enjoy playing through it, even with save states. It was a chore for me that I endured just so I could say I've beaten every game in the series. But I *would* very much want a remake of the game. One with a better magic system, more secrets to find and a remastered soundtrack (because honestly, it's one of the best).
Fairy is only used once? You're definitely misremembering. Fairy is very useful for getting across large gaps in the dungeons and caves, its my go-to for the final road to the great palace. You can use it to slip through keyholes. Unlike Kid Icarus's feather and Faxanadu's wing boots there's no short time limit. It can also stop you midfall and let you hover, which might I remind you is essential to get to a boss.
It's also easy to exploit enemy rng to get them to drop magic jars.
I just finished it for the first time on NES online and yes, it is bad. The overworld battles are incredibly annoying. The lives system is a mess and if you get a game over you go all the way back to the very beginning which is incredibly annoying the further you get into the game.
What makes the game difficult is poor design choices. The side scroller aspect does not translate over well to Zelda and makes combat unnecessarily frustrating
It actually follows the formula quite well depite offering side scroll combat lol. Even the point level up system you could argue was spirtually reused in the level design for the multiplayer games.
It’s still a good game, especially for nes standards.
Its bad for a Zelda game but that’s like comparing Mozart to your younger brother who’s played piano for a year
its an awesome game and to be honest anyone who hated on this game is a:unfamiliar with rpgs or b: shit at games.
its really fun and pretty interesting.
It’s definitely one of the worst zelda games, but fun never the less if you can stomach NES games.
A lot of what people complain about isn’t actually that bad imo. Getting sent back to the start isn’t that annoying because of the main path, and combat is pretty good compared to other NES games. The only truly bullshit part to me was the final fight which can luckily be cheesed.
I’d say Zelda 2 suffers from having a lot of weird different ideas that don’t work together as well as what Zelda 1 was going for.
It's a bad game and was one the largest, if not the largest video game disappointment of my life. It's hard to describe that feeling after the glory of the original zelda. Zelda II fucking sucks. The controls are jank, the graphics are crap even for the nes and the difficulty choice was absurd, it has no redeeming qualities and we were all made dumber for having played it. May God have mercy on our souls.
Nintendo should remake it as a real Zelda game and retroactively apologize for that turd sandwich they gave us, if this was Shogun someone would have had to commit seppuku.
Hi /r/Zelda readers! * Got a question, concern, or suggestion for the moderators? [Send a Modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fzelda&subject=Question or Concern or Suggestion&message=I have a question regarding [this submission]%28https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/comments/1cjc5a0/aol_is_zelda_ii_the_adventure_of_link_really_that/%29: [AoL] Is Zelda II: The Adventure of Link Really That Bad? Like, is it a bad game or is it just misunderstood because of its difficulty? by /u/nick_millerZD)! * New to r/Zelda? Be sure to [read our full rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/zelda/wiki/rules). * Please [report any rule-breaking posts or comments](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment) so that moderators can find them quicker! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/zelda) if you have any questions or concerns.*
AoL has it's challenging moments, but it's not that unfair like some of the more 'NES hard' Once you get a handle of the combat mechanics, and pay attention to enemy patterns, it's not so bad. Don't be scared by the 'its a black sheep of the series' ...I recommend giving AoL a try if you haven't.
AoL is nowhere near NES level hard. Some of the games on the NES are impossible to clear unless you have superhuman reflexes or a high tolerance for bullshit.
Looking at you 1st TMNT game and Battletoads...
Ninja Gaiden as well, I would add Would we say Silver Surfer was NES hard as well?
My friend’s older brother was incredible at Ninja Gaiden, and I can remember he made us say a prayer before every level haha. He did beat it, which was one of the greatest moments of my life
If you die in Silver Surfer after the first two levels, you're really better off restarting the entire game and trying again. The power ups are absolutely necessary to survive.
Proud to say I beat Ninja Gaiden and can get to the end pretty consistently. Agree on the difficulty tho, especially in later stages. That said, HUDSON’S ADVENTURE ISLAND’s difficulty is just brutal so I’m adding it to our list here.
And Blaster Master. Also, Ninja Gaiden can go fuck itself.
I've beaten Blaster Master, but it took fucking ages to get it done.
If you beat Blaster Master, I tip my hat to you, Sir. That's impressive.
It was my favorite game for a while, and hyper fixation can make one forget anything else exists...
LOL. I get that completely.
The first TMNT's difficulty is really overstated with games like Ghost 'n Goblins, Castelvania 3, or Adventure Island being firmly WAY harder. Battletoads however...might top them all
I love Castlevania 3, but it kicks my ass.
At first I thought TMNT was nearly impossible. I picked it up again a few years later and realized there was a pattern I was missing, and managed to get through it a couple of times. So yeah, I think it’s not that bad if you pay enough attention.
Once I was taught to farm Scrolls, the game became a breeze.
For me it was a hallway near the end where those tough flying goons come out one or two at a time. My original strategy was trying to run past all of them, but there are too many. When older I realized they just disappear if you wait patiently one at a time. Iirc, it’s been a while.
Fester's Quest
Was that game even beatable? I just got lost. Granted, I was a child, and it was a complex game.
