Zelda II is peculiar to say the least. Just one in a series of 8-bit sequels that opted for a radical departure from its predecessor. While some benefitted from this experimentation, others (like Zelda II) felt like a misstep. That isn't to say it's bad ideas all the way down, though...
While the original Legend of Zelda was a strictly top down affair, Zelda II breaks up the perspective to distinguish exploration from combat. The player is given a bird's eye view while in the overworld, which not only helps provide a sense of scope but also drives the player as they come upon new landmarks. The original Zelda segmented its map, exploiting the player's curiosity for what might be just beyond their current screen to encourage exploration. By contrast, Zelda II gives a more broad lay of the land and pushes the player ahead by showing them Hyrule's more varied landscape. This is fine, though less intimate, and relegates combat on the overworld to random encounters.
The bulk of Zelda II, however, is viewed from Link's side. The division between these two perspectives makes sense, though. Whereas exploration is all about the environment Link is in, combat and conversing with villagers is all about what Link is immediately interacting with. From a mechanical standpoint, this was done to make combat more dynamic. Instead of simply swiping at enemies, the player must now weigh their defenses and strike accordingly. Unfortunately, enemy types lack variety and you'll encounter most of them fairly early into the game, with most combat encounters devolving into a simple game of repeatedly bouncing on a bad guy's head around the half-way mark. The concept is sound, but the execution is a bit off.
Link's abilities are again augmented by the tools and weapons he finds on his journey, but he also gains access to a variety of spells. Which is... fine. Similar to combat, it feels as if the developers had an idea they couldn't quite make good on. To complicate matters, the player is allotted EXP and can level up their stats, but it never feels there's an appropriate risk/reward calculation driving the player's build, and ultimately you'll probably get enough EXP to max everything out anyway. Later Zelda games handle this better, allowing players to feel Link grow throughout his adventure without reducing it to a strict numbers game.
Dungeons are fairly bland and lacking in the sort of challenge found in the previous game, with much of the difficulty stemming from the janky combat system. Bosses are overly aggressive, can be a bit spongy, and generally aren't all that interesting. The last two in particular can be total nightmares unless you know how to exploit them, after which they just become pitiful. It never quite finds that balance, and if the rest of this review wasn't making it clear enough: that's this game's whole problem.
A lot has been said about the game's poor translation and how it makes obtuse puzzles even more difficult to decipher. Frankly, I don't find progression to be that much more difficult than in the original. If anything, a better translation would likely make this game a lot more easy to navigate than The Legend of Zelda, and it's nowhere near as bad as Castlevania 2. Baffling at times, sure, but I referred to a guide much less than I have for other NES RPGs. That guy says "I am Error" and it's funny, but the townsperson you need to interact with as part of that quest also refers to him as Error, so it's not like you wouldn't know who to talk to.
About the only area Zelda II sticks its landing is in presentation and audio design. The soundtrack is just plain solid, and contains a few of my favorite songs in the entire series (the dungeon theme is excellent), and I actually enjoy the sprite work quite a bit. It's just a shame the gameplay couldn't come together the same way the games aesthetic does.
Zelda II could have been a great game. It's equal parts hindered by the technology of the time and ideas that just needed a few more passes. Instead, the developers would have been better off refining the design of the original. Thankfully that's exactly what they did after this, but I can't help but wish there were more games like Zelda II. Ones which could benefit from hindsight and make good on the promise this game never quite lived up to. Maybe I'm just a bit too nostalgic for my own good, or maybe I saw that game over screen one too many times and it chemically altered my brain. I don't like Zelda II, but... I also like Zelda II. My relationship with this game is a weird one, but maybe that's the more appropriate thing of all, because it's definitely a weird game.
While the original Legend of Zelda was a strictly top down affair, Zelda II breaks up the perspective to distinguish exploration from combat. The player is given a bird's eye view while in the overworld, which not only helps provide a sense of scope but also drives the player as they come upon new landmarks. The original Zelda segmented its map, exploiting the player's curiosity for what might be just beyond their current screen to encourage exploration. By contrast, Zelda II gives a more broad lay of the land and pushes the player ahead by showing them Hyrule's more varied landscape. This is fine, though less intimate, and relegates combat on the overworld to random encounters.
The bulk of Zelda II, however, is viewed from Link's side. The division between these two perspectives makes sense, though. Whereas exploration is all about the environment Link is in, combat and conversing with villagers is all about what Link is immediately interacting with. From a mechanical standpoint, this was done to make combat more dynamic. Instead of simply swiping at enemies, the player must now weigh their defenses and strike accordingly. Unfortunately, enemy types lack variety and you'll encounter most of them fairly early into the game, with most combat encounters devolving into a simple game of repeatedly bouncing on a bad guy's head around the half-way mark. The concept is sound, but the execution is a bit off.
Link's abilities are again augmented by the tools and weapons he finds on his journey, but he also gains access to a variety of spells. Which is... fine. Similar to combat, it feels as if the developers had an idea they couldn't quite make good on. To complicate matters, the player is allotted EXP and can level up their stats, but it never feels there's an appropriate risk/reward calculation driving the player's build, and ultimately you'll probably get enough EXP to max everything out anyway. Later Zelda games handle this better, allowing players to feel Link grow throughout his adventure without reducing it to a strict numbers game.
Dungeons are fairly bland and lacking in the sort of challenge found in the previous game, with much of the difficulty stemming from the janky combat system. Bosses are overly aggressive, can be a bit spongy, and generally aren't all that interesting. The last two in particular can be total nightmares unless you know how to exploit them, after which they just become pitiful. It never quite finds that balance, and if the rest of this review wasn't making it clear enough: that's this game's whole problem.
A lot has been said about the game's poor translation and how it makes obtuse puzzles even more difficult to decipher. Frankly, I don't find progression to be that much more difficult than in the original. If anything, a better translation would likely make this game a lot more easy to navigate than The Legend of Zelda, and it's nowhere near as bad as Castlevania 2. Baffling at times, sure, but I referred to a guide much less than I have for other NES RPGs. That guy says "I am Error" and it's funny, but the townsperson you need to interact with as part of that quest also refers to him as Error, so it's not like you wouldn't know who to talk to.
About the only area Zelda II sticks its landing is in presentation and audio design. The soundtrack is just plain solid, and contains a few of my favorite songs in the entire series (the dungeon theme is excellent), and I actually enjoy the sprite work quite a bit. It's just a shame the gameplay couldn't come together the same way the games aesthetic does.
Zelda II could have been a great game. It's equal parts hindered by the technology of the time and ideas that just needed a few more passes. Instead, the developers would have been better off refining the design of the original. Thankfully that's exactly what they did after this, but I can't help but wish there were more games like Zelda II. Ones which could benefit from hindsight and make good on the promise this game never quite lived up to. Maybe I'm just a bit too nostalgic for my own good, or maybe I saw that game over screen one too many times and it chemically altered my brain. I don't like Zelda II, but... I also like Zelda II. My relationship with this game is a weird one, but maybe that's the more appropriate thing of all, because it's definitely a weird game.