Sequels during the 8-bit era were an interesting thing really. Looking back it almost seems like developers either didn't know the big risks they were taking by making incredibly different sequels, or they didn't know how to make sequels. Role playing games were super popular in Japan in the mid 80's and rpg elements started to appear in lots of games. This is true of the sequel to the popular Konami title Castlevania, titled Simon's Quest which was released in 1987 on the Famicom Disc System. One year later the game hit North America and it has since found it's place as an interesting addition to the Castlevania series.
I never watch the Video Game Awards on Spike. This year was no exception. I don't think that I'm the only one that thinks the show is a strange combination of awkward celebrity appearances and the yearly collective of Dude Bro shooter-sport games. This year was no different for the most part, but there were a few notable exceptions to the award show that made it stand out from past years.
Announcement of Dark Souls II:
Dark Souls was a game that divided players on its incredible difficulty and the ambiguous way in which the player proceeds through the story. I'm excited for the sequel, but that means that I actually have to finish the first game. From Software announced that Dark Souls II will be out on Xbox, PS3, and PC.
When Nintendo made this the sequel to the smash hit The Legend of Zelda, it was as if they didn't know what they were doing. What sequels did they make up until that point? Mario 2? Not that Mario 2. It was just like the first. Donkey Kong Jr? Completely different from the first. Zelda 2 was also completely different from the formula that made the original game a success: Different development team than the first. Different ideas. Shigeru Miyamoto explains that development was on schedule. Nintendo was better at making games by then (1987), and even if development was streamlined, why did they make a game so drastically different? I wasn't able to really come to any solid conclusions.
Platforming rpgs were just big around that time and that may have just been the reason. Metroid, Castlevania, and other games being pushed out in Japan combined RPG elements and platforming to become the next huge thing in video games. That's what happened, and Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link is the result.
Look at the way Castlevania 2 turned out, and you'll swear you were playing Zelda 2.
There are some problems with Zelda series. I don't absolutely love it, but at the same time I enjoy the level of difficulty found in this particular game. Difficulty is something that has been eliminated entirely from the Zelda series, a game that started holding your hand from Ocarina of Time afterward. Something happened when developers began to believe that in order to enjoy Zelda games, you had to have lots of dialog, or in game explanations of items. We've been playing these games for 25 years. We don't need it*.
I agree with almost everything described in those articles.
Zelda was great because you just played the game. There was no explanation. Zelda 2 deviates from this formula by introducing dialog and messages from villagers (Some of which was poorly translated from Japanese). Also gone are the bag of tricks and items which has been been replaced with a list of spells to get Link past several obstacles in the game. That was probably a good thing because of the platforming elements introduced to the game.
Japanese advertisement
Here's the Japanese commercial which features the older man and young girl duo found in other Famicom Disk System commercials. They usually yell at each other. This one seems pretty cool.
And here's the US commercial. Notice that Mattel was distributing Nintendo games in Canada and other parts of the English speaking world.
So... It seems like I have a lot of complaints about Zelda 2, but I don't. I actually like the game. I like that the differences set it apart from every game in the series. If they were to make another Zelda game like Zelda 2, I would probably buy it immediately. Something so different would be good for the series... Now. Even the artistic approach with Windwaker and Phantom Hourglass was something I enjoyed, which was something that divided fans.
I've played Zelda 2 over and over... and for whatever reason, I just can't finish the game. I get to the second to last temple and just burn out from just the difficulty. Survivability is what made the first two games amazing... not endless, repetative puzzles.
The concept art for Zelda 2 was done by Katsuya Terada. His work seems to have influence the way link is portrayed in later games. He did some art for Zelda 3 and lots of art for Links Awakening as well... Though I think most of it was from Nintendo Power. Look at the sword and shield design. Was that ever implemented before Zelda 2's release? It seems like afterwards, that sheild design and sword style shows up in most of the Zelda releases. I wonder if Terada gets credit for that, though it seems like most of his work is part of the forgotten early issues of Nintendo Power- though I believe that his work is found extensively in other issues as well, and a special edition Dragon Warrior Strategy Guide with an amazing cover.
