it’s a real shame, the swordplay in II was so much better than the awkward top down conbat of I. to me, II is much more of a sequel and ALttP was a step backwards, and then OoT onward was a sidestep towards the one-at-a-time wait-for-an-opening thing (which ironically involved a lot of sidestepping). i love all four games but i wish i loved the other three because of and not in spite of the combat
thankfully Hadrosaurus Games are making a Zelda II II
https://mastodon.gamedev.place/@HadroSoft/116036622065887693
Ocarina of Time actually has a rich combat move set. You can horizontal slash, vertical slash, thrust, jump slash, spin slash, jump to the side and backflip. Essentially none of that is ever called for.
Very minor enemies are always vulnerable and you can hurt them however whenever. Some moderate enemies are only weak to certain other weapons. Major enemies, to a fault, are completely damage proof until they make an opening by attacking, and then you can damage them however. Wait for the Wolfos, Lizalfos, Dinalfos, Stalfos, Iron Knuckle, at least a couple others, to attack, they’ll have some cooldown animation during which you can attack them. Bosses, from Ghoma to Ganon, require fending off their attacks, stunning with a special weapon, and then slashing with the sword.
In the words of Egoraptor, “There’s so much. Goddamn waiting. In Ocarina.”
They had ideas they couldn’t realize for another decade and a half in 1998. They only realized an actual organic combat system in Breath of the Wild.
Zelda II, the problem with Adventure of Link is it’s unfair. They place enemies in such a way that you’ll go to make a jump, you’ll get hit by an enemy you couldn’t see, and fall down a death pit while stun-locked. You don’t really beat it by getting good at it, you beat it by memorizing all the bullshit.
Idk if I’d call Link to the Past a step backwards outright just because it returned to a formula that more fans, at the time, preferred. It also pushed a lot of new things and introduced a lot of series staples. But I get why, when looking solely at the formula it seems like regressing. It just turns out that the formula had the perfect ratios of everything the second time around.
There’s a similar pattern in (not Japanese) Mario and Fire Emblem. Make a game, then the sequel changes things up, then the threequel returns to the original formula and refines it a bunch.
I don’t see it as a failure at all. I really like the action side scrolling gameplay and early RPG elements. It’s a nice departure from the style of the first game and link to the past. Especially compared to other games on the NES, it holds up. My only gripe with it is that it took me forever to find the hidden village because there wasn’t really any good hints. Definitely seemed designed to sell Nintendo power. LoZ was the same way though
I get it. Its weird.
Now if it were remade using breath of the wild’s engine it could be quite something.
I don’t exactly remember the mechanics, but wasn’t there some heart or potion you could get to extend your hearts, but that consumable didn’t replenish? I remember using one early in the game and then realizing I should have saved it for one of the final dungeons. I don’t think I actually ever beat Zelda II and rage quit after realizing it was too difficult for 12 year old me.
