Agreed, I wrote such a long thing about it but this was all I was trying to say.

I've only played the first two games, and I like Zelda 2 more, especially since I used to be so scared of the Game Over screen.

Vinny, watching you play this game, is how I discovered you and why I subscribe to you.

*its

I absolutely love this game. Kids had trouble with it, but it was still easier than Zelda 1 second quest. When you mentioned redoing the first game with harder dungeons, I wondered if you forgot about second quest.

It also gave us the hammer.

And the dungeon theme

All that stuff is found in the manual. Guess we don’t have to play the game then.

linkAKAdude Are you stupid?

Also Smash Link's downward aerial attack

Totally. Bouncing on the heads of your enemies is delightfully unsportsmanlike and satisfies your inner sadist like nothing else.

Literally is what made the game playable

It does pretty good in real life, too.

Can't believe they copied the pogo from Hollow Knight smh...

@@vajoynus not as good as the jumping crouch stab

Man, I'd buy that the first day. Heck, combining the first two games done right would help younger players understand what an epic adventure the first video game Link went through.

I'd buy a switch just for that.

@@onegreengoat9779 So true.

@@onegreengoat9779 I heavily disagree. Remakes can be very important for fixing the flaws of older games and giving them a fresh presentation for a new audience to enjoy. I don't think FFVII particularly needed one, but Zelda 2 could absolutely use it. It has so many little flaws that could be easily fixed with a remake. Plenty of original and creative games still get put out, I don't see the harm in letting a new generation play a better version of an old classic.

@@shiggerator6816 I couldn't have said it better myself.

Zelda 1 took me 3 or 4 years to complete. Zelda 2 took me about 1 year.

I suppose to a younger audience and the current youth, this is just not a great game. It does not give instant gratification. You have to work hard on getting through it. That's what made it fun.

@@AB-80X that doesn't excuse bad design that's more of a dismal.

@@AB-80X I don't want instant gratification, I want a game that doesn't needlessly pad itself with bullshit mechanics to give an illusion of depth. It was bad game design in the early 90s and it still is today.

@@tanyaharmon6739 most his complaints are about difficulty. The only thing I slightly agree with is the mirror. Everything else is just exploration. Also there were more hints then npcs. Location of items and expectations set in the start of the games were hint in them selfs that could be used through the entire game.

I need to add this: I definitely can level the same criticisms against this game on an intellectual level. Emotionally, the value for me is, yes, nostalgic, but it also goes beyond that. The game was empowering for me. It affirmed to me that my abilities as a legally blind boy were mainly limited by my physical disability and how I let the prejudices of others influence how I thought of what that said about my mind. See? I thought. I can too do the same things lots of other kids can do if I have the elements with which to succeed. Finishing Zelda II was not just proving I too could beat a Nintendo game. It proved that I could beat one of the most difficult and trying video games of that time. Zelda II is special to many people despite its distinct flaws. To some it's especially special in ways likely no one predicted.

Out of all of games we played as a family my oldest brother was the only one to ever beat Zelda 2. That's between me (not even 10 years old), 2 older brothers, my mother and my aunt. I could get pretty far sure. After watching my brother play it so much I remembered all the routes and obscure things you needed to do. He also had a strategy for each mob. One that worked wonders on nearly everything was a falling side stab and holding crouch throughout all of it. This leads into a double hit and if the don't move their shield one hit will land. Around 12 years old Dad, Mom, my little sis and I moved 3000 miles away from everyone else in the family. I wasn't very happy. Still, I had all these games my brothers and the rest of the family could beat! It was time to ascend! One summer break with no friends I decided to sit down and beat all these NES games that everyone else has beat. Both Zelda's, Mario 3, Battle Toads, and 1-3 Double Dragon. I was probably 13 at the time. Link turned out to be my last one because of the strategies I ended up bringing to it. Like you said Liam, it's close or similar to an arcade game. I realized that with the life system. My strategy was to stack every life I could prior to going to the final dungeon. I learned this after beating all the other games. This means after you complete the boss in every dungeon you don't grab the free level up at the end. You backtrack and leave the dungeon out the front door and proceed to the next task. Leave all of the level ups in the overworld alone. This way if you ever die you still have all the extra lives for later. Once you hit max level through combat and have finished every dungeon it's time to go back through all of them. Completing them at this point gives you an extra life. Along with the overworld ones you have yet to grab you should get somewhere between 20 and 40 lives I think. It's been a long time. I think it was 45 actually now that I'm thinking about it. I probably lost 10 or 15 lives in death mountain. The final castle was insane to map in my head. All I remember from watching my brother is he fell through a bunch of screens to find the lightning boss. I had 3 lives when I found him. Finished him after losing a life. Now, for Shadow Link. First thing I did, since I was nearly dead from the previous boss, was rush him in a straight up fight to see how badass he really was. It was like a karate grand master beating my ass. So now with 1 life and never wanting to play again but also not wanting to fail in mind I had to think of everything I could do. I ended up doing pretty good damage to him this time around but hr was chunking life away faster than I was. I ended up getting stuck in the corner and stabbing while crouched. I swear I never knew about this cheese. My brother never did it. I ended up beating Shadow Link with half a bar of health and 0 lives left. Even if I cheesed it I still felt so accomplished for overcoming something my brother had and no one else could in the family. All in all I'd only be able to recommend this game to someone who has something to prove. Not to the rest of the world but to yourself. I read about the person in your comments that is blind today but beat that game when he was going blind as a child. You gave me motivation to share this. You are the true hero of Hyrule. Thank you @Tony