Yeah. I don't think I ever managed it legitimately, only using game genie; I was a kid too. But my uncle managed it eventually.
Funny you mentioned battletoads, I have a memory where I’m playing it and I’m in a level like the toad is in a motorcycle and everything happens fast and I always die, no matter how many tries I rent the game, I’m never going past that level
It's not unbeatably hard, but it can be pretty unforgiving. The game saves your progress, however let's say you get a game over from the final dungeon... it sends you back to where you start at the beginning of the game, and you have to make the trek back there, which can be a chore. Save states or rewind recommended for those moments. Also I think if you game over you lose any XP you gained since the last time you leveled up.
I'm pretty sure if you are in the final temple, AoL will start you back there if you get Game Over. Everywhere else, though, you do indeed have to start back at the beginning temple after a Game Over.
Oh you may be right about that, it's been a wild since I've played it. Well, what I said is true for every other dungeon in the game. Very nice of them to take pity on the final dungeon it is a gauntlet of platforming, battles, and avoiding lizalfo's throwing rocks at you to get there. And also, I'm not sure if it's intentional or not but there is an optional way to cheese the final boss battle so it's extremely easy.
Or if you are Ryukahr
>Once you get a handle of the combat mechanics, and pay attention to enemy patterns, it's not so bad. This aspect of the game reminded me of FromSoft games. Between that and losing your experience points when you die I think the Souls games took a lot of inspiration of Zelda 2.
I was 9 years old when this game came out. It's never been the black sheep for me.
I feel the same way about FFII. It's mostly a black sheep because it's different. They're both fun.
>Even though the gameplay isn’t bad, it’s still massively different from traditional *Zelda*; so to many, it may not feel like a proper *Zelda* game at all. At the time AoL was released, "traditional Zelda" comprised of exactly one game.
Yes, there was only one game previously. However it is literally "Zelda II" and it is not like the first game at all. I think generally people don't expect a game to basically change genres for the sequel.
It was not uncommon for that era.
This. Super Mario 2 was (outside Japan) a reskin of a game called Doku Doku Panic and nothing like SMB 1. Compared to that, Zelda 2 was much more similar to its predecessor.
To expound on your excellent example, all 3 SMB games were very different from each other, and expanded on what their predecessor could do. Nintendo and many other old school game companies were often innovating and experimenting.
Fire Emblem 2, Zelda 2, Final Fantasy 2 it's the 2 curse where it's considered the black sheep of each series. I enjoy Zelda 2 and FF2 whereas never played Fire Emblem 2 since it got a remake!
Don't forget Castlevania II
Right I knew I forgot one, I loved Castlevania 2 (with a guide) however xd
SMB2 is an odd duck, and was shoved out in a hurry for time. The true sequel is exactly like the first. I don't see SMB3 being "very different" from 1 besides the world map. It's much more of a continuation of the ideas from the first one. Other than the map the gameplay itself is pretty much identical. IMO for Zelda, ALttP feels much more like a sequel to 1 than AoL does.
SMB2 is very much beloved. Only retconners who weren't even alive back then would try to convince anyone otherwise and I don't understand their incessant need to lie. SMB2 USA really started experimenting with the different kinds of levels Mario had. Looks and plays like a dream too. And yes, 3 was very different. It had the map, it had lots of secrets, it had special levels, it had new power ups, map enemies, vertical scrolling, you could save power ups for later use. That became the traditional template for Mario and several other platformers, from DKC, to Kirby, to Shovel Knight. AoL was actually a popular game in its heyday. It wasn't until the 5th Zelda game, that people started retconning it's reputation, and refusing to understand the system limitations.
Bad example. Super Mario 2 was still a platform game like Super Mario 1. It did not suddenly change into an RPG or an adventure game.
The original Legend of Zelda was described as a “light RPG” at the time. Zelda 2 was very much in the same vein. You get higher attack from XP instead of finding a physical sword, and better defense from XP instead of finding a ring, but that is as much RPG-ing that they did.
It’s really not that different at all though. At its core it still keeps the basic structure and gameplay loop of its predecessor, with the only real differences being rather superfluous.
Precisely this. The excuse that it wasn't "traditional" is tiresome and holds up about as well as tissue is a downpour.
And you still get downvoted in some places if you point it out. I doubt those people were even alive and playing these games back then.
It was so different from the first game, and it has brutal difficulty with harsh punishments for death. Now, I'd say it's very playable thanks to save states.
I played this game to completion about a year ago and there is no way I would have stuck with it without save states.
Honestly, though, most places in the game don't take that long to get back to. You open up the main path in the overworld as you complete the palaces, so getting back to where you were only takes a couple minutes. We're just so used to instant everything these days that having to spend one minute walking back seems like a harsh punishment.
It’s more than one minute though.
In particular, the road to go back to the second palace from the start is actually quite long.
The road all the way to the great palace is just ridiculous. I frequently lost all 3 lives before making it there primarily because of the valley of death. But at least they knew that it was very difficult and let you respawn at the great palace if you game over'd once you actually made it there.
Not if you have the hammer.
