The first Zelda game for the NES was great. It had everything you could ever ask for in an adventure RPG, you had enemies that you could fight and kill; you could collect money to buy bombs and keys, hours and hours of wandering around aimlessly, dungeons that has puzzles and bosses and most importantly, music that never seems to get old. Then came Zelda II, in which was very different to any Zelda game that ever existed. It was a direct sequel, for starters. The subject on weather Zelda II is good or not is an on-going debating, ever since it came out, in fact. It’s one that will probably go on forever. Some say it was far too different to be a Zelda sequel, and others say it still had that Zelda charm to it. I’m here to see which is better (although there probably is no contest here), and maybe set the score a little straighter than perhaps it once was. Let’s start with the story:

Zelda I:
The story is you basic “save the princess” scenario.  The title screen tells you the story if you wait long enough. The evil Gannon has stolen the Triforce of Power, and has kidnapped Princess Zelda (some legend….), while Zelda has taken the Triforce of Wisdom and has broken it into eight different pieces. You must collect these eight pieces, find Gannon’s lair, kill Gannon and rescue Princess Zelda. Straight forward enough.

Zelda II:
Here, you are the same Link as the first game, only seven years older. Again, the title screen tells you the story if you the story is you wait long enough. Apparently, Zelda is under a deep sleep, and has been for 1000 years (some legend…..). You need to put six crystals in six well guarded palaces and gain the Triforce of Courage to awaken Zelda.
I prefer the story to Zelda II over Zelda I. In essence, it’s more or less the same, only applied for the situations at hand. The feeling of going on a journey to collect the Triforce of Courage really sets the mood, you know, apart from collecting eight pieces of the Triforce of Wisdom to just gain access to Gannons lair. One point goes to Zelda II. Now what about the graphics.

Zelda I:
The graphics were very charming. Although it was just 8-bits, with a bit of imagination you could tell it was a forest or some desert or the mountain side. There the entrances to dungeons which are hidden throughout the game, but normally they looked like they had some tree grow on them or something. You can also enter caves to see if someone will aid you. I’m a little concerned about how they build their houses in caves and don’t make doors. Aren’t they worried something might come in and kill them? Well, some have doors, but to an extent that you need to blow them down. Some even take money away from you to pay for the damage. How did they get out in the first place, then? But I digress. The dungeon graphics are dark and eerie. Simple, but effective.

Zelda II:
The graphics certainly are interesting. Comparing the overview parts with the first game, it seems like they tried too hard to make the graphics better. They had to separate each different terrain to different coloured blocks. This adds up to an unpleasing effect of having nothing constant. It’s like having blocks of colour just sitting there. There isn’t much of a connection. Yet, the battle scene graphics are pretty good. You get to see the enemies right up and personal, which are expanded from the first game….well, a few of them are. The background was a little simple in these scenes, but they weren’t bad.

The graphics for the over world view had to change in the second game, due to expanding the terrain in more separate blocks to accommodate different enemies and surroundings. This new added game play spoiled the overview world which was pretty much perfect for its time. It couldn’t be helped due to how the game was planned, but compared to the first game, it makes me want to choose Zelda I. One point goes to Zelda I. Now what of the music?

Zelda I:
There were only two different sound tracks in this game, the over world music and the dungeon music. There were other musical sound effects, such as Zelda’s Secret and when you collected an important item such as the Wooden Sword or the Raft, and those were the bench mark of all Zelda games that followed. The over world music had some properties, in the sense it never got old. You will listen to this piece of music a lot when playing this game, and instead of making your hears bleed when hearing it for three hours straight as you wonder aimlessly, you still enjoy the music it provides. I don’t know how they did it, but it’s amazing for them to have created something so timeless back then in 1986. The dungeon theme is also somewhat timeless, although not as much so as the over world theme. Both pieces fit the mood for adventure perfectly as you fight through mummies and burn bushes to get further in your quest.

Zelda II:
This game had quite a bit more music then the first game, and it was pretty good compared to the first game. The over world music certainly was odd. If you wanted to listen to the whole thing, you needed to stand still and listen to it. Due to how the game has been layed out, you very rarely listen to the whole thing as you are playing. It marks the sound of adventure, much like the first game, yet this was lacking something. However, the music for the town gave a calming perspective, and you felt like you were safe. The temple music is a timeless classic, and in some way like the Zelda 1 over world theme for Zelda II. The battle music sets a nice mood to fight some monsters, or to escape them if you don't feel like it.
There is a larger selection of music in Zelda II than the first game. I would choose Zelda II to be the winner of this round, yet Zelda 1 had that ageless charm to it, which in the long run, is what makes the music so much better. There is some awesome music in both games, but Zelda 1 wins this round by a few hairs. One point goes to Zelda 1. But how does the game play work to make the game enjoyable?