You all are great I beat this game as a kid an the feeling of overcoming the challenges of this game is its own reward. This seems like it has a soulsbourne feel to the gameplay. Greatest game I've had the privilege to play

@@tonytypesalot You're totally blind? How do you write these comments? Do you have someone help you? This would take me at least 30 minutes to an hour to type out something with this level of detail and expressiveness with all of the typos and reformulation of thoughts. It would take so long to try and read this out to a computer and have to listen back to it and correct it, I'd hope at least you have a human to help with that. If you have no way of seeing and no one to tell you, this video's creator saw and liked your comment by the way.

Slain back from hell is pretty close as well as khimera (free on steam)

Some of Link's moveset in Smash comes directly from Zelda 2, as well. Particularly his down ariels.

That's something I truly admire about the Smash Bros series. You can tell that Sakurai truly cares about the history of a given game or series, and he tries to bring as much as he can to even just their movesets. Aside from the original 12, nearly every character's moveset is nearly entirely built off of existing moves and attacks from their respective games. I love that.

@Robert Hunter If you were as smart and sophisticated as you pretend to be, you wouldn't feel it necessary to be this pithy and condescending.

Funny how ironic this comment is.

i beat this in the summer of 1989 when i was 10 years old. its not that difficult

@@jimslav6973 stfu Jim

@@wozthescott2804 *"stfu Jim"* Derp.

Oh hi!

Yes, thank you! It was kinda annoying basically hearing him say that he can't exploit the game properly.

@@janek8195 I do understand that it's a combat system that could have been better communicated. Many people dont really know notice quirks or behaviors in A.I., so when the A.I. starts behaving in an unpredictable manner, people will often misinterpret that as inconsistent. Also, playing devil's advocate, I'd go as far as to say it is fair for people to see the poke and defend mechanics as "poke and wait" mechanics and still see it as a flaw. Similar to Egorapter's argument towards the constant blocking mechanics in OOT. I'd argue however Zelda 2's poke and wait mechanics beats OOT forcing you to wait for enemies to drop shield, but I digress. It's absolutely fair for people to say that if players are forced to used an exploit to otherwise avoid the slower paced combat this game has intended could indicate a gameplay element that's still quite niche and even though it's very functional and intuitive for its day, that doesnt mean it's not without flaws.

@@SoulsOfWisdom Z2's mechanics are better than oot because "waiting" actually takes skill - you need to defend high and low rather than just hold the block button. Also, if you're skilled enough at the game you can defend AND attack through the agro phase (I don't think Link drops his guard while attacking like Z1, or if he does it's very briefly). You can brute-force through defensive enemies in oot too, but it's harder to get around them, the knockback you get from hitting their shield is annoying and it slows the fight down. I actually think, for how simple it is, Z2's fight mechanic is amazing. Kinda like boxing, but instead of defending/looking for openings left/right it's high/low.

No enemy exploitation? You would certainly hate Dark Souls then.

Yes. I'm pretty sure that having Nintendo power helped exponentially.