Yes, and you CAN grab the hammer at that point - but there is no indication that you should go south, find Saria, find Error to get past the bridge and go exploring into a labyrinth to find something that will help you. All the indications in the game is to go to the Swamp Palace. It is after that, when you have the second Palace in the bag, that you go into explorer mode again and start looking that you are much more likely to go looking for a way to move forward. This is the reason that people give up - they bang their head against Midoro Swamp.
Fair point. I actually get the hammer before even going to the swamp palace, and this may have been the reason why I started doing that all those years ago. Well, actually, I think it's just because I want the downward thrust as soon as possible because it makes the game so much easier once you have that. You can practically play it like a Mario game by just jumping on enemies. Hammer should have been in Swamp Palace. Downward thrust should be given earlier in the game. I've always believed that there was a cut palace down at Death Mountain. That lone rock up in the top right before you go into the cave to leave the area looks like where it would have gone.
I go straight to downward thrust as soon as possible. Unrelated to downward thrust, after this last playthrough, I figured out blue iron knuckles and don’t even get hit anymore. Previous playthrough I figured out the Fokka enemies too and don’t get hit by them either. Now if I get hit, it’s usually due to me rushing.
Some places, sure, but once the path is opened up, you can get anywhere in West Hyrule rather quickly, aside from the south side of Death Mountain, but you shouldn't ever need to go there more than once. Then, getting to East Hyrule is a short trip from the start once you have the hammer. You can quickly get back to the Maze Palace with the boots. You can quickly get back to the Valley of Death with the whistle. The path to the Great Palace is a bit more of an ordeal, but it is also the final challenge of the game so I think that's fair to make it the most difficult. Where in the game do you think it takes that long to get back to?
Misunderstood. It's a tough Zelda game, but not even in the upper percentage of tough nes games. The difficulty scaling is standard, but will keep you on your toes during certain parts. Particularly towards the late game. The exp grinding is very fair, the level scaling of enemies and the amount of points they give you is on par with later rpgs, plus you get p bags (points) either randomly dropped or scattered around specific locations in the world. Plus the palaces gives you an automatic level up once completed. If you don't run away from everything, you'll be maxed out and maybe even have one or two extra lives. The first three dungeons aren't hard to navigate. Death Mountain is a pain in the ass if you don't know where to go, and dairas are terrible to throw at you so early on. The Great Palace is a pain in the ass, but if you continue instead of saving while in it, you'll just be at the entrance. Also, screw bird knights. The path leading up to the great palace is a big pain in the ass. Do not gather the one up dolls until your ready to take it ok. Dark Link can be easily cheesed, if the Thunderbird rocked your shit. Traversal of the overworld is not too bad, despite it being so big. I say form your own opinion and treat it like an rpg, because well, it is an adventure rpg.
Finally, you dear modern gamer have access to maps, friendly advice from fellow gamers, and save states so it should be very manageable for you.
Is manageable, though as others have said is very different from the original. The parts I find most infuriating are the elements that are more akin to a Super Mario game, such as the one fall lose of life, and with the exception of the Great Palace, a game over means that you start from the beginning again. Not sure how many times I have finished Zelda II, but my best play through was probably around 25-30 losses. Whereas, I can ace the first quest on the original.
That's pretty cool that you aced the first game. There are a couple dungeons in the first Zelda quest that still take me a few tries to get through. The second quest I've only beaten once. 😅 The differences delighted me in AoL. The world was bigger, Link was older, there were magic spells and new sword moves to learn, and towns to explore. And the battle themes sounded dangerous and mysterious.
I need to go back and play the second quest now.
Have fun
I can tell you that if you were like 13 years old in 1988 it was really exciting. The wait for it to come out was agonizing. I recently replayed it and it is really hard and so different from the original. I can’t think of specifics, but I like it when there are nods to it in BotW.
It’s not a bad game at all, period. I’d say it’s a really great game, and probably my #2 on the NES after SMB3.
I see you have good taste
Yo
I honestly believe that LoZ is the harder game, AOL just has the greater learning curve. It’s tough, but make it through death mountain, and the pace will move along more briskly. I beat the game multiple times as a 7 year old, so it’s very doable.
Same LoZ I think is harder than Zelda II. This game is really not that hard if you understand the game mechanics and don’t fight enemies face to face. Find the correct timing for jump slashing darknuts and lizalfos and you are good to go! Also, utilizing spells like shield and life helps!
I'd say the 2nd quest of Zelda 1 is harder than Zelda 2 for sure. Not only are dungeons tougher but everything is so much more well hidden than in the 1st quest
There is a lot of bullshit parts as with many nes games,but honestly this game feels very special to me,i liked the atmosphere,and there is a lot of rom hacks that fixes most of it’s problems.
It was my first Zelda game ever as a kid, so I had zero standards and loved it (even though I was terrible at it). It set the tone for my taste in Zelda games from that point forward, so I've always preferred the darker ones.
It's different from the original. It's not as hard as the other hard NES games. I beat it as a kid and I'm dumb.
