Talk:Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

Information Taken from Wikipedia

Large parts of this article are taken directly from Wikipedia. --Jin 21:26, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Added the template at the top of the screen. This article needs to be COMPLETELY rewritten. --Jase 15:17, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

Reverted the page back to its original form. --Jase 17:22, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

Enemy Names in Japanese- interesting findings

A few interesting things can be gleamed from the Japanese names for some of the enemies from this game. Source before I go on: http://bestiary.zeldalegends.net/index.php?game=z2&limit=

And they got it from something called the Futabasha guide.

Anyways, the enemy I've seen referred to as "Basilisk" on other sites, and which is a page-to-be-made from this page, is actually... a Zora! Yep- in AOL, Zoras were four-legged beasts.

Also, Barba and Volvagia have suspiciously-similar names in Japanese- Barubajia and Varubajia, respectively. Is it possible that, despite the English translation, they were meant to be one in the same?

The variety of Moa-like enemy, which floats for a while, stops, and opens its eye, has the Japanese name of Girubokku, whereas the Moa itself has its name translated directly from the Japanese- "Moa".

Clearly, they're two different enemies.

There's a whole lot more interesting stuff that can come from the Japanese names, and I'll be adding new articles on some of the otherwise-unnamed enemies, such as the birdlike knights from the Great Palace, known as Fokka in Japanese. Dinosaur bob 13:27, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Pros?

Is this section really necessary? It seems a little... I don't know, POV? Ando 12:35, 18 January 2008 (EST)

It outbalances the "Black Sheep" section to keep things (appear) neutral. I think the Pros. section should stay up until someone is prepared to properly merge it with the BS section and then split it again in a proper "reception" and "gameplay" section.IfIHaveTo 13:59, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Removing the useless 'places'

There are numerous links to places in this game which are completely useless. The lack of information isn't the problem of our contributors', but the problem of the game. There is no information that is viable enough for places like Tantari Desert to have it's own page because it can be discussed in other articles. Landmass "places" also are useless. Parapa Desert has too little information and literally only has a palace in the whole place. Central Hyrule is not only useless and a waste of time, but a disgrace. Most of the articles link to this map as reference, so I think the aforementioned articles (and others unmentioned) should be removed and any reference to "Central Hyrule", or others like it, should be linked to the map and give the reader a general direction of where to look. ^{--Pr3c1pit0us (Talk)} 02:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Improved 'n' Reloaded

I have created a new section: Gameplay, and the Black Sheep section is gone for good because it not only was disorganized, but also was extremely biased. An audio section was added as well, and several parts of the trivial section were moved to other section. Pros section was renamed to Legacy. --K2L 18:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent job! Having a section named "Black Sheep?" is in no way very encyclopedic at all. o_o Dany36 18:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking along those same lines the Trivia section and the relating AOL to the CD-I games based solely on 2d side scrolling appears to be in the same manner. Im tempted to remove it as I doubt its just the type of gameplay that leads the CDI games to be bad.--Bortson 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the connection between the two games based on side-scrolling is legitimate because, if you've ever played The Adventure of Link, you will see the similarities to the CD-I titles. Regardless of the connotations, the trivia should stay because it is true. — cipriano^talk 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Then the trivia needs to include mention of LoZ where there was sidescrolling in the dungeons and relate them to the CDI games, including implications that sidescrolling = bad game. Now if you want a statement that isnt an opinion then something along the lines of, "sidescrolling was never featured in another official Zelda game, though the CD-I releases did feature this style of gameplay." might be better. p.s. AoL was the first Zelda game I ever played when I got my NES Bortson 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is not stating that either AOL or the first two CD-i games were bad. It is stating that the latter were received poorly (i.e., it's like saying MM and TWW were met with mixed reactions, it's not to say that they were bad, by any means). You're welcome to make the article less biased, just take note from what I'm saying.--K2L 22:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdated information?

Under the Legacy section, one bullet point says "The overworld of no other Zelda title can be considered this large, with this many towns and this many different environments."

Is this not outdated? Breath of the Wild for example blows it out of the water in terms of scale. I'm not even sure about the towns and environments argument.

(Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, I created an account just to ask this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peartato59 13:43, 12 January 2018

Thank you for pointing that out. I believe you're correct, so I'll remove the outdated info. TriforceTony (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)