I was 8 in 1988 as well and was able to play and finish this. I wouldn't say I had no trouble. It was difficult. Definitely needed to get tips from Nintendo Power and from friends. The difficulty spike in Death Mountain was kind of sudden.

truf Dragon Warrior was my jam too... I think I stayed home from school for a week when that came out. 😂

I remember saving up $28 to but this at a flea market. I had rented it and borrowed my uncle's copy prior to that.

you know its funny back in the day i loved these games. the only game i ever had to call nintendo with permission from my parents was demon sword last boss. nothing in that shit made sense. ff and dq great games but demon sword wtf at the end

"The only games worth $60 back then." Castlevania? Ninja Gaiden? Metroid?

I know this is pretty limited, but once u get enough xp u can use that for extra lives, I think u need to get L8 for everything first, and then I think it's like 9000 xp for an extra life. I grinded in the lizalfos infested forests and even the cemetery with the blue lizalfos in order to have 10 lives before I faced the Thunderbird and Shadow Link. Would be nice to have another way, accessible earlier in the game tho.

I'm convinced when they made dark souls they had this exact dilemma and that's why you drop your souls on death

The life dolls are key to my last dungeon Strat. Save them all before you go so you have more lives and it makes the final level much easier

yeah, the emphasis on "starting all over" was way too much - yes, you lost any experience you had gained *since you last leveled* which didn't take long to recoup on your way back to where you died. This isn't like Super Mario 1 where you start over at the beginning as though it's your first time. Your abilities and level ups remain. Only thing lost is any new experience points that hadn't been converted to a level yet. And, there are also tons of shortcuts once you progress that make it fairly trivial to get back to where you were after a game over. And if you stay on the dirt roads, you won't encounter random spawns, making it quick & easy to get back on track. I feel like this review makes a much bigger deal out of game overs than it ever really was. I also noticed a lot of spots where there were hidden magic potions which would have helped Liam maintain his magic bar a lot easier. They're hidden, but they're in very predictable spots. Screw the swap though - that area was super hard to even get through without a game over - before you could even get to the dungeon in the middle of the swamp. I think I need to replay Zelda II this weekend!

Yup, it's not THAT unfair. "I couldn't recommend Z2 to any Zelda fan", this guy. Though I'm not saying his opinion is "wrong", it's an opinion, after all. Great video, lots of effort and work!

Yeah I feel like Liam had some real Talk-To-NPCs-itis when playing through this game.

You are also told there's a secret on the edge of the town in New Kasuto, the same town you get the spell spell. Put 2 and 2 together, it's not hard.

I feel like when people complain about old NES games being cryptic, this is the case. There are clues, and they failed to find or even look for them. Also they are clues. So what you have to go to the edge of town and jump around stab some stuff, then think a little and go what can i try now ?? Then start trying casting spells. So you waste some magic, you are in a town. You can get your magic refilled. If they just told you what to do, it wouldnt be a clue and people would complain its too easy.

@Robert Hunter Except AVGN didn't say Zelda 2 sucked.

@Robert Hunter He basically said he liked it, but it had it's flaws and is hsrd. Pretty sure he started the review saying people were asking for him to do the game and he was surprised as he thought it was good.

Yeah Mega Man, is just much harder Zelda 2, is a good start in difficulty it’s just death mountain really.

Leave? Not unreasonable for a player to walk into an empty house and exit, especially when the game itself is a little odd re:world design.

@@didgeridont4918 there are no truly empty houses in the game

Except in old kasuto

This. Always search empty houses, unless you’re playing Breath of Fire.

Some people get it, others just don't. I suppose that's the result of wanting it served on a platter.

This was a big reason why Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest is so bad (the NPCs gave you cryptic clues and a lot of the wordplay made no sense when first translated literally and secondly squished to fit within the dialogue box character limit), wouldn't be surprised if it affected Zelda 2 as well.

both zelda1 and 2 suffer from some pretty bad translation,yes. I have no idea how much it impacted the overall experience tho, it might not have done much.

@@lpfan4491 legendsoflocalization.com/the-legend-of-zelda/ At least for Zelda 1, a lot of hints were, not only mistranslated, but also just changed entirely.

Also the cave to the west is not impossible in the darkness, it just requires paying close attention for bats

@@hdofu yeah lol as he was saying that I was like "unless ur a speedrunner". Those guys are insane😆 I've seen them go through the entire game without the 🕯️

Everything you brought as bogus mechanics or asspulls are plainly told to you by villagers, all of them. They tell you what area to comb and it's not that big and next to a town when hunting bagu. It's all there for you to piece together, no guides needed

@Robert Hunter kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jZlhq8WaqJOmcmw.html

You're supposed to explore every part of Hyrule when playing a Zelda game. That's part of the gameplay. Why wouldn't you want to do that anyway?

