|
Zelda II: Classic Game or Waste of Time? Many Zelda fans consider Zelda II: The Adventure of Link to be the worst game in the Zelda series. They argue that because the game strays from the style of gameplay seen in the other Zelda games, that it has to be bad. The game may be different from the other games, but since when does that automatically mean it’s a bad game?
Unlike the other Zelda games, which are either 3D or based on a top-down
perspective, Zelda II is basically a side scroller.
The gameplay is similar to a Mario game, in that Link runs from side to
side, jumps, and can attack. It’s
not like your typical top-down Zelda game, where Link doesn’t jump at all, and
is very limited in his attacks. Personally,
I find this new style of gameplay to be interesting, as it adds several things
to this game that aren’t possible in the others.
Fun attacks, such as the downward and upward thrust aren’t possible in
the top-down Zelda games, and those made the game quite a bit of fun.
In addition to the new attacks, because the game is side scrolling, it
added a new element of strategy to defeating enemies.
Certain enemies, such as Ironknuckles and Stalfos became more
challenging, because rather than just rush up and slashing them with his sword,
Link has to find a way to trick the enemy into lowering it’s defenses before
delivering a strike with the sword. Other
enemies, such as the Myu can only be defeated by a special attack, such as a
downward thrust. None of the other
Zelda games had this kind of strategy involved in defeating enemies.
The bosses in Zelda II were also more challenging because the game is a
side scroller. Ironknuckle is a
challenge, because he basically challenges you to a joust, coming at you on a
big iron horse, and the only way to defeat him is to use a perfectly timed
downward thrust on the horse’s head, thus dismounting Ironknuckle from the
horse making him attackable. Bosses
like this would not be possible in any of the other Zelda games, since it would
be impossible to set up the jumping system correctly.
Other people criticize Zelda II because other elements of the game stray
from the other Zelda games. The
widespread use of magic spells in the game, and the fact that Link builds up
experience RPG style is what they point to the most.
The use of spells adds an interesting bit of gameplay variety and
strategy to the game. One of the
spells in the game is “Life” which restores a portion of Link’s health.
Instead of finding hearts to restore his life, like in other games, Link
must decide the best time to use this spell, as there are no hearts to collect,
and fairies, which completely restore his health, are very rare.
This adds an extra element of strategy to the game.
The experience point system adds some depth to the game, because unlike
other Zelda games, where Link only becomes more powerful when he collects items
and Heart Containers, Link also becomes more powerful after defeating enemies
and building up experience points, just like an RPG. After raising his level, Link can increase his attack, which
makes his sword do more damage, his magic, which makes his magic spells drain
less of his magic, or his life, which makes enemy attacks cause less damage.
If Link is having trouble with a certain dungeon, all he needs to go is
go fight around for a while to build up enough experience to raise his level,
therefore making it slightly easier.
Another complaint people frequently have about this game is the fact that
Link has a certain number of lives, just like a Mario game. The difficulty level of the game makes this necessary though.
Especially late in the game, it’s nearly impossible to go through a
dungeon without dying at least once, so the system of giving Link 3 lives helps
to ease frustration quite a bit.
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link may be the most unique Zelda game, but
since when does a game being different automatically make it bad? The fact that this game is different makes it a great
addition to the Zelda series, and a true classic!
|