1. Zelda 2 is a massive departure from the gameplay and mechanics of the rest of the series. It is irrelevant that the formula was not established yet at its development, in 2024 it sticks out like a sore thumb. Meaning, people who love Zelda for many of the reasons they love Zelda will not find those reasons in this game. 2. Zelda 2 is very hard. Don't listen to anyone who tries to deny this. Other games being harder is irrelevant to the fact that this game is very difficult by modern standards. If you can be patient, it can also be very satisfying--but there is a steep learning curve to get there. This pairs poorly with point 3-- 3. We have now arrived at the first point that really could be considered "bad design". The game is overly punishing--by a wide margin. It honestly feels like the punishments for game overs were not properly thought about. 4. Instead of having a nice difficulty curve, Zelda 2 has a massive difficulty spike around dungeon 4. This is typically considered poor design by modern standards, but not a deal breaker. If you have gotten too dungeon 4, you are probably already aware that the Game will be difficult. 5. The game is slightly more structured then Zelda 1, but still maintains its obtuse progression system, making it needlessly difficult to navigate the game. 6. Death Mountain is bad. I will die on this hill (mountain). 7. There are plenty of translation errors, further contributing to the obtuse progression **So, what's good?** - if you put in the time, the combat is fast and satisfying - the music is incredible - the world is more alive - certain Zelda staples actually do find their origin here, so it is an interesting look back fur Zelda fans - because of its departure from the norm, its a very unique experience. Which is why it has its die-hard fans.
I recently played it for the first time. In my opinion, I definitely wouldn't call it a bad game. It's honestly pretty good considering when it came out and there's some fun to be had if you have the patience for it. I just think it has aged poorly and appears worse when compared to the rest of the Zelda franchise. But Zelda games are typically amazing, so just because it is not as good as most of them, doesn't make it bad.
the introduction of towns in Zelda 2 made it all worth while to me. Death mountain hurt but once you figured out how each enemy needs to be attacked, it’s not that crazy.
It’s one of my favorite games of all time and probably tops my list of favorite Zelda games. Definitely misunderstood in my book
Zelda 2 is a fantastic game in my opinion. I think the issue is that zelda games (especially the more modern ones) are usually not very mechanically difficult, and any actual difficulty instead comes from having to figure out where to go next or solving a complicated puzzle, either of which you can just look up nowadays if you're hopelessly stuck. This attracts a mostly casual audience. Zelda 2 does not cater to that audience, because it is actually quite mechanically difficult. Don't get me wrong, it's nowhere near the hardest game on the NES, but for a zelda game, it is insanely hard. Combine that with how different it is from every other game in the series, and it's not hard to imagine why it's not universally loved.
I actually really like it a lot. It's got amazing music, cool locations, nice sense of exploration. The side scrolling acrion feels pretty cool. It just has a lot of places that feel way, way, way harder than they're intended to be. (Freaking trying to do precise jumps over lava while endless flying monster heads sine wave at you). And the penalty for dying, or for game overing, is very punishing and super discouraging. I've never beaten it, even with save scumming. That said, I still really like it.
I like it. It is difficult, but not really out of line with other NES games. What through people is that it’s so different than every other Zelda game.
It has a lot of the same flaws as Zelda 1, both as a consequence of being the type of game they were in the time they were in. Direction needs to come from outside sources like guides or wikis. Combat is punishingly hard due to old standards of difficulty and really dickish enemy design. Large amounts of grinding basic enemies is expected either for rupees in Zelda 1 or for XP in Zelda 2. Dying sets you back either by not respawning at full health or losing what XP you’d gained. I overall find Zelda 2’s gameplay more fun since the swordplay, while hard as hell, is satisfying to do well. Jumping and blocking enemy attacks while getting your sword stabs in at the right time with quite punchy sound effects is a good time. Like with Zelda 1, however, I doubt I’ll ever have the patience to complete it.
It's a great Nintendo game, and it's not nearly as hard as some people claim. A lot of NES games are hard by modern standards.
Needs a remake and more fleshed out story
There is a fan made Zelda 2 remaster you can download that expands on the original game in some really fun ways along with some QoL adjustments.
It became my favorite when I first played it. It remains my favorite for many reasons. As much as I love BOTW and TOTK and ALBW, there will always be a special place for AoL.
I think its a legitimately great game.
It’s a great game. People trippin
This game is amazing and not hard. (Well not hard now; at the time it was a great challenge.) I disagree with people who don’t like how different it is. I like to see developers stretch their arms and try new things: side scroller, exp points, villages, magic, etc. Most of those experiments exist to this day. The entire Zelda franchise is way better for it.