He doesn't like any NES Zelda game. And unlike AVGN seems really confused that yes, every serious gamer with hundreds of Nintendo games subscribed to Nintendo Power.

@@deViant14 the only thing I got hung up on in this game was finding Kasuto, but that's because I didn't read the manual to know the hammer can chop trees. I think the game is totally solvable as a self contained game without Nintendo power :)

Didn't expect to see you here

@Tom Ffrench Metroid came out a year before Zelda 2 so I think that one is more the pioneer of the metroidvanias

Dr. Cool Indeed, Zelda 1’s combat gets too much credit, what with it being one of the first type of its genre for Western audiences. And yet the Ys series had more dynamic multi-directional combat years prior.

Zelda 3 was originally envisioned as a party RPG game, I believe.

@@osurpless Hardly. YS used the "slam into the enemy to deal damage system". Zelda's combat was based on spacing. Also, YS doesn't precede Zelda, it came out in June of 1987 while Zelda came out in February of 1986

@@roskiart8750 You don’t just slam into enemies, it’s based on how you approach from different angles. Yea, I learned the dates are wrong for the direct comparison, but Xanadu and Romancia (predecessors from Falcom) are earlier and have features like that.

@@osurpless Like knockback? No, they don't. This simple addition changes everything. It made the combat fundamentaly arcade like for Zelda, which is more intuitive than what you see on Xanadu or even YS(where you slam into enemies to fight. Yes, the angle changes the damage outputs but specially in Xanadu you're bound to take unavoidable damage from attacking the enemy. The sword button and knockback ensures you don't get any damage and the enemy the full brunt of it if you time your movements right. It strips away the focus on stats that way) Romancia is 1986 too btw. I think you get the picture wrong. Zelda succeeded where Nihon Falcom can't even hope to reach because it's light on RPG mechanics as the series isn't really an RPG. You can argue (with plenty of merit) that this means the mechanics are simpler, but in practice they're just that much more intuitive. You push the button, sword goes. It's a very fundamental difference.

This comment right here. I fully admit this game is only fun because I know where to go and what to do - and most importantly - HOW to do it. Love/hate is defined by Zelda 2 for me.

Exactly like that, couldn’t have said it better. My favourite game of all time!

I have to know ARE BITS THE LITTLE RED BASTARDS? I played Zelda 2 for the first time and it took me so long to figure out what they did and when I did I went on a murder spree

@@Error403HRD 😂yeah they're the jellies from zelda 2. The blue one's called bot.

@@michael--a--sometimes just had to make sure lol, thanks

BotW to me was a remake of 1 in many ways.

