Adventure of Link Is Zelda II:the Adventure of Link Really That Bad?
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Location
- NORTHEN IRELAND
for one thing it is the second game in the series and for another its hard but people probably say that because they can't beat it
it sure is hard mate.
its taken me a long time to give it a go,but now that i have its very hard.
a lot of people probably overlook this game for the more well known zelda games.
but give this a try,you will be surprised how good it is.
It's not it's bad or hard it's just it was just a huge change from it's predecessor. Aol is very unique seeing as it's the only sidescrolling Zelda to date. Excluding the CDI series. I personally think that it is a great game but just a little before its time. Nintendo expected it's fans to be happy with such a different game, but you can't bring such drastic changes without gradually easing into them. If released a game before this with a Loz overworld and and Aol dungeons. I think that would be a sufficient change transition and this game would be given the recognition it deserves.
E
Evil Genius
Guest
Of course it's not that bad. (It's the worst Zelda, but it's not the worst game) I realize that Zelda games focus solely around going from dungeon to dungeon and collecting items. And, yes, AoL tried this a little differently. It was more of an RPG than an Adventure game, and that's what made it different (well, that, and the fact that's a ridiculously hard sidescroller). Since it's an RPG, we should stop treating it like crap and instead we should realize that it was supposed to be different.
It's 500 Wii Points ($5), not 1,000. I got this game from the Shop, and I haven't played it much because I can't get past the 1st knight in the 1st temple. I get frustrated and RAGE quit. LMAO!
Last edited:
Michael Heide
The 8th Wise Man
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2010
- Location
- Cologne, Germany
You need to fight minor enemies outside of the temple first to level up. Also, you need the shield spell from the first town. If you do that, the darknut poses a significantly smaller problem. It doesn't get easy by any means, but it's possible to defeat him. If not, you need to go outside and grind again.
To get back on topic: That is one of the main problems of the game, by the way. You constantly need to walk around picking fights with monsters, in the hopes of getting enough EXP to survive the next dungeon. Very counterintuitive to Zelda players.
To get back on topic: That is one of the main problems of the game, by the way. You constantly need to walk around picking fights with monsters, in the hopes of getting enough EXP to survive the next dungeon. Very counterintuitive to Zelda players.
G
Giraffe Link
Guest
I have beaten The Adventures of Link and i believe that it is one of the more challenging games in the series, but was a great attempt at trying something different and experimenting with the Zelda games early on to see what direction they would go. I can see where people can think it was a bad game but overall I would say it was pretty fun and challenging.
I think when looking at the difficulty of Adventure of Link, you have to keep it in the context of the time of its release. Adventure of Link was released way back in 1987 for the original Nintendo. I grew up playing the NES and there were plenty of games that were significantly harder than Adventure of Link. Many of them were impossibly hard, requiring pure memorization of levels by trial and error, to even have a chance for completion. Other games, while not impossible, took much more time, were much more difficult, and even to this day I haven't been able to complete.
Adventure of Link was certainly a difficult game, perhaps the hardest Zelda game in the series. However, compared to most games for the NES at the time, it was average in difficulty. It was definitely a game that was easily beatable if you put the time in.
Adventure of Link was certainly a difficult game, perhaps the hardest Zelda game in the series. However, compared to most games for the NES at the time, it was average in difficulty. It was definitely a game that was easily beatable if you put the time in.
Although I belive AoL to be one of the most difficult (or the most difficult) zelda game, I don't think it was overly bad, in terms of adventuring at least.
The overworld, although linear, was expansive and hid alot of secrets, a trait which is only recently gaining popularity. (hidden/secret areas and items)
I liked the dungeons, and although some made me want to tear my hair out because of constantly dying, the feeling of acomplishment after completion was simply amazing.
So no, the game was not that bad...as long as you like a challenge.
The overworld, although linear, was expansive and hid alot of secrets, a trait which is only recently gaining popularity. (hidden/secret areas and items)
I liked the dungeons, and although some made me want to tear my hair out because of constantly dying, the feeling of acomplishment after completion was simply amazing.
So no, the game was not that bad...as long as you like a challenge.
Although I've never actually played the game myself, I believe that Adventure of Link has been given a lot of unfairly based negative criticism, being based on the fact that the game was different to the original, or gamers that joined the series that believe it's too different from the rest of the series. To be honest, I'd welcome a game that introduced as much change as Adventure of Link did to the series, as long as the game wasn't completely changed to a point of being unrecognisable as part of the series other than names...etc.
Another reason that I believe that the game is disliked by a lot of people is because a lot of people see it as too hard, which I find quite ironic, considering the rest of the series is actually too easy. I'd also welcome a game that was as hard as Adventure of Link was in it's time, or even as hard as it is now compared to the rest of the series, because it means that the game isn't just something you can stroll through.
Referring to what Mases said, although, once again, I've not actually played many NES games, but I know enough from watching series such as the AVGN to see that there are games that were rather impossible in comparison to Adventure of Link. So it's not exactly made to be overly hard.
Another reason that I believe that the game is disliked by a lot of people is because a lot of people see it as too hard, which I find quite ironic, considering the rest of the series is actually too easy. I'd also welcome a game that was as hard as Adventure of Link was in it's time, or even as hard as it is now compared to the rest of the series, because it means that the game isn't just something you can stroll through.