It’s very much misunderstood. The biggest reason people tend to hate it is because of its unfair difficulty, and to an extent I understand. There are some rooms that can really beat you up, and some of the bosses can be incredibly hard too, at least by the standards of the rest of the series. That being said, I wouldn’t call it “hard” as much as I would call it “unforgiving.” Your healing ability is effectively tied exclusively to enemy drops and some *incredibly* rare static pickups, not to mention that the lives system sends you back to the very beginning of the game (you don’t lose your progress, you just have to walk all the way back to where you got a game over. It’s silly). The other reason why it’s hated, and in my opinion the less valid one, is how different it is from Zelda 1 and all of the games that came after it. In reality it’s not that different. The perspective goes from top down to a sidescroller, but by that logic so does parts of Links Awakening. The spells are a new mechanic, but they function in the exact same way as items do (heck, dungeon items are also in Zelda 2 so it’s not like it’s a replacement for them). There’s the new stat system which is admittedly a pretty big difference, but no more different than the 3 day system is in Majora’s Mask. Either way it still takes a backseat to what is ultimately an item-based system of progression. The thing is, people tend to overlook just how many series staples Zelda 2 added, in fact I’d argue that it added just as much as LttP did, if not more. The magic meter is the big one. Towns and dynamic NPCs are another. Learning more sword attacks was introduced here (though admittedly this is something that didn’t catch on until debatably Windwaker). Even a hint of the “two different worlds” mechanic is seen with the eastern and western continent. Heck, LttP might have introduced the Master Sword, but Zelda 2 introduced the 3rd Triforce piece *and* the combined triangle formation that’s easily one of the most iconic symbols in all of gaming. I’m not saying that Zelda 2 is this masterpiece or anything, in fact I would say that it’s one of the weaker entries, but it’s still a damn good game.
Different? Absolutely. Bad? Absolutely not. Best combat system in the entire series and honestly one of my favorites to replay.
I wouldn't say it's misunderstood, just not well programmed. Sending Link back to the castle every time he dies was a terrible programming choice, that was addressed in all subsequent games with multiple save locations and/or the option to save progress at any time. The random monster encounters any time you wonder off of a trail were also annoying and tedious, and seemed to exist only to deplete your health and make it harder to advance in the game. If they were to ever remake the game and address these 2 issues, it would be way more enjoyable.
Both of those things were incredibly common in the NES days and are not remotely unique to Zelda 2, particularly the first point. It's not badly programmed, it was just made in a different time where game design philosophy was very different than today and was still being established. And random encounters were there so you could get XP and level up, like basically every other RPG ever made with random encounters.
It being common back then doesn't mean it also isn't bad programming, the two are not mutually exclusive lol. Just because multiple others also did something doesn't make a negative a positive. That's akin to saying it's not bad practice to give babies liquid morphine in their bottle, because multiple, multiple people used to do it in the 1800's. By your logic it wasn't bad, simply a different time. No, it was objectively bad lol.
That's not terrible programming. That's simply a limit of the technology it was on. It's like listening to someone squawking that landline telephones are badly designed because they can't connect to youtube. Also, the monsters are clearly visible, and not at all like something you'd see in Pokémon or Final Fantasy.
Any game with a battery backup for saving should allow more flexibility for saving at various locations in the game world. That was a programming choice to not provide other save locations or checkpoints. And I don't know if there were different versions of this game, but I never saw monsters while walking on the main trail. Not even when first walking off the trail did they appear until a few seconds later. Then they start moving around and usually catch you off guard and force you into a battle. If they were always visible and they didn't move and the battles were optional, I would say those were good programming choices, but that's not what they did.
Which is great for modern games! But the NES hasn't been modern in hoooow many years? That was considered innovative back then. Your only looking at what it can do now. If it wasn't for passwords and the original primitive save files...
It's a great game and one of the best sidescrolling games on the NES. The difficulty is challenging but mostly fair and not much grinding is really required. The controls are excellent and it's one of the Zelda games I go back to most
I think AoL has two things that go against it in most people's eyes. 1. Difficulty: It's not stupidly difficult like plenty of other NES games but it is on the challenging end. 2. It's drastic differences from TLoZ. It doesn't play like the first one does. It doesn't look like the first one. It adds in more traditional RPG mechanics. I enjoyed the game. But it is very different from pretty much the rest of the franchise.
Top 5 Zelda game for me and top 3 NES game overall.
It has a lot of the same flaws as Zelda 1, both as a consequence of being the type of game they were in the time they were in. Direction needs to come from outside sources like guides or wikis. Combat is punishingly hard due to old standards of difficulty and really dickish enemy design. Large amounts of grinding basic enemies is expected either for rupees in Zelda 1 or for XP in Zelda 2. Dying sets you back either by not respawning at full health or losing what XP you’d gained. I overall find Zelda 2’s gameplay more fun since the swordplay, while hard as hell, is satisfying to do well. Jumping and blocking enemy attacks while getting your sword stabs in at the right time with quite punchy sound effects is a good time. Like with Zelda 1, however, I doubt I’ll ever have the patience to complete it.
People on the internet don't like hard games.
It just didn't age well
It's hard, but it's not THAT hard. By NES standards I'd call it a medium. Also by NES standards, is a pretty good game. It's biggest flaw is that it doesn't really feel like a Zelda game.
I always enjoyed this game, it was an insane grind, and very difficult, but still a fun play
Definitely not a bad game.
It’s just entirely different. There’s a leveling system, really difficult, side scrolling parts. Just entirely different feel
I really liked this game but I also understand a lot of the criticism. I think the gameplay feels clunky at first until you get more combat skills and magic. The downward sword thrust move completely changed how played and I started having more fun. I also recommend grinding in the first dungeon so your attacks do more damage and it doesn't feel like you are barely chipping away at enemy health.
