nathandemick.com

Review: Zelda II: the Adventure of Link

When I was younger, I really looked up to my cousin Doug. He was four years older than me, and about as cool as I could hope to become. Not only was he socially adept and a good skateboarder, but he was also way better than me at video games (obviously the attribute that I envied the most). Once, when we were all on a family vacation, he had convinced his parents to let him bring his Nintendo to my great-grandparents’ house. My sister and I watched him play through a large portion of his collection of NES games… probably the most game endings you’d see in one sitting prior to YouTube. I’m sure some kids might have demanded a turn playing, but I was totally content to to watch these games (Blaster Master, Metroid, Super Mario Bros. 2, etc.) being played at levels nearing perfection. One of the games he beat was Zelda II: The Adventure Of Link. Now, I really liked the first Zelda game, but when I got home and tried playing the sequel, I didn’t do so well. The game was really unforgiving, which basically ensured that I would not finish it. I didn’t have the mental fortitude as a kid to not get discouraged by having to repeat a section of a game over and over again. (As an aside, I also never finished other difficult side scrolling games, such as Ninja Gaiden or Castlevania.)

I’m old and tenacious now. Or maybe I’m just stupid enough not to know when to quit. Regardless, I had the idea that since I’ve finished most of the other games in the Zelda series, I should go back and finish Zelda II. So I busted out the NES (no Virtual Console here, punk!) and played through the game. Having completed it, I now feel like I’m in a better position to comment on the “black sheep” of the Zelda franchise.

Zelda II is usually dismissed by gamers, due to its departure from the “traditional” top-down view that all other 2D Zelda games use. Instead, it is broken up into an overhead “exploration” view, and a side-scrolling “action” view. The “action” view, while being something of a new paradigm for the series, is also notoriously difficult. Even though Zelda II doesn’t contain much of the exploration and puzzle-solving that gamers associate with the name “Zelda,” I still like it. In my mind, it’s a great example of a sequel done right. It takes the characters and world of the first game, and instead of rehashing the first game, creates something entirely new (from a game play perspective).

While the game is difficult, it’s not impossible. The great thing is that it’s possible to progress in the game using tenacity to replace skill. If you are having difficulty dispatching some of the tougher enemies in the game, you can fight weaker enemies until your character’s attack power and life meter increase. Unlike the first game in the series, enemies do not drop health-replenishing hearts. Instead, the main character, Link, gets a “Heal” spell very early in the game. Running out of MP to cast the spell while in a dungeon puts you in a tight spot… or does it? Every 6th enemy drops a magic-replenishing jar, which (if the process is repeated enough) will fill up your magic gauge, which in turn refills your life. Plus, as you progress through the game (and gain skill at the game mechanics), these “helpers” become more and more superfluous.

My conclusion is that I like it. It’s a worthy game to invest time in completing, especially since it’s not really that long by modern standards (maybe 7-10 hours, depending on your playing ability). It’s nice to feel a sense of accomplishment from finishing a hard game, rather than one that is based on item collection or mediocre puzzles. Many games in the Zelda franchise are “going through the motions,” but it’s nice to see this early sequel adding something genuinely new and different to the series.

No comments · Written by Nathan at 1:58 pm · games, review, zelda