Art
Famicom Disk System Spine Card
FDS cover
North American box with cartridge window
With the release of the Hyrule Historia Zelda encyclopedia book thing, we find that Zelda 2 is the last game in the chronology of the failure timeline, if Link doesn't defeat Ganon in Ocarina of Time. I'm not sure how people feel about it, but I was surprised when I saw there were three concurrent timeline possibilities. Zelda 2 doesn't play like its predecessor, but it is one of the most direct sequels of any Zelda game, (Ocarina and Majora included).
I wonder when the timeline thing went into effect? After Ocarina of Time? Because that game seems to be the deciding point for the next three possible time lines. If it was known early on, did it have an influence on the design of each of the Zelda games? I doubt it. The Hyrule Historia timelines were created by the current director Eiji Aonuma, but a different, albeit brief, timeline exists from a 1998 inteview with Zelda creator Miyamoto. The Miyamoto timeline is disputed because of the very nature of the man, and his disinterest in the story, rather than the game play. Almost every Zelda game is its own little thing.
Development
Development for Zelda 2 was the responsibility of a different team than the first game. It was later seen as a "failure" by Miyamoto because it didn't capture the overall feel of the first game and later Zeldas. That retrospective opinion makes me wonder about some other Nintendo games... It was more of a side story than an actual sequel to the first game. Perhaps this was one of the first games used to capitalize on sucessfule existing franchise, and bolster sales of the Famicom Disk System. Either way, it was popular in Japan, and when it was finally released in North America, it was snapped up by everyone who now had a Nintendo.
The FDS version and the NES version have some differences in level color pallets, and notably the sound design. Once again the Famicom Disk version utilized that extra sound chip that added some sound effects and added layers of music to the game which was not possible to replicate on the NES. Some sprite changes and a revamp of the leveling system were made for the US release as well.
I wish I could find actual Japanese literature from the time this game was released. With all the Zelda stuff on the net, it becomes difficult to dig up the actual stuff from the bottom. I'm sure someone must have scans of Famitsu magazine somewhere.
Results
I remember being so lost when I played the game. You have to avoid badguys on the overworld screen, and then talk to everyone in town. Sooner or later you discover that by going through a dark tunnel, it will lead to the desert palace.
The palaces are mazes. They all look the same to me. They involve long horizontal passages and vertical elevators... much like Metroid. Some of the Palaces are really big, and the distance required to reach the end boss is often hilarious, because you will die over and over along the way. Flying enemies that knock you into pits are the main frustration throughout the game. Kind of a cheap shot at the player, much like in Castlevania.
Playing the game brought me back to the my initial experience with it. The differences aside, I liked this game growing up. Getting past the first two or three levels is challenging due to the distance you have to travel and the inevitable encounters you face. Once you get a few items like the candle and hammer, things start to open up around the world. It seems from the start that there are lots of locked away places to explore and you require the necessary item or spell to get past most of these obstacles throughout the game. Back tracking is key.
Then there's the leveling system. Link doesn't seem like much of a hero until you gain a few levels and find some heart containers. After getting the fireball spell, I just sat in one place and killed monsters over and over until I maxed out my levels. Handy if there are still two or three palaces remaining. So yeah, the game is straightforward: level up, collect items and spells, place the crystals in all the palaces, beat the bosses and win the game.
And yet...
I couldn't beat this game. I found myself dreading the long walk to the final palace, and dying over and over. The difficulty required to get the the last level sucked the fun out of it for me.. and that's where I've left off this game time and time again. Last level.. Burnt out of Zelda platforming and falling to my death over and over. I'll revisit this game at a later time.
Failure!