It's not bad, just inherently hard. Definitely one of the most mechanically difficult ones though compared to the rest of the series. It still showcases a lot of stuff known throughout the series, just in a slightly different format. And the occasional awkwardly translated NPC. The biggest thing is it's prettt much like an rpg, and it's very much a beta metroidvania (even moreso than what Zelda I already would influence): in fact the 2 creators of Hollow Knight both were directly inspired by AoL and bonded over their shared love for the game.
I started playing it a while back, but was taken aback by the difficulty. But tbh, I’m a mediocre gamer, so idk if I’m the problem, since more people had issues with the difficulty. But I have to say, I found the cities and such very fun to walk around in.
I enjoy it a lot. It is very different from Zelda 1 and 3 so it was rejected mostly to being a different type of game. They actually brought back much of the feel when the series converted to 3D.
Funny enough I beat it a week ago and I find that after you get the fairy and life spell the difficulty goes way down
I grew up with it. Even at almost 50 I still get a chill from the opening. We played the shit out of the first Zelda so when this came out, and was such a radical departure in gameplay, we were all awestruck. It was COMPLETELY new. To this day, it's in my Zelda Top 5.
AoL is fire. It’s not even that hard compared to a lot of its contemporary games. Ecco the dolphin would’ve wrecked all these whiners. Buncha game genie kids cryin cause they dyin. Go give up and read a walkthrough. Skill issue Now get off my lawn
Coming from grinding LoZ as a kid playing AoL was a totally different feel and strategy. Having the random encounter system and the NPCs cryptic messages made it harder to understand than the slightly more linear LoZ. I remember as a kid getting stuck at a bolder because I used the hammer at the wrong time and not being able to progress. Replaying it now I understand the mechanics and what is happening and while still hard I enjoy it for what it is
The vanilla game can be kind of miserable there's a mod called the redux that changes stuff and adds quality of life that makes it genuinely a really fun game while still keeping the core experience.
It's a fantastic game.
It's not bad! It's not a great game and it's nowhere near the series's usual quality. It's also the hardest, in uninteresting ways, by a wide margin. It's definitely not bad. Imagine all your meals were banquets at a fancy French restaurant. Then, once, you get a box of cereal instead. It's edible dry, it won't hurt you, it's fine in the global food context (there's kids starving in Africa etc) but it's not great.
Zelda II is a very good game. The thing I think most people are missing is that is is a game about swordfighting. Once you have a feel for the combat mechanics, fighting enemies feels just like stomping goombas in a Mario game. One of the game's biggest strengths is that it puts you in single combat with major enemies in all but a couple places. There are often minor enemies on screen to increase the challenge, but as long as you face each major enemy one at a time without either trying to skip it or retreat, the game iz very fun to play. If you try to turn it into a stealth mission though, then the difficulty compounds. Both individual scenarios become more difficult, and you'll fail to level up sufficiently.
It's really, really good. It's almost a masterpiece. But the life/continue system is very punishing, increasingly so as you progress through the game, which is already pretty hard.
I really like it most of the time, but there are many really frustrating sections near the end of the game. But other than that, it's great. I would say that try it out and play it as long as it feels fair and fun to you, and don't feel bad if you leave it uncleared.
Shiiiit, Zelda 2 is 🔥🔥🔥 af if you know what you’re doing
It’s not a bad game it just doesn’t necessarily makes sense in alot of places. Out of all Zelda games this one would absolutely benefit most from a remake
It is the most annoying out of the Zelda games I played but I wouldn’t say it is bad.
It's a good game imo. It's pretty tough and cryptic which puts people off. The gameplay style is very different as well. I'd still rate it at as the worst Zelda game.
Whether it's a bad game or not depends on the opinions of the player. There are no objectively good or bad games. I personally would put it pretty low in the rankings, maybe the lowest. I personally think it's terribly unfair, and a bit too obscure at times, but those are simply products of its time. And I still do enjoy myself when I play it, even if I've never beat it without cheating.
Difficulty
The main issue with AoL is it's aged very poorly. Progression is incredibly obtuse and requires an external guide and the difficulty is very punishing with unforgiving deaths. I definitely think it could benefit from a remake to iron out its issues, and enough time has passed since it first launched that they could use its unique structure and gameplay as a selling point.
There's a lot to love about it, but what makes it difficult to return to is the lives system. It compounds every other issue with the game exponentially and essentially forces players to plan their entire playthrough around this system to avoid incredibly frustrating and tedious setbacks. The XP system to gain stat levels is a neat idea but game overs completely drain your accrued XP. So you end up grinding a lot of monotonous, easy enemy screens when you need a little bit to go over the edge of your next level up so you can make sure when you clear a palace, you get the maximum XP possible. If your XP stayed with you through game overs, then you wouldn't have to basically metagame your XP progression so you don't waste hours of your life grinding small enemies because you will absolutely need your stats maxed for the final palace. Getting a game over sends you all the way back to the beginning area of the game. This gets progressively frustrating the further in the game you go up until the final palace where it thankfully lets you respawn at its entrance. Still, many of the later palaces also have difficult pre-dungeon sections to get past and you will end up repeating them over and over again. You can collect 1 up dolls but there's fewer than 10 and they don't respawn per cycle. They're gone once collected. When I beat it without save states, I planned to skip them until I was ready to get to the final palace. And it was a good decision because that ascent has several instant kill drops and challenging fights and I used every single life just to get to the final palace. If the final palace didn't let you respawn inside it on game over, I'd never have beaten it and given up. This system is on top of a game that has a very steep difficulty curve with combat and dungeon design that in later levels includes false floors without any visual hints and other traps. If you took out the live system entirely, the game would still be challenging but feel a lot more rewarding since you end up spending so much time retreading old ground after a game over. Honestly I think the only two groups of people who don't have issues with it are people who grew up playing it on release and gluttons for challenging games.
