Why I buy this one ?
- The original classic now on Gameboy Advance.

GameQuestDirect offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $14.90 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

Vista Gaming Products, Inc. offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $14.90 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

CDROMUSA offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $17.85 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

ytsegames offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $17.99 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

kcsbooksplus from MI, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $22.99 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

Hitgaming Video Games offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $23.98 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

Quick Buys offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $23.98 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

MomsVideoGames offers this stuff with condition New, new for:

Price : $27.00 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

turntostart from NC, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $29.99 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

rare_games from MD, United States offers this stuff for:

Price : $29.99 Usually ships in 1-2 business days

What our customer's say!

"Zelda 2 --almost classic ", Zelda II: the Adventure of Link for the GBA is a re-release of the same game for the NES released in 1988. This sequel to the original Legend of Zelda received generally mixed reactions from fans. Although they are not without merit, the game contains some elements that would remain with the series in sequels to follow.
(Note: I will not go over the game's story in this review.)

The most noticeable difference is that the overhead view from the original and the other 2-D Zelda games has been changed to a side-scrolling perspective (similar to the early Super Mario Bros. games). The only time the game still uses the overhead view is when you are traveling from place to place on the overworld map.

Another new addition is the use of Experience Points. Experience Points can be collected mainly by killing enemies. Once you have a certain amount of points, you can level-up their attack strength, magic meter, or life meter. Leveling-up causes your attacks to be more effective against enemies, your magic meter to drain more slowly after casting spells, and allows you to take less damage after an enemy attack. Each time you level-up, the number of points needed to level-up again increases. Incidentally, Zelda II was the first game in the series to have a magic meter.

While most Zelda games have a good blend of both action and puzzles, Zelda II leans more toward action. Swordplay plays a more important part in this game than in other 2-D Zelda games. The game is far from easy, and this is a major turn-off for many fans. When you start the game, you must always start from the same point on the overworld map. The game gives you three lives, and once all three are gone, you have to start all the way back at the starting point. Beating the game takes patience on the player's part, so don't be surprised if you find yourself visually angry at it from time to time.

The music is different as well and does not feature any of the original songs (except for a few opening notes from the main theme of the first game). The new music is not as memorable as in the other games and was not re-used in later games.

Overall, if you are looking for a traditional Zelda game, don't buy this. But if you are looking for something different, yet still a Zelda game, you might enjoy this.

"what?", I am a big Zelda fan and this game was different from other Zelda games like it was a sidescroling rpg type game. That idea could acctully have made this a great game but the thing I realy hated is that this game is like the hardest game ever. If you die three times your done for. Also the enimies are way too hard. Being able to use magic was preaty cool though and unlike the first zelda game you can see people walk through the towns instead of standing in one spot which was preaty facinating back than. I wouldnt recomend buying this game but if you do see it for like a dollar or two than go check it out. I think every Zelda game is worth trying out even this one.

"not as fun as other Zeldas", I had emailed this company to cancel my order when I realized I had ordered the wrong Zelda, but they never responded to me, even after 3 or 4 emails.This game is boring and not as much as fun as the other Zelda games

"Not horrible, but not really that great either.", Most reviewers who dislike this game tend to lambast the side-scrolling nature of the game, and say that "it's not a Zelda game." I don't really have a problem with the idea of a side-scroller, it's just that they didn't do it WELL.

The biggest complaint that you'll hear about the game other than the side-scrolling aspect is that it's insanely difficult. One reviewer put it aptly- "it's like the designers are trying to piss you off." The poor control scheme, combined with the deadliness and impressive AI of some of the enemies, plus just some of the many cheap-shots in the game make it get very frustrating, easily.

The game had the potential to be a lot better, if they just did a few of the following things-
1. Make your weapon longer. A knife just doesn't cut it. Also, the ranged sword attack at full health should have had more effect, since it doesn't travel far and most powerful monsters are immune anyways. It's like the designers thought the concept was "cheating" and only included it in a nerfed form to cater to fans of the original.

2. Make you have more control over your attacks and jumps.

3. Get rid of the 3 lives and just let you continue where you died.

4. Let you save the game whenever you'd like, instead of having to die first.

5. Make the spells more interesting and more common to cast. Out of 8 total spells, you'll use 3-4 commonly, and even those not very often because they all require too much mana, even at maximum stats.

6. Make the items in the game more useful and easier to use and less of one-trick "keys" that simply allow you to progress to the next stage. There are 7 or 8 items, and all they basically do is allow you to move on to the next dungeon. So, you have keys in a dungeon, and "keys" which allow you to get from one dungeon to the next. No boomerangs, arrows, bombs, health jars, or anything that allows you different strategic options.

7. Get rid of all the lava and water pits which instantly kill you.

8. Put more of the story in the game. I've read the background story in other reviews, and apparently the only way to know it is to read the instruction manuals that come with the game because they sure don't tell you much in the game, a fault of the first one. This also results in some odd quests, where you find a river man who won't let you cross- that is, until you find a friend of his out in the woods that gives you a letter. How does the man in the woods know or care who you are, and why does the riverman refuse to let you cross unless you know him? The game just doesn't have enough valuable conversation.

