I'm on record for Listing Zelda II as being in one of my top five favorite games in the franchise. The first one was memorable as hell. You're an elf kid, you got no true destination. Just go into a cave and old dude gives you some equipment. From there, you set out on an adventure that you can almost literally carve your own way as you look for weapons and items to aid you. There was free range upon which to traverse and the only boundaries that inhibited you were the threat of very powerful monsters. This was before The Legend of Zelda established a formula and laid forth a set sequence on how to play the game (or become a household name), like the seemingly never-ending tutorials that guided the franchise into a bit of a rut for a couple of the 3D games, but I'm getting off track and that's a different topic altogether.

Getting back to this, when you think about the concept of video game sequels or putting yourself in the mind of one, it's kinda hard, because games sorta came and went when I was 5 or six. Even with movies, there's no standards set upon which to meet with a follow-up. I just kinda played Simon's Quest, Adventure of Link, and Super Mario 2*, thinking these are decent, how and why did they become the black sheeps of their respective series as the years went on? Okay, Simon's Quest is busted, poorly translated, and not ironed out very well, but the IGAvania games are essentially based on the foundation it established. Mario 2 gave me a lot of great Mario lore with the vaguely related Super Mario Bros. Super Show, the only time the Mario characters would have any degree of personality. And YES, I LIKE LOU ALBANO'S BROOKLYN MARIO MORE THAN MARTINET'S ITALIAN STEREOTYPE MARIO. That voice has always annoyed me and never had me "hooked on the Brothers".

Zelda II The Adventure of Link is a totally different game from the first. Whether that inherently makes it a better game than the first is subjective, but I liked this. Gone is the combat and the meat of the game taking place on the overhead map, in fact, this serves as more a traditional map games like Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior utilized. Until Breath of the Wild, this would be the closest a Zelda game would ever get to resembling a traditional role-playing game. 

Enemy icons would appear after certain intervals and you engaged in battle in a totally different screen. Touching what I guess are Chuchus leads to fights with relatively weaker enemies, and encounters with the more humanoid monster shape offers stronger foes. Location played a big part in this, because getting stuck in swampy areas changed the terrain and enemies completely. This creates an engaging relationship with Zelda II. Link can now level up and boost his parameters, so fighting has a distinct purpose for the road you pave ahead. If you traveled on the guided path, you encountered no enemies, which provides a breather if you're low on health or magic. One of the earlier common criticisms is this game is too hard, and in early portions (I'd say around Death Mountain or Midoro Palace) when you only have a few abilities, it can be pretty daunting to survive a lot of the stretches and obstacles. I've also heard, "it's not a traditional Zelda", which at the time, there wasn't necessarily a definitive example of what a "real Zelda" is. Going into caves, opening treasure chests, and slaying a pig demon with a mythical sword does not a Zelda make, just like simply throwing Hadoukens or Sonic Booms doesn't mean you're automatically Street Fightering. 

Zelda II still places an emphasis on exploration, but changed HOW you did it. Many of the iconic weapons like bombs or bows and arrows would've set a precedent for what the player would expect in Adventure of Link, but their absence leaves you curious as to what tools you would need to progress. Miyamoto could've easily emulated what they did with the first Legend of Zelda, yet he wanted this game to be completely different. It's why it feels special. Being lost in Grand Central Station isn't the same as becoming stranded in the Amazon, you wouldn't automatically have access to the tools to aid you in the jungle because you endured the previous predicament under different circumstances. That's why games like Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time bother me, it lays out the roadmap in a manner that leaves little imagination for how the player should solve this ordeal. "Oh, I found a slingshot, I guess the proceeding puzzles and the boss fight at the end of the dungeon will involve shooting a glowy object with this." When you do the mirror quest in Zelda II, you have no idea that you're supposed to use it in a boss fight later until you get to the fight with the Wizard ad tried what you have at your disposal.

I know that was quite a rant there, and I didn't intend for this to be necessarily going off on Zelda. I feel this game has more in common with what a Zelda is supposed to be rather than repeating things for the sake of tradition. The Adventure of Link may be the odd one at the table in this long, storied franchise, but it was cavalier and is a much better game than given credit for. By all means am I not telling people to like it, but it has its merits and is a more true Zelda game than its reputation gives notice.

(*Because this is a retrospective video game editorial, I'm now obligated to tell you that the Super Mario Bros 2 we got in the United States is a reskin of Doki Doki Panic. It's almost mandatory, lest you be slain by Phanto for failing to do otherwise)