​@Robert Hunter OK, before I get started, you seem to be having a conversation with someone else. In your post, you repeatedly complain about people liking BotW, a game I didn't even bring up. And since I've never played it, I am certainly not one of these people you seem to be complaining about for liking BotW. I don't hate it, and I don't love it, because I don't know it. So all that is just off-topic. As for the stuff that's at least vaguely on-topic: > "This grand "fulfillment" you seem to believe we felt? That wasn't a thing, nor did it happen." It was a thing for me, so at least one person felt it. And it wouldn't take a long search on KZfaq to see that others agree that LttP felt like a better, more coherent Zelda 1 for the most part. Indeed, though I haven't seen it, I rather suspect the next video in this series argues for exactly this. > "Those who hated Zelda yet still played games on the NES, SNES, whatever? They didn't buy Zelda 3. That simple." Who said anything about "hating Zelda?" Things aren't divided into some binary where you either love something or you hate it. It is very much possible to enjoy a flawed experience, even while recognizing those flaws. It is also possible to recognize the potential in an idea even if the execution didn't quite achieve what it clearly set out to achieve. The latter was my feeling on Zelda 1. It's a game about exploration that sometimes *punishes exploration* (I quit playing the game when it stole 100 hard-earned rupees from me for the crime of exploring the game world). It had boring dungeons whose primary challenge was to just wander around, find keys, and kill a bunch of random monsters. But it had an interesting and unique core gameplay loop, which was built upon and refined in future installments. > "Fewer dungeons than previous games. In the case of the console version Zeldas, rarely does a new Zelda emerge that doesn't have fewer dungeons than the previous Zelda game." Quality is more important than quantity. Link's Awakening may have only had 8 dungeons, but they were all superior to any of the 13 in LttP. The Great Bay Temple in MM by itself is easily worth any 5 key-hunt dungeons from LttP. That's not to say that LttP's dungeon design is bad or something. But dungeon design in Zelda games have gotten much more varied, interesting, and imaginative over the years, which leaves LttP dungeons seeming to be... kind of boring. They work, but there's nothing special about them. Also, dungeons aren't everything. Majora's Mask had tons of mini-dungeons and quests to complete along the way to the actual dungeon. Every dungeon in Link's Awakening required you to complete an Overworld sidequest before it became available. So it's not like later Zelda games are lacking in content or something. If anything, they have a greater variety of stuff to do. It's not just "Overworld containing Dungeons" anymore. > "So why does the overworld need fixing? It's as they intended. We gamers of that era were able to play it just fine." We gamers of that era were willing to tolerate a lot of things that we shouldn't have. That's because we were young, as was the craft of gaming. We evolved, and the craft of gaming evolved. That allows us to look back at something and say, "I really liked that back in the day, but I can see it was actually kinda bad in some respects". As to your particular question, the Overworld of Zelda 2 is... *boring.* It's mostly empty, repetitive tiles. It is nothing more than the empty space between the interesting parts of the game. I found the game tons more enjoyable when I got a walkthrough map that allowed me to just know where everything was without having to trudge though the Overworld. Compare this to LttP for example, where the Overworld is a good chunk of the *meat* of the game. It's not just terrain that you pass through. Indeed, for most Zelda games, the Overworld is a good chunk of the meat of the experience. In Zelda 2, it's just the plate that the meat is served on. > "What's wrong with random battles, that you can actually avoid rather than forced (like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest)?" I didn't say that there was anything wrong with them. But there's nothing especially *right* with them in this game either. The core game experience of a Zelda game is exploration. The random battle mechanic doesn't emphasize exploration. So it's a mechanic that's not doing something productive towards the end goal of the overall game. > "so the only "aping" done here was something that played differently but still looked and sounded like Zelda. It looked like a Zelda game when I played it then and still does now." ... yes, that's what "aping Zelda" means. It has stuff that looks like Zelda, but that stuff doesn't make the game better at being what it's trying to be. My point is that Zelda 2 has an Overworld because it's a sequel to Zelda 1 and Zelda 1 had an Overworld. It's not there because it makes the rest of the game better at being what it's trying to be. It's there simply because it is "supposed" to be there because it's a Zelda game. As for "looked and sounded like Zelda," consider this. Imagine a world where LttP was not a Zelda game. It's gameplay would be exactly the same, just with different sprites, character names, and a few storyline elements. Let's call this "Quest of Thelda". Upon playing such a thing, the consensus opinion would likely be that "Quest of Thelda" has gameplay that is clearly heavily inspired by Zelda 1. Indeed, odds are good that people would say that any future Zelda sequels should take guidance provided by Thelda and not follow the path laid down by Zelda 2. Now, imagine a world where Zelda 2 was not a Zelda game. Again, the gameplay is identical, it would just have different sprites, storyline elements, etc. Would any player of the game have said that the game had any relation to Zelda 1? Odds are good that they would not. Zelda 2 is only Zelda-like on its surface. It doesn't really matter if they set out to make a Zelda 1 sequel that was wholly dissimilar from Zelda 1. Because making a sequel that's completely unlike the original game is a bad idea from the start. > "So to increase combat depth is going to turn into either a shooter or Castlevania of some form? Really? Only those 2 possibilities? The combat element is fine the way it is. It works, it's fair and it didn't become either of those things." And it's not at all deep either. Remember: I was speaking in terms of increasing the depth of the game's combat. Which is needed, because however "fine" you find it, it's just not very deep. The main combat encounters test the player in exactly one dimension: attacking/blocking in one of two directions. Some enemies telegraph their attacks more or less than others, while others have unblockable attacks, and some enemies are too random to be predictable. But that's it. While the combat was interesting for a while, it eventually just became boring. Once you know how to defeat Ironknuckles, the combat becomes something to slog through. > "could write a book on how games have, for the most part, become worse. Dark Souls excluded." It's fine for you to like a game that is unfair to the player by design. But please don't act like this is the one true way for all games to work. As far as I'm concerned, videogaming has never been better than it is today. Instead of serving the needs of one specific kind of player, we have innumerable games across a wide spectrum of experiences. Not every game is directed towards every player, and that's a wonderful place for videogaming to be in.