Statistics:
Deaths: 57 Saves: 8 Continues: 19 Temples: 6 P bags: 26 Boss Deaths: 7 Faeries: 10 1 Ups: 3
Castlevania was made by Konami and released in Japan in 1986 on the Famicom Disk System and in 1987 in North America for the NES. It was the first game in what would become one of the biggest franchises in video gaming history. Spanning over thirty different titles, the series has the player hunt down vampires, demons, and other creepy things in this horror-type platformer. The story introduces the protagonist Simon Belmont, one of many in a long line of Vampire hunters. The game itself takes place in 1691 in some unmentionable region of Eastern Europe and Simon Belmont is the man in charge of vanquishing Dracula once again. Turns out that every 100 years or so Dracula is resurrected and one of the Belmont clan must take up the whip and take care of the situation. The subsequent games in the series all revolve around the eternal struggle between these two sides that seem destined to fight each other throughout time itself. It makes for interesting novelizations, comics, and movie attempts.
The Art
North America Japan (cartridge reissue)
Famicom Disk System
Like album covers, box art is awesome. The box art for the Japanese disk and cartridge versions differ to the North American box art. Konami used a standard gray box for all of their titles released in North America. I'm not sure who painted that awesome scene of Dracula's face, Simon Belmont, and the castle. It almost has that Frank Frazetta, old fantasy/sci-fi cover feel to it. Box art for older era video games always had a way of misrepresenting the game, or making it better. I'm not sure which. At least in Castlevania's case, they used the same artwork, though I think the Japanese ones look better (which is often the case). The differences in box art is both startling and interesting as most games were packaged differently between Japan, the US, and the rest of the world. The Japanese manual of the game features cutsie color cartoons and pictures, while the North American version is black and white, and condensed. The 1993 Famicom cartridge reissue has a different manual with the same black and white illustrations, but with red blood splatters all over the pages in the backgrounds.
The Music
The music for Castlevania is definitely awesome. The music has been remixed, covered, and copied by many musicians. The popular track "Vampire Killer" is the song for stage 1 of this game, and has reappeared throughout the franchise. The music itself was composed by Kinuyo Yamashita. It was her debut work for Konami, and she went to score soundtracks for other games as a freelance composer. Her lasting effects on the Castlevania series have been felt as her orignial 8-bit tunes have been reworked and used throughout the series.
While looking around the internet for some remixes and symphonic renditions, I was able to find some bootlegs of "Castlevania: the Concert", and others from Play! A Video Game Symphony series.
The Graphics
The graphics are pretty awesome for a mid 1980's NES game. There are noticable details to the backgrounds to really bring out the whole castle/vampire thing. The character sprites look... ok. Some are hard to tell what they are. Konami twiddled with these details throughout the next two Castlevania games. For the most part it you're just jumping on blocks and climbing stairs. It looks good.
What happened?
So I tried to beat Castlevania. The first two stages were relatively easy. That's when I found an increasing wall of difficulty in the third, fourth, and fifth stages. I never even reached the final sixth stage. Game mechanics like jumping and hitting enemies requires pin-point accuracy or it ends in death by falling into a pit, into water, etc. I found myself dying over and over in the underground stage at the beginning of level four. I died over twenty five times and if I didn't manage to keep a specific item for the boss, there was no point even trying. Game Over. Continue from the beginning of the stage.
How far did I get? I got to the end of Stage five and as soon as the Grim Reaper boss appears... I die from his flying heat-seating scythes. Over and over. Total frustration. I found that if I could get past level 4, that level 5 seemed easier, but the absolute timing required to make crucial jumps was tough. Much of the game is based around these platform areas, and the sadistic cruelty of the designers who thought it would be awesome to throw all monsters at you. By stage five you can only be hit four times before dying, so everything was killing me... over and over.
The overall challenge comes from the lack of controls, lack of items, tough enemies and everything else that made Castlevania impossible. After playing for five hours I began to seriously doubt my skills as a video game player. I chose this game because I knew it would be challenging, but it only kept destroying my patience as I would make stupid mistakes continually. I forget that these older games were designed to kill your soul.
Regrettably, I feel that I have to come back after some practice to defeat this game at a later time.
FAILURE
Statistics:
Deaths: 96 Continues: 24 Game Overs: 24 Levels: 5
CastleVania®, and all associated video games, music, characters, etc. are owned by Konami - all rights reserved.
