I saw a conversation between Josh, Darren and Leon on Twitter about a Cane and Rinse listener who felt that the crew didn't give Zelda II a fair shake, saying that by using save states, you guys missed out on playing the game the way it was meant to be played.
I am NOT that listener (though I hope that he/she does end up writing up their thoughts as well) and I thought you guys did an excellent job on the podcast. I do kind of agree with them about the save states though (specifically for this game).
I played this game because of the podcast. It was my first time playing Zelda II and I was surprised at how much fun I had with it (up until the last temple). I don't actually play that many NES games and I think that modern day game mechanics have, for the most part, really improved the experience of playing games. I'm just trying to make clear that I'm not A) a Zelda II super fan or B) someone who believes that gaming peaked in the 8-bit era and it's been downhill ever since. I also don't think that there is anything wrong with using save states to beat a difficult game.
I would recommend that people not use save states for Zelda II though. Not because you're not "a real gamer" if you can't beat it without them, but I think that heavily using save states actually brings the biggest frustrations of the game to the forefront while at the same time, it cuts you off from some of its more interesting mechanics. The most obvious example of this is the RPG mechanic. Even if you keep dying and not making progress in a dungeon, you are gaining experience points that allow you to increase your health bar, attack or magic. If you instead use save states before every room or enemy encounter, you might win the fight, but you'll only get the experience the one time. I think that adds up so that you might have an underpowered Link later in the game that makes it more frustrating. Another example is that there are fairies placed around the over-world map that make the many trips you have to take to return to the dungeons more strategic. You don't have to be perfect going through the caves because there's a fairy on the other side. You just need to make it through without losing a life. Compare that to stopping and starting over and over trying to get through without taking a hit.
And that leads into my biggest reason I think Zelda II benefits from not using save states. The combat can be unforgiving and it takes a lot of practice to get used to it. I found it was also heavily based on flow and continued movement. A lot of the enemies could be beaten by running, jumping and slashing, as long as you pulled yourself back at the last moment. Other enemies could be defeated by running forward, sliding along in a crouched position and doing a slash attack that would get under their shields. Both strategies depend on you getting in a good rhythm to perfect them. And I think using save states keeps you from getting in that rhythm. If you save as you enter a room and then try to beat the shielded enemies by slashing up-down-up-down-up-down until they die, it gets unbelievably frustrating.
Zelda II CLEARLY wasn't everyone's cup of tea and I totally get why so many people didn't like how difficult and frustrating the combat was. So the idea of using save states to mitigate some of that difficulty is completely understandable. I just think that in a weird, counterintuitive way, save states make the game less enjoyable and more frustrating.
Though that final temple sucks and you should definitely use save states to beat it.
