Legend of Zelda vs Adventure of Link

[Chidori]

Out of the first two Zelda Games ever made which did you like better. The most classic game of all, Legend of Zelda or one of the Hardest Zelda Games so far, Adventure of Link. Well i like Hard games so i will say Adventure of Link.

[Mases]

At the time, I think Legend of Zelda by far.

However, in recent times, I think that Adventure of Link might have surpassed Legend of Zelda. Just because, the original Legend of Zelda has somewhat been recreated. In the sense that, A Link to the Past and other 2d Zelda top down games did what Legend of Zelda did, but just better. The original Zelda title is still and will always be a classic, but I don't think it is all that in todays world.

Adventure of Link has aged quite well. At the time I think it took some undeserving heat because it was so radically different than the original. Everybody wanted a sequel that was somewhat similar in style to Zelda1. However, Adventure of Link offered something new that has not been repeated in the Zelda franchise. Whether that is a good thing or not is another question, but this makes Adventure of Link the most unique Zelda to date. So it gets my vote.

[Avenged]

I would say Adventure of Link. Almost every apsect of it has been carried on through the series today. The only con I found in the game was the missing use of items.

[linkman8]

I'd say Legend of Zelda was better, because AOL was just so blatantly frustrating, that I never played it for an extended amount of time. I hated having to start over at the same temple every time, I hated the "three lives and you're out" kind of gameplay, but otherwise it was OK when you're doing well at it.

[Avenged]

LOL, thats really the only reason people give why they hate it, it was too hard. I didn't mind the life system since it gave the player a bigger challenge. It is very possible to obtain more than 3 lives however.

[Mases]

There is no question the game is hard. What I thought was a hit on the game was no the difficulty but really, just the complete lack of puzzles. Sure there was mazes and a few secret spots for items, but no real puzzles that we are accustomed to in the Zelda series. Rather than filling it with hard puzzles, we instead got hard game play. Which is fine for me. The game was different.

Though the game was so different than the previous Zelda title and any of the future Zelda titles, it is hard to deny that it isn't one of the best video games ever released for the NES. At least in the top 25 or so, which is impressive given there were over 700 titles released for the system. It still gets my vote for its originality.

[linkman8]

Right, with the Link dolls, but they're so rare that you'd have to save them for big boss battles or temples.

[HELLO_LINK]

In my opinion, I think LoZ was and still is better then AoL. The idea of AoL was great, but the creators didn't do a great job of it. Also, LoZ was a great title where Zelda got its name, plus it had a better game play, and more familiar weapons (for me).

[Avenged]

I think they did a very good job on AoL. If not, why would they use nearly all the aspects from that game in future Zelda titles? Ofcourse the use of the RPG map and side scrolling was a huge change from the first, but lets take a look on why they even tried it. Super Mario Brothers. For those that didn't know Shigeru Miyamoto produced the Mario series as well and thats all about side scrolling, so it wasn't that expected that it would be tried with Zelda.

Personally, I would love to see another rpg map in a 2d Zelda. But instead of side scrolling, use the basic Zelda formula of the overhead view.

[Alder Dragon]

Zelda 2 was extremely difficult, which limited the age group a bit. The first Zelda game was wide opened with varying difficulties, and was relatively "fairer" than its sequel. What I mean by this is, Zelda 2 was pretty unfair. Take for example the bubbles that bounce around the room in the first dungeon, they're almost impossible to avoid and some shoot across the room faster than you can blink your eye. Also, on stages where you have to avoid pitfalls (like when going across certain bridges or on your way to the Great Palace), if you get hit, it's very likely that you will fall in and die. I can understand falling in LAVA and dying, but falling two feet into a river is not going to kill you. It's like Castlevania. When you are hit in mid-air, you can't control where you fall. You simply fall which ever way you were hit from.

Besides that though, Zelda 2 kept my attention for a long time. I completed both games without guides, and Zelda 2 took me much longer simply because of the fighting sequences and mapping out the dungeons.

So for me Zelda 1 wins, and Zelda 2 closely following after.

[mehzpants]

Adventures of Link made me cry
It was like Legend of Zelda trying to cross with Final Fantasy

[WarriorOfDestiny]

After voting, why is there an asterisk next to Adventure of Link?

[Mases]

I'm pretty sure that stands for the one that you voted for. You must have voted for Adventure of Link.

[Avenged]

Adventures of Link made me cry
It was like Legend of Zelda trying to cross with Final Fantasy


No way, there is no turn based battles in AoL...I actually liked the exp. idea, good way to make Link progress...only if they could redo that in newer Zeldas. This was really the only Zelda where Link actually became stronger as he progressed.