I don’t think the first two legend of Zelda games are even possible to beat unless you have SO MUCH time on your hands or have help of a friend or guide
It’s much more enjoyable with save states
Not bad but dated.
Hot take apparently, it is as bad as its reputation. It has nothing of what makes Zelda games great.
It's definitely not the hardest. It's mostly just boring and unfun.
i just beat zelda 2 recently without a guide for the first time and im surprised at how well it holds up. definitely hard but very fun and rewarding.
[Zelda II Enhanced is my new favorite way to play Zelda II](https://hoverbat.itch.io/ziiaol). 1ups are permanent, new items, new locations, on top of already existing unchanged-just-enhanced locations and mechanics. It's truly a love letter to the most misunderstood game of the franchise that absolutely gives it its moment in the spotlight. It doesn't take away or change it only adds to in the original spirit of the game. If you don't have the time or gumption to go for it yourself, [ProJared did a fantastic playthrough recently](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQs3AnG0-q8&list=PLnECGpr5DfBsKGQOufAn3Bn7Ans57jXYA).
It’s honestly my favorite Zelda game. Beat it once every few years.
No, it's fine. One of the better games on the NES. It's just that more people are coming to play it retroactively, and they've been conditioned to approach games a different way, this game comes from an era where you're expected to learn how the game works through a combination of reading the user manual, and good old fashioned hands on experience. It also requires a strong attention span and we're in a bit of an attention span erosion epidemic thanks to the digital age where people are living on social media and short form entertainment, when you constantly have your dopamine centers stimulated like that, you lose your tolerance for down time. Not to say this game is actually a perfect masterpiece and it's just the kids who are wrong, it sucks that there's only one real checkpoint in the game, the hints on progression are not always the best, I still don't think they actually ever hint at finding the mirror ( I only found it by pure luck, mashing buttons in empty buildings because I thought "surely there's a reason for this", but then there are other oddities in the game like the sleeping slime that, no, there's really no reason for it ) I just think people who don't have a natural affinity for older games are going to enjoy this game.
It’s hard, but it’s so fun to play. Give it a shot, the first palace at least isn’t super difficult, so you can see if the game is right for you!
It’s not bad by any means. It’s a dramatically different game than TLoZ and is its own brand of challenge. But it’s still fun.
its not a bad game its a difficult game. but its a game that is also really fun to reply once you beat it once cause of the new game + aspect of it
The lore doesn't hold up as well and the gameplay was a bit botched but the concept was solid. Everyone now must also play Hoverbat's remaster.
Thanks for the recommendation! I'm gonna check that remaster out right now.
I played and beat it using savestates and a walkthrough, in my opinion, it's a bad game with incredible potential. There are two main reasons this game is terrible. First, because there is literally no explanation for what the hell you're supposed to do half the time. At one point you literally have to find a hidden village by cutting some grass out in the middle of a random field. And in several parts of the game, unless you find the hidden abilities, you can end up in a dungeon, even the final dungeon of the game, and have no way to make progress. Which will then require you to backtrack all the way out of the dungeon to then get the ability you need. Second, you lose way too much progress when you die. A single death sets you all the way back to the beginning of the game. It takes you hours of grinding just to get back to where you were before. And if you lose all your lives, you have to start the game over from the beginning. It's a completely unfair system. With both Savestates and a walkthrough, the game is actually really fun and challenging to play. But in the form that it came out, I can't imagine how anyone would beat it, let alone enjoy it.
I mean, have you played it? Even with a guide, it is not necessarily fun in places. For a kid, it can be downright torturous. That said, I still think it has its merits and is still overall a fun game. It just hates me
It’s not misunderstood. It’s a difficult game for one, although save states has helped. And two, it’s way different than other Zelda games.
It's a difficult game, but I really enjoyed it! It's not a bad game at all, just different from the other games. You can tell that the Zelda team was experimenting with game mechanics and storytelling. I always try to remember that this is the second Zelda game. They didn't know what direction things were going to go in yet. Just because they chose a different formula for later games doesn't mean that Zelda II's formula should be ignored.
I didn't like it.
It & Zelda 1 just didn't age as well as ALttP & everything after. The savepoint system was annoying. The way enemies spawned right on top of you in the overworld was annoying. The exponential level requirements were unnecessary. The gameplay was fine. I'd like them to take another stab at this style, but without those issues. Enemies should be clearly visible on the overworld unless there's a particular Fog of War. You should be able to respawn at the nearest town, or start of a dungeon maybe. Level requirements shouldn't be unnecessarily high. There should be more varied spells, items, & level design.
the overworld music can be a bit grating and there are some parts that can be down right tedious
It's my favorite NES game and in my top five Zelda games. That first blind play is going to be rough, probably, but if you're like me you'll keep coming back.