Zelda I:
The controls are very fluid, yet tight at the same time. You move around, use one button to use your sword, the other to use a secondary item (such as a bow, or bombs, or the magic rod if you so wished). There's no delay for moving Link, nor is there any sliding when Link stops moving. It's great that the controls are  responsive, as you can turn around and attack in such a quick movement, making death not by the controls being too loose or stiff, but by the players own skill they have failed, much like Contra.

Zelda II:
This, however, is a different story. There is a very slight delay in moving link, and he slides a little when you stop moving him. This can be really annoying when your trying to jump over something, you over shoot it, and you slide into another pit, killing you. Anyway, B makes Link jump, while A uses his sword. You press start to open your menu, but I suppose many can call it a spell book, where you can select your.....spells. Then when you have selected a spell, the button select makes that spell activate. At least the controls are responsive enough to make you turn arounf with-out delay. The over world controls make you move one "square" at a time, which works fluidly enough. You can break boulders when you get the hammer by pressing the A button, and up to enter buildings in towns.
Although the controls for Zelda 2 work quite effectively, they can't compare to the tight and fluid controls of the first Zelda Game. One point goes to Zelda 1. But what about the conveyance? Are things easy enough to work out without wandering aimlessly for hourson end?

Zelda I:
Well, the first thing that I want to complain about are the bombs. You just don't know where to place the damn things. There aren't any cracks in the walls, so you need to take a blind guess. This wouldn't be so bad if you wern't limited to so little bombs at one time. I understand you can upgrade your bomb pouch to hold up to twice as many bombs, but when they are gone, they are gone. I can't work out if it's better to go to the shops to buy some more or just to be lucky with the enemies and kill those. Sometimes, you would need to place a bomb you wouldn't even expect to place in the first place. All the other stuff is a little better. You can pay a woman to tell you how to get past the maze that just repeats, the old man tells you to go inside the waterfall for something good, and another woman tells you that you can puch certain objects. There might have been things to tell me to use the flute at the pond without a fairy, or to burn a certain bush, but I never found those. I had to look up a walkthough to get past these parts of the stage. So the conveyance is fair to say the least in this game.

Zelda II:
This game has quite a few people in the town that are willing to help you out, though they are mainly purple for some strange reason. They tell you useful things such as a certain hammer will smash boulders, or that there is a secret at the end of the town. These sorts of things help people know what to do and where to go. Although one person did say "When in doubt, use fire" near the beginning of the game, and I think that might be for finding the hidden village near the end of the game. The only problem with this is that after experiencing the games difficulty and controls, it's very unlikely you will remember his advice and use it to find this hidden village. In fact, he didn't tell you where to use it. I suppose that was covered, as well as many other things are (apart from find that guy in the forest).
I was able to defeat Zelda II with only one peek inside a walkthough, where as in Zelda 1, I had to use it about three times. One point goes to Zelda II. Now what about the difficulty? Which game offers a better chance of the player enjoying the game while still providing a challenge?

Zelda I:
There's no doubt about it, this game is hard. Once you get used to the controls, and start acting serious to beat this game, it's both enjoyable and provides a challenge. I will never remember the feeling I had when I got the first piece of the Triforce of Wisdom from the first dungeon (did they really have to repeat the dragon boss four times, though?). It wasn't easy, and I think I died about 150 times (maybe less), but it wasn't so hard that it felt impossible, nor too easy that it felt like they were letting me win. It really was a challenging game.

Zelda II:
.....This is insane. This is just insane. This game is probably twice as hard as the first game. The enemies that bombard you combined with the controls makes it fiddly to land the attacks and stay alive at the same time. The sliding aspeck of it makes jumps tricky and a little intimadating to make under pressure. I got used to the controls, and was wiser with everything when I finished the second temple. I grinded for a bit to level up and everything was (almost) fine, but that didn't stop the fact of the difficulty of the last and final temple. What really annoyed me was I had to go back to the temple everytime I died, as the game brings you back to the starting point when you ae defeated by your enemies, but I got used to it. If you want a challenge, then this game will surely provide you with one.
I liked the difficulty in Zelda II, it gave me something to feel proud of when I defeated it. I felt the same with Zelda 1, but it wasn't as full as Zelda II. Despite that, however, Zelda 1 had the overall most enjoyable difficulty to play with. Zelda II was nice, but I felt more like a hero with the difficulty in Zelda 1. One point goes to Zelda 1.

