That is good point. Maybe that's why Pikmin hasn't won Game of the year 10 times in a row like Super Mario Bros 2 does.

I've beaten it more than once. I think it's a great game with some NES-era flaws. However, it's so different from the other 2D Zeldas that it really feels like a completely different series.

It's not a bad game but it's not great. The thing that hurts it is just how weird and out of place it is in the series. It's like SMB2 (US version). Good game, but weird as fuck.

Most people don't even consider it a Zelda game outside of its theme. I can see why.

I loved it as a kid. It was a real challenge and I only was able to beat it once. If you don't mind getting your ass handed to you multiple times then this game will entertain you very well. If you get frustrated rather quickly, stay the hell away from it.

It's not a bad game. I had fun with my one playthrough. It is hard though, too hard, and starting back at the beginning when you're Game Over is brutal especially later in the game when you have to travel further and further just to get back to where you were. Because of that and the fact that everything it does it does decently but not particularly great, it doesn't rank high on my all-time favorite Zelda games' list. I'd say to me it's the worst of the 'good' games.

Because of it's difficulty however, the hardest game I've ever beaten, it is one of my most rewarding gaming experiences. Beating it (oldschool-style; on NES, no internet, I feel like in this day and age you'd have to put a disclaimer like this on these kinds if statements for it to have any impact) felt absolutely great, and that's also something.

It's one of my most favourite Zelda games. The game set many standards for future Zelda games. The only criticism I have for it is that it's NES hard and it has many cryptic nonsense you have to find out for yourself.

Those damn Fokka's..

It didn't help that they completely changed the gameplay from the first one but I believe even as a standalone game it's not very good.

i enjoyed it personally.

There was no standard formula for Zelda yet. They still used top down DQ style gameplay, but added rpg elements (logical step from DQ) and added side scrolling stages to A: make battles more engaging and B: platform gams were the most popular games of that era. It was completely logical at the time. Now if we look at 3D Zelda, from a certain point of view, it was a big change from the top down style of previous iterations. I like to think that Zelda II is such a game, that is comparable to the 3D games of Zelda. It was just a decade earlier.

Zelda II was great. I quite enjoyed the challenge and the game is well designed for its time. The only reason it gets as much crap as it does is because it is so different due to it beinging lrimarily a side scroller and more challenging than the others.