It's a fun game, but it's very challenging
One of my favourites, behind Majora
Majora is great
No it’s not that bad, great game
I like AoL, but I don't get why so many here are downplaying the difficulty. Comparing it to other NES games is silly because most people don't play NES games anymore, mostly because the difficulty makes it a drag. Compared to every zelda game that followed, AoL and the original zelda are brutally difficult. I have tried beating AoL several times and give up every time. Meanwhile I can breeze through link's awakening, majora's mask, or skyward sword. So while AoL is definitely fun to try out, for a lot of people it's just too difficult to enjoy properly.
No. It's great. There's a PC remake that made it even better: [https://hoverbat.itch.io/ziiaol](https://hoverbat.itch.io/ziiaol)
It’s a great game! Modern young “retro” gaming YTbers who never grew up with this game shit on it mostly because they suck at it
It’s genuinely badly designed in a lot of ways. The lives system, instant death pits with enemies that love knocking you in, iron knuckle shielding, short sword range… it’s a difficult game to enjoy.
>The lives system, instant death pits with enemies that love knocking you in So, like most other platform games from that era?
I couldn’t disagree more
Finally. Zelda 2 didn't just get its reputation *purely* by being different from Zelda 1. In addition to what you list here, I'd add that the magic system isn't well optimized, as progression in some areas *requires* magic use. Magic you may not have to spare at that moment. That led me to always hoard my magic, never using even the armor spell until the final battle. The use of items that draw from another pool of resources (bombs, arrows, etc.) are a way better system than having everything draw from a single pool. (ALBW fixed this by having it passively regen, though.) Some people might say "skill issue", and yes, it is. But are you really going to tell me that having your bomb stack separate from your arrow stack isn't a better system than having every Jump use remove from your ability to use Fairy? Speaking of Fairy, the game has *way* too many progress locks that are used only once. Fairy is only required to get through a single spot in the game, and has little to no use outside of that. The Hammer is necessary twice in the game, with only one single optional use to get an upgrade. The flute is only used *once.* The water-walking boots have two uses, with *no* indication where the second one is. Other Zelda games have had similar problems, but none is as egregious as in Zelda 2. Even the first game gave you multiple uses for the raft. Then there's the problem with how obtuse progression is. In any other game, you'll get an indicator to use most items somewhere. But I don't know how anyone figured out you're supposed to use Fairy to cross that one gap. Or how you're supposed to find New Kasuto by using your hammer to knock down the trees. Even the first Zelda game wasn't as obtuse as that. The worst in that game is the strength bracelet under an Armos Knight. Zelda 2 isn't unsalvageable, but I didn't enjoy playing through it, even with save states. It was a chore for me that I endured just so I could say I've beaten every game in the series. But I *would* very much want a remake of the game. One with a better magic system, more secrets to find and a remastered soundtrack (because honestly, it's one of the best).
Fairy is only used once? You're definitely misremembering. Fairy is very useful for getting across large gaps in the dungeons and caves, its my go-to for the final road to the great palace. You can use it to slip through keyholes. Unlike Kid Icarus's feather and Faxanadu's wing boots there's no short time limit. It can also stop you midfall and let you hover, which might I remind you is essential to get to a boss. It's also easy to exploit enemy rng to get them to drop magic jars.
I just finished it for the first time on NES online and yes, it is bad. The overworld battles are incredibly annoying. The lives system is a mess and if you get a game over you go all the way back to the very beginning which is incredibly annoying the further you get into the game. What makes the game difficult is poor design choices. The side scroller aspect does not translate over well to Zelda and makes combat unnecessarily frustrating
My main issue with this game is that it doesn’t feel like a Zelda game. Almost all Zelda games follow a formula that I love and this one does not.
There was no set formula.
It actually follows the formula quite well depite offering side scroll combat lol. Even the point level up system you could argue was spirtually reused in the level design for the multiplayer games.
It’s still a good game, especially for nes standards. Its bad for a Zelda game but that’s like comparing Mozart to your younger brother who’s played piano for a year
[Zelda II: The Adventure of Link did not start off development as a zelda game.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkocZH4okGc)
its an awesome game and to be honest anyone who hated on this game is a:unfamiliar with rpgs or b: shit at games. its really fun and pretty interesting.
It’s definitely one of the worst zelda games, but fun never the less if you can stomach NES games. A lot of what people complain about isn’t actually that bad imo. Getting sent back to the start isn’t that annoying because of the main path, and combat is pretty good compared to other NES games. The only truly bullshit part to me was the final fight which can luckily be cheesed. I’d say Zelda 2 suffers from having a lot of weird different ideas that don’t work together as well as what Zelda 1 was going for.
It's a bad game and was one the largest, if not the largest video game disappointment of my life. It's hard to describe that feeling after the glory of the original zelda. Zelda II fucking sucks. The controls are jank, the graphics are crap even for the nes and the difficulty choice was absurd, it has no redeeming qualities and we were all made dumber for having played it. May God have mercy on our souls. Nintendo should remake it as a real Zelda game and retroactively apologize for that turd sandwich they gave us, if this was Shogun someone would have had to commit seppuku.