9. Don't reset your xp points to zero when you run out of lives. Really, it's just cheap.......

So, if the game were to have done several of these things, much less all of them, it would have been a heck of a lot more fun instead of an exercise in frustration the way it currently is. Hopefully, if you're reading this review and HAVEN'T played the game, you'll get a grasp of how much work this game needs.

"The Failure of Link?", This review was originally written as an article defending Zelda II on one of the retro-gaming sites back in 1999. I issued a truncated version of this on the NES Amazon page of Zelda II in 2004. This marks the first time the full-length article has been posted on Amazon.



The Failure of Link? 12/19/1999

Let's imagine ourselves back in the Golden Days of Video Games. The year was 1988. Nintendo had just released the sequel to one of the best selling games on their consol. The game, you ask? Zelda II: The Adventure of Link*.

The Legend of Zelda, one of the very first RPGs and a blueprint for which almost all games in this genre since its release has at least some roots in this game, was a phenomenal success, and stayed on the Nintendo Power Charts at Number 1 or 2 for literally years. Nintendo had, along with Mario, a cash cow it was not about to give up. Zelda II was to be a smashing success, or so they thought.

The game was released to the general public in December 1988, just in time for the Christmas market. It actually sold fairly well. But Nintendo heard no end to the furor caused by this game. The biggest controversy of this game was it was a 2D scroller, instead of an overhead game like the original was. You navigated in an overhead view. Then the battles and actual dungeons are in the side scrolling format. The public reaction to this game was NOT what Nintendo wanted. People didn't think it was as good as the original. Zelda II didn't stay on top of the charts like its prequel did. People still bought it, but the general consensus was it was not as good as the original "Legend of Zelda".

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link is a misunderstood game. To be honest, the author of this article has played this sequel very little. [I bought it last Thursday along with playstation and some other stuff]. Only recently have I bought it for the old NES, and I'm playing it thru for the first time. It's a great game. Its fun to play. The main problem with it is the fact that it is side-scrolling.

The true question, which cannot be answered, is this: "What would the public think if this had been released first, instead of The Legend of Zelda?" Who knows? No one does. People expected the wrong things from this game. They came in with the expectation of another game with an overhead view. Instead, they got a side scroller, a hybrid of overhead and platform gaming. This was one of Nintendo's biggest missteps in its history (another is going cartridge for N64, which is much more expensive than CD, thus scaring off third party developers, and having fewer games than what should have been). They had misread the audience, and disappointed them because Nintendo did not give them what their expectations were. All this has forever damaged Zelda II. It will always be viewed from the perspective it is not as good as the other Zelda games. I don't agree with this.

Coming from a Zelda perspective, I'd agree that it is not as good as the others. That's not to say it is a good game though. Lets look at it outside of the series. Forget its Zelda, and don't think it should be overhead. Lets concentrate on the game itself. Is it a good game? Did Nintendo do a good job doing a hybrid of side scrolling action and overhead view. In my opinion, yes. Remember, I missed the Zelda craze back in the old NES days (my first exposure was Link to the Past in `91, which is the best Zelda in my opinion). I'm not looking thru the eyes of nostalgia when I play this game. I am just now going thru this game. Currently, I'm at the second palace. It's a lot of fun. For the game itself, its fun, and it has the feel of classic. It has done something no other Zelda before or since did. It used a magic system and a level up system. The magic was refined and reused. But the Level Up idea passed away with this game. For other RPG games this is a defining feature, which helps support my belief that almost all RPG games are, whether directly or indirectly, are influenced by the Zelda games (especially the first one). And what the first one doesn't cover, the second one gets. I'm a big Zelda fan. But talking from objectively, I like this game. It's a good game. Its an interesting twist for Zelda, and outside of Zelda, it adds to the game play.

Without Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, the structure of this seminal series would be drastically different. In terms of lessons learned, this is by far the most important game in the series. What if Nintendo hadn't done this game? It is possible they might have tried the hybrid on SNES version. Nintendo learned from its mistake, and never tried this again. In the Zelda context, that is a good thing. The Legend of Zelda is a great series, and without this under their belt, Nintendo might have put out a disappointing Zelda game at a much more crucial time in the series' evolution. It's a great game in and of itself, and had it been redesigned in terms of story and not making it Zelda, it would be classic. But for Zelda it doesn't go with the others, and Nintendo learned what the public wants in a Zelda game. In terms of sticking to the formula, this is the best thing that ever happened to Zelda. If they had not released this game on the NES, they might have tried the hybrid experiment on the SNES game, and instead of getting what is arguably the greatest game on the SNES, and in the Zelda series, we would get a game like this. Then, we wouldn't get a game for the SNES comparable to Link to the Past. If Nintendo had not made this game, they would have made this mistake (remember, it's a mistake only in context of the series) at a much worst time.