Conclusion:
The Legend of Zelda defeats Zelda II 4:2. The Legend of Zelda is the timeless classic for the NES, yet I can't help but feel Zelda II is underrated a bit. Sure, it was greatly different to the first game, but it was their second game. I think they were allowed to experiment and see what did and didn' work. And besides, I think it still has that Zelda charm that seems to be in every Zelda game. But if I had to either die or decide on which game is better, I would choose the first Zelda game for the NES.

I'll be up front and honest: Zelda 1 never interested me all that much.

Zelda II is my favourite of all the Zelda games I've played.


Zelda 1 never quite felt right to me. Could be that I played Zelda II first, but I never had much love for the first Zelda.

Zelda II, though, I fully admit to having a bad case of nostalgia blur towards. Played as a kid, loved it then, still do today. There's... Almost a flow to Zelda II that I love. How you move, how you jump, how you attack, how TO attack certain enemies.... I love that feeling. Being able to charge in and effectively slaughter most everything just by sheer familiarity with the controls and the attack patterns of the enemies.

No offense, but isn't this really just a recap of your reviews on both Legend of Zelda and Legend of Zelda II? I read through both of them while reading this to compare. Just pretty much brought up a lot of the same points as you did in your reviews, so why make a whole new 2200 word thread that just combines them?

rcarter2 : My guess is jersey's. =P
My other guess would be to try and spark a good discussion between the two games.

Argus Swift : I must be honest, it's a bit of both, with the latter being the main structure of this thread.
rcarter2 : Yeah, it does seem that way, but I suppose it would be hard not to repeat myself in these circumstances. I mean, if you reviewed two games, and wanted to compare them on a different thread, I would imagin you would repeat yourself more than a couple of times.

I imagine you coulda linked us to the original thread instead of pasting a bunch, but ah well.


Can someone who's played a lot of Zelda II tell me if they feel like the game has a certain flow to it? I got the impression when I played it, but I wonder if I'm crazy for feeling that.

Argus Swift : He didn't paste at all actually. Just a lot of the same concepts. But after rereading the whole thing, this is actually different. Even though a lot of the same points for both games reviews are made here, he uses those points in comparison of each other. For some reason, I didn't notice that. Probably because I was in between classes when I read it the first time.

I think I am actually the same as Argus Swift on the comparison of Legend of Zelda and Legend of Zelda II. The first Legend of Zelda was my least favorite of the entire Zelda series, but it was also the last one that I played except for the demo of Skyward Sword. Weird, I know, to play all the other Zelda games (except for the DS Zelda) before the original. I too played the second one first, and that is probably why I do not compare it to other Zelda games.

rcarter2 : Ahh, I'm relieved to see someone else that's played Zelda II earlier on. I get lambasted by fans all the time, saying I like Zelda II more than Link to the Past. (And then I get double the heat when I say I haven't played Ocarina of Time)

Although I prefer the first Zelda over Zelda 2, that doesn't mean that I think it's a bad game. I enjoy playing Zelda II, there are just some things that I don't like as much about it.

I liked that they tried to do something different than the first game I just wish they could have done something better with the overhead map, and the random boss encounters.

Link to the past though, is my favorite Zelda game of all time, followed ever so closely by OOT

Argus Swift : In answer to your question, I did feel, after some practice, that the game did have a certain feel to it. Your not alone, I really enjoyed Zelda II. I guess there really is no bad Zelda game (on a nintendo console, that is)......wait, you have't played Ocarine of Time?!?!?

The only Zelda games I've put more than two hours into are Zelda II and Oracle of Seasons. Zelda I and Link to the Past are the only other ones I've put any time into.
Though I am curious about trying out Windwaker.

Argus Swift : You should. IF you don't mind the constant sailing (which a lot of people hate because it kills the mood, but not for me, I find it very atmospheric at times, especially at night), then it will be a great experience for you.