Referring to what Mases said, although, once again, I've not actually played many NES games, but I know enough from watching series such as the AVGN to see that there are games that were rather impossible in comparison to Adventure of Link. So it's not exactly made to be overly hard.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Location
- New York, US
I got this game a few months ago, and personally, I think it's pretty awesome. I'm up to the final temple (the Great Palace, I guess?), and I've enjoyed it a bit, if not as much as most other Zeldas. The difficulty is the best part: sure, it's frustrating, and at times it makes you feel like "why do I even try?", but once you actually beat the part that has been giving you trouble, it is SO rewarding. Like I'm going to feel once I finally beat it for good.
Of course, it's not all perfect. The leveling system was interesting, and did help make combat more enticing: it made me want to hang around and fight all of the enemies to get the XP instead of just running away; but my problem is that once you reach the top level in everything, there really isn't too much reason to fight anything, and that takes some of the fun away. I usually avoid enemies as much as I can now, as it's easier to stay alive that way.
Another thing is that, as many others have pointed out, the overworld was sort of lacking in secrets. Sure, it had magic and health upgrades in hidden squares here and there, but they were few and far between, whereas in the original Zelda you almost always could use some more rupees, and it had tons of little secrets tucked away in the overworld that would help give you more.
It wasn't a bad game, anyways. I'm not sure I'll have very much fun if I try and replay it (after I beat it, of course), but I'm definitely glad I got it.
Of course, it's not all perfect. The leveling system was interesting, and did help make combat more enticing: it made me want to hang around and fight all of the enemies to get the XP instead of just running away; but my problem is that once you reach the top level in everything, there really isn't too much reason to fight anything, and that takes some of the fun away. I usually avoid enemies as much as I can now, as it's easier to stay alive that way.
Another thing is that, as many others have pointed out, the overworld was sort of lacking in secrets. Sure, it had magic and health upgrades in hidden squares here and there, but they were few and far between, whereas in the original Zelda you almost always could use some more rupees, and it had tons of little secrets tucked away in the overworld that would help give you more.
It wasn't a bad game, anyways. I'm not sure I'll have very much fun if I try and replay it (after I beat it, of course), but I'm definitely glad I got it.
athenian200
Circumspect
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
It's the storyline and the translation that bothered me. It felt too contrived, as though they were trying to insert a story as an afterthought, not expecting it to suffer as long as the gameplay was good. I think that the game might have just been too ambitious for the era and resources available.
Although, FF1 had a good story, so I'm not sure that's an excuse.
Although, FF1 had a good story, so I'm not sure that's an excuse.
O
oregon1
Guest
I was playing this just today, and I got so frustrated, but eventually I got what I needed to get, and started to own. This game seems daunting, but the bosses aren't really that hard. It is a hard game, I'm not denying that, but I don't think it is as half as hard as some people think it is.
Master Kokiri 9
The Dungeon Master
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Location
- My ship that sailed in the morning
Honestly, I don't think it's that bad. Sure, there are times where I want to pull my hair out (mainly the path to the Great Palace and Death Mountain), but other than that it's pretty decent. Most of the areas are either pretty easy (like Parapa, that was actually really easy for me the last time I played the game) or just a decent challenge (like the third palace, that gave me a run for my money but didn't make me pull out my hair).
It was only really very challenging in the later parts of the game (like past the fifth palace) in my opinion (Death Mountain aside).
Overall, yeah it's the hardest game in the series, but it's overall got a great difficulty: for the most part not too hard, for the most part not too easy.
It was only really very challenging in the later parts of the game (like past the fifth palace) in my opinion (Death Mountain aside).
Overall, yeah it's the hardest game in the series, but it's overall got a great difficulty: for the most part not too hard, for the most part not too easy.
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Location
- Kentucky, USA
I don't really think that Zelda II can even be compared in the same list as the other Zelda games simply because it is unlike any of the others. Zelda's formula began with LoZ, but was made solid by ALttP, and since then it has pretty much been the same. There have been 3D games and certain titles like FSA which deviate from overworld exploration, but at their very core they are all heavily inspired by many factors from ALttP. I think that when people consider AoL "bad", they are making the mistake of considering it with other Zelda games, which are all considerably easier.
Having said that, AoL is by no means a bad game. You have to look at it in comparison with other NES games that came out around its time. When looking at it that way, it is a rather outstanding platformer. It is difficult, yes, but once you get used to the gameplay and controls, it can be a really fun game to play. The challenge is one of the best things about AoL because it works so well with the gameplay.
All I can really say is that you don't have to be a hardcore Zelda fan to like Zelda II. What you have to do is appreciate it for the era in which it came out, realize how good of a game (in general, not just a Zelda game) it is, and play it passed the first few temples.
Having said that, AoL is by no means a bad game. You have to look at it in comparison with other NES games that came out around its time. When looking at it that way, it is a rather outstanding platformer. It is difficult, yes, but once you get used to the gameplay and controls, it can be a really fun game to play. The challenge is one of the best things about AoL because it works so well with the gameplay.
All I can really say is that you don't have to be a hardcore Zelda fan to like Zelda II. What you have to do is appreciate it for the era in which it came out, realize how good of a game (in general, not just a Zelda game) it is, and play it passed the first few temples.
Last edited: