So, courtroom is in order.
Is Zelda 2: LA a bad game?
Defense, prosecution... make your case.
a bad game? not a chance, try explaining to the autists the actual truth that 50% of the NES's library is though
If Zelda 2 is a "bad" game then it's closer to 90% with that criteria
It surely IS a bad game, ad it's a real testament to modern gamers being retarded assholes who think "hard" games are automatically good no matter what, because it was hated and seen as a stain on the Zelda name for almost 3 decades, and now all of a sudden "b-but, it's good tho..."
The fact of the matter is that it's a piss poor attempt at an RPG with shitty combat, shitty overworld maps, shitty everything and the retards who like it are just tryhard contrarians and or DaS playing retards. Period.
Metroidvania is the correct way to do a 2D Zelda game, but since Metroid is already Nintendo's propriety, they don't have a reason to make Zelda with that formula instead.
Shantae and the Pirate's Curse
not retro, reeeeeeeeeis the closest of how I imagine a 2D Zelda should be.
Ladies and gentlemen, how do we define a bad game?
There are many metrics people use including sales, critical acclaim and influence. Let's look at these metrics and see if a case can be made for Zelda II's value.
Zelda II sold 4.38 million units on parity with A Link to the Past's sales and exceeding the sales of many other titles in the franchise.
If we based Zelda 2's value on sales alone - we could conclude that it's superior to Majora's Mask, Link's Awakening, Skyward Sword and A Link Between Worlds.
Zelda II's GBA port is equal with Tri Force Heroes as the lowest rated game from the Zelda series on Metacritic at 73 per cent.
User reviews also rate the game at 73 per cent but their feedback is overwhelming positive while the majority of critic reviews are mixed.
Zelda II has 0 negative critic reviews.
Compared to sales, this reduces the game's value as something OK but not bad. The original NES version of Zelda II ranks higher on GameRankings at 78.14 per cent.
Zelda II left an indelible mark on the franchise with its inclusion of the following elements used throughout the series:
- The ability of Ganon to be revived after death/defeat.
- The Triforce of Courage
- Dark Link
- Ability to learn new sword moves.
- Shapeshifting Link
- Towns and villages
- Metered magic/spells
- Adult Link
- A romantic link between Link and Zelda
It is also a step forward in general gaming for fusing RPG elements and side-scrolling. Zelda II can not be overlooked.
Therefore, if it attracted so many people and the critics were fairly receptive and game has been hugely influential to the franchise - it can not be a bad game.
I rest my case.
>it's a real testament to modern gamers being retarded assholes who think "hard" games are automatically good no matter what
Pretty sure it's the converse. The current generation wants AAA cinematic experiences that never stop holding your hand, give you checkpoints with infinite lives, and give you a completely linear world that you can't get lost in. I'm surprised Dark Souls has managed to amass a sizable cult following.
>because it was hated and seen as a stain on the Zelda name for almost 3 decades
No it wasn't? It was one of the highest-selling games for the NES. Everybody and their brother played Zelda II back in the day. The only people hating on the game now probably weren't even alive when to experience it when it was released.
>The fact of the matter is that it's a piss poor attempt at an RPG with shitty combat, shitty overworld maps, shitty everything and the retards who like it are just tryhard contrarians and or DaS playing retards. Period.
Well, thanks for your half-baked assessment of my favorite game, which by the way I beat when I was 10 years old, because my childhood evidently took place decades before you came into this world.
Zelda II is no more difficult than the dozens of other platformers that were available at the time - Contra, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, etc. Developers wanted to make sure that a.) Progressing in these games actually felt rewarding, and b.) That the game's difficulty padded out the number of hours you'd need to complete said game, as to ensure the customer got a bang for their buck. (Well, that and NES games were fairly short when you remove the "git gud" curve)
The hate back then only came in comparison with zelda1, as a shifty little kid you take a first glance at it and think`this ain't the zelda I know`, so a lot of people put it away again. But after revisiting it they see being different isn't so bad
Its biggest weakness is the overworrld map with the random encounters, I think that scared away most players back in the day
Can anyone defend the combat? It's the most tedious annoying thing ever. When I look at speedruns or other playthroughs the players don't seem to be doing much better than I in which all you do is jab all day with zero feedback or any satisfying payoff. The game isn't all that difficult so much that it all feels like a chore.
Even if you're a scrub who plays LoZ1 with a guide at least the combat is satisfying, it's fun to bop things over and over, there's a bit of skill dealing with wizrobes and darknuts. I know what to do and it's simple.
The Adventure of Link actually has a lot of cool things. It's just a little too cryptic, and I think it's best played with a guide.
Not like explicitly following the guide every step of the way, but taking a glance at it when you get stuck is going to save a lot of frustration.
I completed both LoZ and Zelda II for the first time a few years ago blind, and I honestly think the first game is more cryptic. For Zelda II I honestly never once felt that I was so frustrated that I outright needed a guide, the game felt pretty fair with its hints to me, especially compared with the previous entry.
I'd say the combat is the best part of Zelda 2. Zelda 1 was just about boomerang and stab.
In LA you could stab in 4 directions, also while crouching and jumping, you would bounce off one enemy to attack another. Fights with the darknuts is exhilarating, watching the speedruns is retarded since they TAS and just always stab true, the idea is you have to fool your enemies intro opening themselves up for an attack.
Other than Windwaker (not /vr/) no other Zelda has as exciting sword-fighting.
It's bad because GOD never intended us to look at link from the side until polygons were invented.
we all swore on a HOLY BIBLE, did we not?!
Mine looked like this, I actually have never seen that box before,
I started playing this game a couple of weeks ago. I'm more annoyed with the battle system than anything, specifically while fighting Ironknuckles. They raise and lower their shields to protect their top half or bottom half. You have to attack the unguarded area to cause damage. Simple enough. Unfortunately, it seems that about half the time I attack the unguarded area, it STILL acts as though my attack was blocked. It even plays the sound effect as though I hit their shield. It's very infuriating, I don't understand what the criteria is. Fights with these faggots should be over in 1/4th the time.
I agree they are bullshit for sure. But, there's a trick to fighting them. First, jump in the air, and then hit the iron knuckle in the face with your sword while falling. It will land a hit every single time. This trick makes them pretty trivial, and the game is a lot more enjoyable as a result IMO.
A game being good or bad is far too subjective. The point of a game is entertainment, and what different people enjoy varies. Zelda 2 is a terrible game if it's not something you enjoy. But it's an excellent one if it is.
Sales, critical acclaim and influence all just boils down to what's popular.
Posts like this is why I don't trust underageb& opinions on games anymore
>it's hard therefore it's bad
>it doesn't look like PS4 therefore it's bad
>no moooltiplayer therefore it's bad
I've learned that I don't trust anyone's opinions on games. Even people I know very well who like similar things are sometimes wrong in whether I'll enjoy something. I just try everything so I can judge for myself.
I didn't like it when it came out because I didn't understand RPG mechanics but then by 1990 or so after I played Faxanadu I went back and
enjoyed it a lot. A couple years make a big difference when you're like 8.
People acting like the game was shunned back in the day obviously weren't alive at the time of this games release. Zelda 2 was very popular in the late 80s and practically everyone I knew who had a NES played and loved it.
Since it is the 2nd Zelda game the true "Zelda formula" had not yet been established so it was very widely accepted as the true sequel to TLOZ and no one claimed it wasnt a "a true Zelda game" simply because it was different. If LttP had continued to use the side scrolling mechanics then what constitutes a "true Zelda game" would be entirely different and TLOZ would instead be viewed as the odd ball black sheep.
You seem to be playing on an inappropriate screen, the lag really hurts you...
1) Get a CRT
2) First move should be a flying stab to the face.
3) Once you get the downthrust you can hop on their heads to throw them off.
4) It's even in the manual, you don't have to fight every single enemy in the game, unless you're cornered sometimes your best bet is to run. Unless you're close to leveling up, it's a waste of time since the crystal at the end of the temple automatically levels you up.
But seriously, if you aren't playing on a CRT, get one, it makes the fights against them sooooo much easier.
I say acquittal, the fact that it sold so well and had inspired copycat games like Faxanandu and Battle of Olympus show that it was well received.
The reason it's considered a "bad' game is because 14 year olds discovered it on Nesticle 20 years later and complain the difficulty is too high compared to modern Zelda games.
Same. Played them both on the Collector's Edition disc 3 years ago and found LoZ much more needlessly cryptic than AoL.
Also, having no nostalgic tie to either game, I'd rank them fairly equally.
Just being on this site is Supremely autistic.
You are the pot calling the kettle black.
It was the second game. It's arguable that later games are less 'zelda' becuase they don't have enough elements of 2.
Now that metroid has sort of been disowned by nintendo it'd be great to see a 2d metroidvania zelda that is more like zelda 2 than prior games.
It wasn't considered "bad" until OoT came out and all the retards jumped on the haterwagon, it was always considered a good game in its era by NES fans the only people who dont like it are zelda fans because it doesnt have baby tier difficulty like the rest of the series. If you like Ghosts n Goblins, Castlevania, and other NES classics at the time you probably liked Zelda 2. Only revisionist faggots who suck at video games that arent zelda or n64 virtual playpens want people to hate on it. It was the hottest selling game of christmas 1988 along with mario bros 2 you fuckin pleb.
This game was my bead and butter for NES as a kid.
Squishy sounding swamps
Shiny octopus heads
Weird ass reverberating music
That purple sky over the mountain town
Hell, I even liked the slow down when too many random encounter guys spawned on the world map.
I still think it's incredibly fun. Difficulty is overrated though
>based on or influenced by personal feelings tastes or opinions
How is classifying games as good or bad not a subjective thing again? I mean, it doesn't mean we can't share our opinions of what games we think are good or bad, but it's always going to be based in personal opinion. Even if we can all agree that something like Superman 64 is irredeemable shite, that's still just our opinions. This isn't science, it's art, the goodness and badness of a game aren't measurable like the frame rate or colour palate are.
I didn't find it dull, but I did find it as a lame mixup of Clash at Demonhead and Dragon Quest. It felt like Mario Bros. 2 a bit to me. Where Nintendo just stole shit for a sequel instead of making something unique. That is just my opinion.
>i'm so sick of the constant contrarian infighting in /v/
>it's like these guys don't even like videogames, they just like running down everyone else's favorites
>i know! i'll go to /vr/, everyone likes games there
>yeah, this is sure nice. i should make a thread too
>hmm, what to make...
>how about a contrarian bait thread designed to make people attack video games!
Just pack this shit up and head right back to
Clash at Semenhead was released two years after Zelda.
It was inspired by it like Faxanandu.
And the overworld map was actually inspired from western CRPGs that predated Dragon Quest by years.
As kid I remember complaining that Zelda ALttP didn't feel like a Zelda game since it lacked any real "secrets".
All the dungeons were in plain site (they even gave you a map and marked it for you), and the dungeons had some puzzles but were ultimately straight forward... money was basically useless except to keep a bottle with a pot since they healed more than fairies did. I was frequently maxed out on my rupees.
And don't get me started on OoT.
At least Zelda had plenty of towns that provided desperately needed healing and magic
>ALttP lacked any real "secrets."
This is what I keep telling everyone. Aside from pic related and a few other instances, like that you can lift up the giant boulders around Turtle Rock that you wouldn't think about trying; it has very little secrets. Same with the Oracle Zeldas.
>Don't get me started on OoT.
No, please do. Because you sound like a sensible person, and this is an insensible opinion.
>I'd like to know why they made the decision of going back to the style of Zelda 1 for LttP.
Because originally Zelda was an A-RPG series made by people who hated RPGs for people who hated RPGs and with Zelda II they realized they went too far into RPG territory. ALttP was the very first game in the series to be advertised in Japan as a "Real-Time Action-Adventure Game" (I think they always were in the US, do to superficial similarities to Adventure for Atari) and that reflects a change in the series away from its A-RPG roots to puzzle and exploration based "Action-Adventure". You may also note that while Zelda 1 and 3 are superficially similar they actually play very differently, this is because 3 is more of an adventure game while 1 is more of a simplified A-RPG with the RPG parts being either greatly de-emphasized or completely altered (ex: level ups changed to heart containers).
I really don't see how people can call it bad. I prefer it over the original Zelda to be honest.
It can be difficult, but you get better at the game by, you know, playing it. Death mountain is shit though.
>Because originally Zelda was an A-RPG series
Zelda was never an RPG series. It's an action-adventure series. Two entirely different genres.
RPGs are defined by their statistical mechanics, such as having character HP, traditional experience levels, and so forth. Action-adventure games may allow character progression through discovering a finite quantity of upgrades in one's surroundings, such as heart containers and stronger weapons.
Zelda II is insofar the only RPG in the series.
Having played both Demonhead and Zelda 2 they have nothing in common past being sidescrolling RPGs with overworld maps and your image insinuating that Z2 is somehow linked to Demonhead because they both feature forests is beyond retarded.
I like this post, and I know I'm days late in responding to it, but I just wanted to point out that as far as adding RPG elements to a sidescroller goes, Falcom's "Xanadu" has it beat by a full two years.
>There are many metrics people use including sales, critical acclaim and influence.
Fuck off. Those are logically false metrics that have no predictive value to a games empirical qualities.
Your argument is completely and utterly devastatingly rejected in the harshest most prejudice fashion possible. You earn no accord with the court and the internet bailiff have been alerted and sent to find you, beat you senseless, and to throw you off the internet into an interrogation center where you will experience brutal lifelong torture as an example for making such an appallingly atrocious case. Until such time you are to stay confined to your residence at /v/.
The one reason why I think this game was bad was because it was so goddamn confusing. Not the "I've held your hand for 5 hours now, it's time to grow out of your trainig wheels" confusing, but the "Here's a map written in russian and a fig. Go find your dead sister's remains" confusing. I couldn't even find, let alone get past the second dungeon without consulting a guide, but not before trying everything with everything else.
I liked the random encounters. I liked leveling up and getting stronger. I liked figuring out how to defeat the varied enemies. It was just so fucking confusing.
You're not the first person to complain about the game having a lack of direction, but I seriously don't know what you're talking about. I beat this game when I was 10 years old, and it wasn't just from stumbling around the game world and randomly happening upon things. The overworld design basically funnels you from one area to the next. You surface right next to the second palace as soon as you leave the *only* cave accessible to you after completing the first palace. Exactly how did you get lost in this region? Now, granted, you can head farther south and try to get the hammer early, but that region nonetheless loops you right back around to the second palace.
Even less obvious things like the townswoman's misplaced mirror or some of the more obscure heart containers are either suggestive enough for you to find on your own, or are explicitly spelled out for you by the game's NPCs. The first time I finished the game, I had collected all heart and magic containers, learned all spells and acquired both of the dragooon's sword techniques - and I did all of this without having access to a guide. The Internet hadn't even been invented yet, and I had no idea that "Nintendo Power" was a thing.
I loved this game as a kid. I played it with my dad when I was little. It was the first role playing game I ever played (you're totally right about it not being a legit RPG, it was more like an adventure game with tweaks).
I don't know how it's generally perceived, since most people I talk to never played it, but I'd love to play this again.