[Alder Dragon]

No way, there is no turn based battles in AoL...I actually liked the exp. idea, good way to make Link progress...only if they could redo that in newer Zeldas. This was really the only Zelda where Link actually became stronger as he progressed.


Yeah! I loved the experience idea as well, I'd love to see it make a return.

[Avenged]

If anything i would love for AoL to be remade into a 3d game...that would be godly.

[MoonCheese]

I prefer the original. Zelda II seemed a botch job to me, like it was trying to be an action RPG and a platformer at the same time. I didn't like how almost all the inventory items were worthless except to get you past such-and-such area in the game. I thought it was too hard as well, especially because it's so hard to restore life and falling into pits or lava is so damaging, and the enemies would bump you around into them! That style of play is more suited to platform games like Mario.

[miku]

AoL gets my vote. I'm a huge Zelda fan and realize the value of the original as being classic and all, but I just find Zelda II to be more fun.

Sure, there isn't much in the way of puzzles, but were the puzzles in the original Legend of Zelda really that great? Push the block. Kill all the monsters. Really it was just the basic stuff.

And people don't like the side scrolling battles. Have they taken the time to observe the positive effects of this game design choice? In an NES context, the side view massively expands the complexity of the battles. The iron knuckles for example. Stab high, duck and block, stand and block, stab low, stab low, stand and block, duck and block. Or the dudes who throw axes. Jump over the axe, stab, stab, jump over two axes. Stab.
In LoZ, it's more like, a dude walking around, randomly turning, and if he walks into you you get hurt. Sometimes it seems to be more about luck than skill. I realize I'm simplifying it a bit and there are multiple different types of monsters, but my point is that sacrificing the depth dimension for vertical dimension makes the fighting more engaging.

Zelda II is more of a fighting game than it is a puzzle solving game, and the fighting, I think it does much better than the original LoZ.


And I'll finish on perhaps my strongest point:

WHEN YOU JUMP
PRESS DOWNWARD
TO STAB.



EDIT:
What's with all this talk about Zelda II being hard? I mean, yeah, it's hard, like many NES games, but am I the only person who thinks LoZ is WAAAY harder than AoL?

[Avenged]

I dont think neither LoZ nor AoL is hard. AoL is my second my fav Zelda, coming behind ALttP.

[Mases]

One of the reasons that I liked Legend of Zelda a lot better than Adventure of Link when I first started playing them. You can play LoZ very casually. With the many upgrades and the medicine/potions you can get, you and sorta just run through the dungeons and the overworld, not paying attention to detail.

In Adventure of Link, there is none of that. If you are at least through the very begining of the game and then want to proceed more. Unless you are seasoned vet, there is no room for casually playing, or you will die over and over. You have concentrate a lot when you are fighting off some of these enemies, in particular the ones that switch between shielding/swinging up and down, like the iron knuckles. Or even the goriya's who throw boomerangs at you. It is kinda to just run through and defeat all the enemies right away, but that is quite possible with basically every enemy in Legend of Zelda.

For a more casual experience, I got with LoZ.

[Xade]

TLoZ is much better made but AoL is one of the funniest games I ever played. It's a tie.

[Beth]

As much as I love zelda II

I will say that I like Zelda better.

It just has lots of good memorys for me ^^

[zeypherlink]

My vote goes to LoZ, but AoL isn't too far behind it.

LoZ was great because even though it was made in 1988, its still a great game. All the items and the dungeon crawling-- plus Hyrule is pretty big too. Also Second Quest was a lot of fun.

AoL was a great game too. Nintendo brought in a side scrolling RPG style of adventure into the mix, and even though it failed, it was still fun. AoL also introduced magic into the series, as well as towns ,interaction with people, and side quests.

[Gekko]

I honestly like Zelda II more. I don't know why...

[Avenged]

I'm actually very glad to see a lot of the younger generation finally liking Adventure of Link, a few years back AoL was the most underrated Zelda game and most put down Zelda game (mainly due to the kids not actually playing it or saying its too hard for them)

[Gekko]

I'm actually very glad to see a lot of the younger generation finally liking Adventure of Link, a few years back AoL was the most underrated Zelda game and most put down Zelda game (mainly due to the kids not actually playing it or saying its too hard for them)

Cheers, mate. \o/

[Kybyrian]

Bleh...I played Legend of Zelda recently, and I have to say, Adventure of Link is better in my opinion.