Anyways, even though I've played Zelda 1 a lot more than Zelda II, I actually prefer Zelda II. Zelda 1 isn't a bad game at all, it's a good game. It was the first in the series, introducing all of the things that would become staples to the main series, and I appreciate it for that. But I found Zelda II REALLY addicting. It's a really hard game, and it would easily turn off fans of the first game due to being almost completely different from the first game, but I enjoyed a lot about this game. The music, the gameplay, the levels, the boss battles, the final battle with DArk Link, it was all just awesome. Good thing I have the Collector's Edition on Gamecube.

I personally enjoy Zelda II myself. It had a more adventurous feel and it was easier for me to find were I was going.

I don't really think you can compare the two games other than they are in the same series. That being said, I've always been a fan of Zelda 1 because it set the template for all the best 2d Zelda games. There was more freedom, exploration, and monsters. Zelda 2 switched it up a bit adding side scrolling gameplay and world view travel.

No offense, but I have definitly enjoyed playing Zelda I, mainly because of how much depth and challenge there is, it's also less scary for one thing, but Zelda II, I can't beat the great palace, but there is a really scary part of the game which will make you scream yourself out of your room, when link loses all of his lives, a really scary red screen with a even scarier image of Gannon's silhouette from the chest up with the screen saying:
GAME OVER RETURN OF GANON with ganons laugh accompaning the screen! That's something that will never make you wanna play Zelda II again.
I live for Zelda I, such a simple but hard fantasy world, but it's easier to play through since it's a top down view game.

Stevie 764 : Well, I wouldn't say it would stop me from playing Zelda II or make me scream out of my room. I like to think of it as Gannon trolling you on your game over. Well, at least you braved against it to the last temple. I can see that that screen scares you as much as spikes do to me....*shivers*

Darkpower508 : I did really good getting to the Great palace, but at least you could continue inside the palace if you game over, even nintendo power says that you can continue, even if you die in the palace, it also said, "Do your best!" sadly, I could only make it there once, but it is harder than trying to disassemble your wii with your bare hands! I never wanna see a troller like Gannon (with a creepy pair of eyes) again, especially on a big screen, the bigger the screen, the scarier it is, even editing ganons laugh with video editing makes it scary. I got all the way there just to get killed by the strongest and almost unavoidable enemies in the game, fire bird, sword birds, and more. Thank goodness I have a chair to hide behind when I lose my last live, right when I get hit (works 100% of the time), hide behind the chair completly, unpause the game, and let it laugh (sometimes I quickly hit start and it sends me right to the continue/save screen). It's that scary. I have beaten the 1st quest of Zelda I, without the skip to 2nd quest cheat (thanks to walkthroughs online). I used 40 continues when I finally beat the 1st quest, died against ganon, only a few hits and *gets hit, spins while having a red color seizure, turns gray, and goes poof!* I couldn't beat the 1st dungeon of the second quest, didn't know what to do other than get the compass and map, if you look up walkthroughs, you can find the dungeon order for the 2nd quest. But still, those are hard games. Want to see a harder game? Try battletoads, can't even beat the 1st level because there's a bee that kills you in 1 hit. I had lots of frustration in video games, especially SMB2, the lost levels.
One time, I was trying to get the flute (only one live left, low health), got hit near it, and right before Gannon was on the screen, I yelled, closed my eyes and said: NOOOOOO! Didn't open my eyes for half a minute, I was so mad, I almost cryed.
Haven't played Zelda II ever since I made it to the palace. Here are some funny jokes of the "Gannon trolling you" screen:
GAMEOVER, RETURN OF MARIO
GAMEOVER, RETURN OF WEEGEE
GAMEOVER, RETURN OF GOOMBA
GAMEOVER, RETURN OF BOWSER
GAMEOVER, RETURN OF DRACULA
GAMEOVER, RETURN OF ALIENS
GAMEOVER, RETURN OF MOTHER BRAIN
GAMEOVER, RETURN OF PICHU
GAMEOVER, RETURN OF Pikachus sad and mad voices in pokemon channel.

But how come this is supposed to be scary, did nintendo wanna scare every body out of their houses and go into their closets and hide or run away as far you can? To answer that, Maybe both. Zelda II is known for a side scroller and for scares. People even complain about having to go back to the begging of the game with the stuff you got. My only hopes of beating Zelda II (which isn't worth the ending) is by using save states, but Thats Not Gonna Happen!
The creepiest game ever is Zelda II, any port.

Stevie 764 : I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.

Yeah, you are right. .

Zelda 1 is a classic game to play on the NES, so is Zelda 2. I find Zelda 1 much more original. Zelda 2 has a completely different story than the first one. I like the first one better.