I think I’d rather good games than unpredictable games (downvote me all you want for saying Zelda 2 is bad)
Jonesdeclectice
It was also when Nintendo was in its infancy and had basically zero expectations, so everything was a crazy new approach to video games. That said, Zelda 2 was absolutely incredible and one I certainly come back to from time to time.
TyleNightwisp
Weird article. Nintendo is known for experimenting a lot, and there’s tons of amazing examples of them thinking outside of the box and achieving greatness. I fail to see how Zelda 2 was considered Nintendo at it’s “best” if the article itself mentions how everything was different in Zelda 2 and almost nothing was used to iterate on the next installments. Experimentation is a win if you keep learning from it and growing and iterating on the next project, Zelda II doesn’t feel like that. To me it’s more of a failed experiment.
TheGreatGamer64
Unpredictable doesn’t mean good.
kylechu
I can’t help but think that all the people who say nothing from Zelda 2 was carried on into future games never actually played the game.
Lots of games around that time generally had sequels which played a lot differently than their main releases (Final Fantasy, Zelda, Castlevania, Fire Emblem) – while Super Mario Bros 2 was a necessary “change” (as “Lost Levels” played exactly the same just a lot harder).
Zelda 2 was actually pretty fun/playable after a certain point though. Beforehand it felt brutal (which kinda was a turnoff).
mst3kevin
People dumping on Zelda 2 is revisionist history after seeing the rest of the franchise.
I remember how much people loved it at the time. I remover when there were only 2 Zelda games. In my memory Zelda 2 was played in my neighborhood more than the original because we were more accustomed to side scrolling games at the time.
After Link to the Past and Links Awakening it started to stand out in the series.
bigersmaler
Was it really unpredictable? There were many NES games that weren’t yet *franchises* with real expectations from gamers. Sequels were often way different than an original entry.
Breath of the Wild was just as much a departure from the other 3D Zelda games as Zelda 2 was “unpredictable” compared to OG Zelda. The difference is BotW was amazing and Zelda 2 wasn’t.
Don’t get me wrong. It wasn’t bad. It’s just that the first Zelda was a masterpiece. Anyone could enjoy that game at their own pace. Perfection in storytelling, gameplay, and difficulty progression.
Zelda 2 was pretty alright in 1988…IF you had the strategy guide and was a highly skilled player with the patience to grind.
TheVibratingPants
I know there are a lot of fans of Zelda II, but it’s really not a good Zelda game and it’s not exactly the pinnacle of game design either.
If anything, I feel like the SNES or GCN could be argued as Nintendo’s great creative periods. The 64 also has three of the most important games of all-time (Mario 64, Ocarina, and Smash), but I feel like the 64 was a bit more limited in how much developers could express a particular vision. The SNES was 2D gaming at a peak, and the GCN removed so many of the constraints the 64 had.
Especially with the GCN, Nintendo was not just unpredictable, but had decades of experience and able to polish a game off (for the most part). Prime, Melee, Sunshine, Wind Waker, Double Dash, Jungle Beat, Chibi Robo, Custom Robo, Path of Radiance, TTYD, F-Zero GX, Star Fox Assault, Pikmin; unbelievable output during this era, I feel like.
moribund112
This was the first Zelda game I played on release. I loved it then as a child and I love it now. I’ll never forget the gold cartridge and the beautiful sword illustration on the game label.
Flagrath
This also led to the creation of Zelda 2, so it certainly had its flaws.
kolt437
More like Nintendo at its nintendoest
jdlyga
I love unhinged totally rough around the edges games. I’m playing Phantasy Star 2 for example. A junior staff member made the dungeon layouts so chaotically complex that they printed maps for the final release. It’s so hard that even with maps you can barely navigate the dungeons.
13 Comments
I think I’d rather good games than unpredictable games (downvote me all you want for saying Zelda 2 is bad)
It was also when Nintendo was in its infancy and had basically zero expectations, so everything was a crazy new approach to video games. That said, Zelda 2 was absolutely incredible and one I certainly come back to from time to time.
Weird article. Nintendo is known for experimenting a lot, and there’s tons of amazing examples of them thinking outside of the box and achieving greatness. I fail to see how Zelda 2 was considered Nintendo at it’s “best” if the article itself mentions how everything was different in Zelda 2 and almost nothing was used to iterate on the next installments. Experimentation is a win if you keep learning from it and growing and iterating on the next project, Zelda II doesn’t feel like that. To me it’s more of a failed experiment.
Unpredictable doesn’t mean good.
I can’t help but think that all the people who say nothing from Zelda 2 was carried on into future games never actually played the game.
Also, [this song](https://youtu.be/SJpN7Axa22M) justifies the entire game by itself.
Lots of games around that time generally had sequels which played a lot differently than their main releases (Final Fantasy, Zelda, Castlevania, Fire Emblem) – while Super Mario Bros 2 was a necessary “change” (as “Lost Levels” played exactly the same just a lot harder).
Zelda 2 was actually pretty fun/playable after a certain point though. Beforehand it felt brutal (which kinda was a turnoff).
People dumping on Zelda 2 is revisionist history after seeing the rest of the franchise.
I remember how much people loved it at the time. I remover when there were only 2 Zelda games. In my memory Zelda 2 was played in my neighborhood more than the original because we were more accustomed to side scrolling games at the time.
After Link to the Past and Links Awakening it started to stand out in the series.
Was it really unpredictable? There were many NES games that weren’t yet *franchises* with real expectations from gamers. Sequels were often way different than an original entry.
Breath of the Wild was just as much a departure from the other 3D Zelda games as Zelda 2 was “unpredictable” compared to OG Zelda. The difference is BotW was amazing and Zelda 2 wasn’t.
Don’t get me wrong. It wasn’t bad. It’s just that the first Zelda was a masterpiece. Anyone could enjoy that game at their own pace. Perfection in storytelling, gameplay, and difficulty progression.
Zelda 2 was pretty alright in 1988…IF you had the strategy guide and was a highly skilled player with the patience to grind.
I know there are a lot of fans of Zelda II, but it’s really not a good Zelda game and it’s not exactly the pinnacle of game design either.
If anything, I feel like the SNES or GCN could be argued as Nintendo’s great creative periods. The 64 also has three of the most important games of all-time (Mario 64, Ocarina, and Smash), but I feel like the 64 was a bit more limited in how much developers could express a particular vision. The SNES was 2D gaming at a peak, and the GCN removed so many of the constraints the 64 had.
Especially with the GCN, Nintendo was not just unpredictable, but had decades of experience and able to polish a game off (for the most part). Prime, Melee, Sunshine, Wind Waker, Double Dash, Jungle Beat, Chibi Robo, Custom Robo, Path of Radiance, TTYD, F-Zero GX, Star Fox Assault, Pikmin; unbelievable output during this era, I feel like.
This was the first Zelda game I played on release. I loved it then as a child and I love it now. I’ll never forget the gold cartridge and the beautiful sword illustration on the game label.
This also led to the creation of Zelda 2, so it certainly had its flaws.
More like Nintendo at its nintendoest
I love unhinged totally rough around the edges games. I’m playing Phantasy Star 2 for example. A junior staff member made the dungeon layouts so chaotically complex that they printed maps for the final release. It’s so hard that even with maps you can barely navigate the dungeons.