That's what everyone does

@OSC Worldview Glad to hear someone was able to beat Shadow Link without cheesing. I tried so many times, but I was also pretty young. I’ll try it the next time I play.

Who said this game didn’t exist? Lol I was probably playing it before they existed xd

I'm not sure what you are getting at with the Sekiro part, but Sekiro isn't a particularly great game. People keep saying that you shouldn't compare it to Dark Souls, because reasons (there never is a real reason for it, seriously, most of the time it's just a order not to). However, anyone who has played Dark Souls (especially DS3) will immediately feel like they are playing a underwhelming version of a game they have already played. They used the same engine and the same mechanics (respawning enemies, bonfires, Boss Fog, How items work, the entire gameplay framework, etc..), only that they removed many of the great features of Dark Souls (RPG elements, Multiplayer, actual replay-ability, etc..).

"it's about finidng rhythm in enemies movement to make a hit" and "finding ways to cheese the enemies that bother you the most" was worded almost the same as in a Sekiro review published about the same time, so it was amusing.

I didn't know to which comment I should reply until I saw yours, emperorhiram. I totally agree with you. My first 3 games on the Nintendo was Mario, Zelda 1, Zelda 2 and super pitfall. The last one is a crappy game, but full of "jump into this enemy on purpose" moments. It's just the way we played back then. Hours and hours doing everything possible. It was worse for me and my friends because we didn't speak English. So even the hints were lost to us. Still lots of fun. The review was pretty fair, though. The game could be better.

Not trying to be an asshole, but if you work on punctuation it will serve you well in life.

But it is. It's so wildly different and strange compared to the rest of the series. You know "black sheep" doesn't imply it's bad or even unpopular?

@Robert Hunter But it doesn't. Link's Awakening, the Oracle games, Minish Cap, Four Swords, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks and Link Between Worlds all beg to differ.

@Robert Hunter Actually, Link Between Worlds came out 2013, and don't try to tell me it doesn't count just because the graphics are 3D. Either way, my point is that there's no other Zelda game that tries to be similar to 2, which is true. Regardless of when the last one came out, there are plenty of top-down games, and the 3D games are all quite similar.

There's a big difference between needing more time to beat a game and needing outside help.

Shiggerator There’s definitely things in this game that should be less cryptic but I agree that there’s something special about a game that challenges you in ways no other game does. Specially back then where the internet didn’t exist.

definitely this.Heck my mom used to play the nes back then and made an extended map for the first zelda marking caves and such.Which we of course found by extensively bombing every wall and burning every bush :P

earthbound zero was like this too. that game does NOT hold your hand.

@@locke103 We did have game manuals though. And some times included maps with tips. But not all could aford the magazins.

@@Kraviken very few games offered maps or logical strategies. and some supplemental reading material left a lot to be desired. i... think both zelda games at launch came with maps, but i was never lucky with that. i cant remember the exact title of one book, it covered the first three mega man games. but, at a young age, it instilled into me the wrong boss order for MM3. and stupidly, i still follow it nearly thirty years later. :P

@Tom Ffrench the very definition of "something holding up" means you were there to experience it first hand.

@@Labyrinth1010 I was there first hand and Zelda 2 is an overrated false gem of a game. There's more wrong than right; doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

But what did castlevania bring to metroidvania that wasn't allready in the first Metroid?

One of the first thing AVGN says about Zelda II is ... "This is a bad game?"

also i think the combat system is the best in any zelda game.

Same here. Nowadays it's just about instant gratification. If the game's too hard, people just quit. I don't know how long it took me the first time, but I ended up being able to run this game in less than two hours. I think it took me over siz months to beat it the first time. Lots of value in this game.

Lies lol stfu

​@@wozthescott2804 Well, you clearly struggled LOL!!! How long did it take for you to find New Kasuto? Lolol.

Having recently played both, I will only say, entirety of Zelda 1 I completed by cheesing everything. Get max hearts and potions, mash buttons till everything is dead, rinse and repeat.