What about Super Maria Brothers 3? In my opinion, SMB 3 and The Legend of Zelda are the greatest two games on that consol, although there are several close contenders. Although Zelda II was viewed as a disappointment, I think it had direct influence on SMB 3. SMB 3 is the game Zelda II could have been. SMB 3 successfully combined a type of overview world, but then you moved and played the stages. Of course, the world in Zelda II was much more expansive. The SMB series was already a side scroller, so when it was released, people were not disappointed as all. In fact, it is hailed as one of the greatest NES games ever released. And yet, earlier when they tried the same thing with Zelda II, it was viewed as a disappointment because Zelda was not a side scroller to begin with. Nintendo took the hybrid idea into its other cash cow, Mario, of which it was much more suited. Mario was not an overview game to begin with. When they did make the hybrid, they stuck with the basically formula of side scrolling, but they had a little overview too. In this view, Zelda II is out of balance. One thing was all of the action in Zelda II happened on side scrolling. Had there been some action side scrolling, and then some traditional Zelda overview, it would be viewed differently also. Independently, Zelda II stands proud. In the series' context, I think it would have been better if they had not made EVERYTHING side scrolling. Some main parts of the game should be like that though, but then there should be more old-school Zelda overview. As it stands in the series, its out of balance. But without it, we might not have the hybrid of the overview/side scrolling found in SMB 3 and Super Mario World, which both are great games.

My main message in this article is give Zelda II a chance. Don't think of it as Zelda. That's the problem. People came in with a mind set of what a Zelda game is supposed to be, and were inevitable disappointed with this. Think of it as an independent game, and you decide of its fun or not. The perspective on this game would be much different if it was not Zelda. Maybe it would be viewed as innovative. The truth is, we will never know. Its not a clone, it's a sequel. It has its own personality. Give it a chance. Enjoy it for a video game, a classic in its own right. It not the same as other Zeldas. All we are saying is give Zelda II a chance.

Bottom Line: Zelda II is a failure in the context of the series. But outside of it, had its been released on its own, it's a good game that deserves your attention.

*An interesting note about its title. This is the only Zelda game it incorporate the numerical sequence into its official title. Link to the Past is called Zelda III, but its not its official title, just as Zelda Gaiden is not called Zelda VI. Its also the only title in the series that does not have "The Legend of Zelda" in it. Its just "Zelda II: The Adventure of Link." It sounds better than "The Legend of Zelda: The Adventure of Link." Too long I guess for those days. Just an interesting side note.



[Artilce Blurb: Is Zelda II the failure its made out to be? What would have happened had Nintendo not released this game? Its influence reaches SMB 3 and Super Mario World. If you want to add to this blurb, feel free to do so]

Read this reviews before You buy...

"Underrated Zelda sequel, deserving of any fan's attention", This particular Zelda sequel has gotten the short end of the stick for far too long, it's time to set the record straight!

The first thing to remark about this installment is that, for the most part, it is a side-scrolling platformer-esque title. It's OK, its differen't, doesn't mean it's bad, don't be afraid!
Truth is I love jumping around, landing on baddies and all that good stuff.

This is the first zelda to have a world map. The first one was essentially one large outdoor dungeon. It's the first zelda to make you interact with characters to get things done. Honestly I think the music is quite well done as well. All the attention seems to go to the original, Link to the Past or Ocarina.

Adventures of Link is the middle child of the zelda franchise, but it has a lot to offer, if you can stick with it. It can be frustratingly hard as any good retro game can be, but stick with it and you too will learn the upward thrust, the downward thrust, a spell to turn you into a fairy (not that there's anything wrong with that) and how to use a simple hammer to break huge daunting roadblocks.

"Not so great after all", This game is just okay. I had heard good things about it, but the graphics aren't very good at all.

"The greatest Zelda Adventure is the original sequel", I wasted many an afternoon in my youth playing this game, running from the blue knights, building up experience so I could max out my stats and trying to finish the Great Palace of course.
This is still considered by many to be the most difficult game ever made for a console, but while that may imply that it is quite frustrating at times (yes. . . it is. . .) it has to be noted that this game is more addicting to fans of action and RPGs than Tetris ever was to anyone else.
I had so much fun playing this game as a kid and this GBA cart and the original Zelda on GBA are the only reasons that I would own a GameBoyAdvance. So great being able to play a game from your childhood while you are on your lunchbreak at work.
The Zelda Carts for GBA are the "must-buys" of the system in my opinion as well as Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories. Buy this guy and get a feel for where it all began.

"Stuck On It...", I love this game, especially since my brother never let me play our NES way back when I was five. Now I get to experience it with my GBA. But I'm stuck in the game, on the last two castles (the purple one and the green one.) I can't figure out how to kill that red ghost boss, or that blue one with the big mallet with spikes. I love this game to death, but I can't play it the way I used to because of my being stuck. I do think these graphics look better than the normal GBA ones for some reason. Maybe cause you can actually see Link's face, and not just a big blur like when they try making the graphics good. I really like the "Classic NES Series" for Gameboy Advance. It's pure fun.

"The only Zelda game that I didn't finish", I have been a fan of Zelda from day one. All the games and all the platforms. But I found this one to be intensely irritating and that is not something I look for in a game. It can be ridiculously difficult to get to some of the palaces and with only three lives and few if any fairys or towns to recharge at it gets real old real fast. The so called Vally of Death to get to the final palace was the last straw for me. If you like repetition, then this is the game for you but I can find better things to do with my time.