What's wrong with Zelda 2?

[Atarifever1]

I keep seeing this game refered to as the "Black Sheep" of the series. I also usually see it scored really low and compared unfavorably to the rest of the series.  I just bought it for the GBA a few days back, and I can't come up with one reason to dislike it.  More importantly, I can't come up with one reason to think of it as a black sheep.

Sure, it is primarily a side scroller, but then, Link's Awakening, and the two GBC games have at least limited side scrolling parts.  As well, the side scrolling often involves platforming, and Ocarana, Majora's mask, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess all contain some platforming (Twilight Princess has a lot in the volcano).  In fact, I think most of the games have platforming, but don't remember it from the first one.  Also, the game still requires you to move through a huge overworld map, entering safe havens and defeating a series of dungeons alternatively, just like many Zelda games.  Finally, unlike the original game this one has a huge part played by NPCs.  The NPCs give you things to help on your quest and provide essential information, but not everyone of them is important, and it's not always obvious who has the important information right away (just like in every other Zelda game except the first one).  In fact, as the NPCs in all other Zelda games behave essentially the same as they do in Zelda 2, and not as they do in Zelda 1, I think you could as easily say much of the Zelda foundation is laid down by this game.  Both of the first 2 games are missing something.  I think it took Nintendo 2 tries to iron out the formula.   Thus, I don't see how this game can be considered the black sheep anymore than the original.

[a1]

[QUOTE=Atarifever]

Sure, it is primarily a side scroller, but then, Link's Awakening, and the two GBC games have at least limited side scrolling parts. 

[/QUOTE]

Where is there side scrolling in Link's Awakening?

[feilong801]

There are legions of fans, myself included, that loved Zelda II and still do. It's a great game, and holds itself up extremely well over time.

 

However, you'll find that whenever a popular gameplay paradigm is radically changed, people will hate it, sometimes beyond reason. That is what happened with Simon's Quest, I believe, another great game that is crapped on.

 

-Rob

[Alienblue]

Well, I never played Zelda 2, and to be honest only loved and beat two Zelda's.... the first one and LINKS AWAKENINGX.

At the time Zelda came out for NES, I was completely hooked on the GAUNTLET arcade game. I never liked RPGs. But ARCADE RPGs were a different story, and the first Zelda was VERY much like GAUNTLET...get keys to open doors, get potions, weapons, all from an overhead view.

I guess I was dissapointed by Zelda 2 screenshots because 1) they looked like a poor mans MARIO and 2) they just looked UGLY compared to the first Zelda. So I never got it. Maybe I'll try it someday though...

[feilong801]

You can probably get it on the cheap for the GBA, Alien, since it was released new for $20 bucks (and should be even cheaper new now, much less used).

 

-Rob

[m0zart1]

[QUOTE=a]

Where is there side scrolling in Link's Awakening?

[/QUOTE]

The dungeon underground areas where you go from one side of the dungeon to the other through an underground tunnel, and when you get items in the dungeons.  These are designed to be platformer tributes to the Mario series.  They even have some of the same enemies, and Link has to get the feather item in order to jump like Mario and traverse those areas.

[m0zart1]

There's nothing wrong with Zelda 2 at all.  There is a small group of fans who don't like it because it tried to reinvent the series.  It's still called the "black sheep" by even fans of the series and that game in particular, like myself, because it is different in many ways that any other game in the series.  It has far more RPG elements than any other game in the series, including leveling up in life, magic, and attack.  The overworld map is set up like an RPG, with enemies represented by travelling blobs.  Hitting those blobs puts you into a side scrolling perspective where you battle those like on a platformer.  The towns you visit and the dungeons are also side-scrolling.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=m0zart]

  It has far more RPG elements than any other game in the series, including leveling up in life, magic, and attack.  The overworld map is set up like an RPG, with enemies represented by travelling blobs.  Hitting those blobs puts you into a side scrolling perspective where you battle those like on a platformer.  The towns you visit and the dungeons are also side-scrolling.

[/QUOTE]
I understand all that, but regarding the way quests are given out and the interaction with NPCs, this one has a lot more in common with the average game in the series than the original does.  It also has a lot of platforming similar to that seen in the later games.  That's why I'm wondering why it's called the "black sheep" when it, in fact,  established some of the more important conventions of the series.  Can't the original be considered a "black sheep" in that it doesn't meet those conventions?  As well, if I were looking for one game in the series to call a "black sheep", I'd think "Four Swords" was far more different from the series than this one is.  Multiplayer, cross system gameplay, with linear level selection seems much further from the norm of the series than Zelda 2, with it's single player dungeon and field roaming, does.

[a1]

[QUOTE=m0zart][QUOTE=a]

Where is there side scrolling in Link's Awakening?

[/QUOTE]

The dungeon underground areas where you go from one side of the dungeon to the other through an underground tunnel, and when you get items in the dungeons.  These are designed to be platformer tributes to the Mario series.  They even have some of the same enemies, and Link has to get the feather item in order to jump like Mario and traverse those areas.

[/QUOTE]

I was thinking of Link to the Past. I remember those actually.

[Michael Danehy]

[QUOTE=Atarifever][QUOTE=m0zart]

  It has far more RPG elements than any other game in the series, including leveling up in life, magic, and attack.  The overworld map is set up like an RPG, with enemies represented by travelling blobs.  Hitting those blobs puts you into a side scrolling perspective where you battle those like on a platformer.  The towns you visit and the dungeons are also side-scrolling.

[/QUOTE]
I understand all that, but regarding the way quests are given out and the interaction with NPCs, this one has a lot more in common with the average game in the series than the original does.  It also has a lot of platforming similar to that seen in the later games.  That's why I'm wondering why it's called the "black sheep" when it, in fact,  established some of the more important conventions of the series.  Can't the original be considered a "black sheep" in that it doesn't meet those conventions?  As well, if I were looking for one game in the series to call a "black sheep", I'd think "Four Swords" was far more different from the series than this one is.  Multiplayer, cross system gameplay, with linear level selection seems much further from the norm of the series than Zelda 2, with it's single player dungeon and field roaming, does.
[/QUOTE]

Shouldn't the CD-I Zelda game be considered the black sheep? At least Zelda 2 has lots of fans. I think just about everyone hates the CD-I game (not that many people have played it anyway... I never have...).