[Link-san]

I quite agree with most people/ LoZ is better.
LoZ is like this:
When The Legend of Zelda was released, its gameplay defied categorization. The game incorporated elements from action games, adventure games, role-playing games, and puzzle games. The game begins with the player controlling Link from an overhead perspective, armed with a small shield. A sword becomes available to Link if he ventures into the cave, accessible from the start screen. When the game starts, Link spawns in the overworld, a large outdoor map with varied environments. Throughout the game, merchants, gamblers, old ladies, and other people guide Link with cryptic clues. These people are scattered across the overworld and hidden in caves, shrubbery, or behind walls.
Overall, LoZ is good :D

[Wakka782]

I belive that the second game was better because of the challage of figureing out on what to level up at that right time and when to do it. I also like the challage of trying to take on bosses with alot more attack power then me. I also like the maze's and the secret suprises that hide in certain area's. Overall I believe that the second Zelda is the best.

[miku]

I honestly like Zelda II more. I don't know why...
Because it's a better game.

[Hungarian Link]

The Zelda II is much harder, but it has a lot of idea, I better like the Zelda II.

[Mike Pothier]

Ohhhh, tough choice.

On one had, Zelda 1 started the franchise. It set the standard. There are few games today that give me the feelings that I still get when I play it (yes, I still play it).

Zelda 2 though, had a huge influence. It set up themes and ideas that carried through all the way to the newer games, including TP and PH.

Its a tough call, but I'll go with the original. Barely.

[GANONsys]

I always though AoL was easy, just longer than LoZ. AoL has always been a personal favorite. Plus, I like the soundtrack, a lot of memorable tunes.

[PrinceofDarkness]

My vote goes to LoZ, but AoL isn't too far behind it.

LoZ was great because even though it was made in 1988,

um not to be a jerk or anything but wasn't it made in 86?

My fav. is AoL out of those two, cuz of the replay value and the crazy hard gameplay to begin with. LoZ is too easy I can beat it w/out dying. AoL however I normally die at least a handful of times before completing it. (especially if I get unlucky at the Great Palace)

[Punchout]

I know im gonna be hated for this but really in my opinion every zelda before links awakening was sorta stinky. 1, 2, and link to the past. Plz dont hate me

[Y2K3]

I've always like Zelda II, and I never really got into the original, so AoL all the way.

[Avenged]

I know im gonna be hated for this but really in my opinion every zelda before links awakening was sorta stinky. 1, 2, and link to the past. Plz dont hate me

No one will judge your opinion if you give a valid explanation to back up why you hate those games, I would really like to hear this.

[Punchout]

Well number one when you start numbers one and two they give you no info on where you should go or what you should do. The secrets are so hard to find on your own unless you take your candel and try to burn every tree or spend a gazillion ruppes on bombs trying to bomb everything. Same with number two. No info on where you arre supposed to go but it did improve on secrets and things. Never been able to come close to beating these without a video walkthrough.

Alright onto Link to the past. This one is tough to explain but ill try. The game is sorta repetitive in just running around and trying to kill stuff just to get from point a to b sorta like the other two. in 3D zelda they really solved this issue unless you get caught into special circumstances like in turns nightime. As in all zeldas the dinging when you get down to half a heart is anoying but most especially in this one. Story was a little weak but a big improvment on the others. you have objectives you learn of from the begining. The top down dungeon skeem didnt not allow for having more than one floor visable which still happened making me as an individual very confused.

In all the games sorta got on my nerves. I onley like the portable 2D zeldas because they had a good story even though the repetitive killing and top down view was a little crapish. What can you expect its a hand held. From what i understand though phantom hourglass does a great job in redifining portable zelda. Any ways thats my explanation.

[zeypherlink]

But Punchout, that's exactly what made those games so great. Especially ALttP, with all the free roam.

[Avenged]

You gotta remember he's more into the whole 'tell me where exactly to go next' gig. Dont listen to much of what he says since its mainly BS.

[Jirrup]

You gotta remember he's more into the whole 'tell me where exactly to go next' gig. Dont listen to much of what he says since its mainly BS.

If the lad likes fairies with annoying voices over a true sense of adventure, let that be his opinion.

[El Bagu]

Aol is more fun

[Josh]

I once again am not going to bash on Adventure of Link for being hard. I'm going bash on it because I just wasn't a fan of it. The magic system, the enemies, just the flow of everything I wasn't a fan of. The game just seemed so drastically different, I wasn't a fan of it. So with that I choose LoZ.

[Glided Sword]

I think the original Legend of Zelda because it's what started the series off and isn't as difficult as Adventure of Link which is another game itself because it's so different.