The "Oddball Two's" of the NES

Quickly, name one long-running video-game franchise that originated on the Nintendo Entertainment System.  Easy, right?  I bet you can name three.  Perhaps you said Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda and Castlevania.  Those are great examples.  Each one of those series spanned multiple consoles and had graphical and gameplay styles that defined their respective genres.  Maybe you're reminiscing about the games in each series, deciding which one is your favorite.  As you're doing that, maybe you're wondering to yourself, "why was the second entry in each of these series so very different when compared to the others?"  Yeah, why?

The "Oddball": Super Mario Bros. 2

Most gamers link the Nintendo Entertainment System with Super Mario Bros., the way diners link salt and pepper.  If you played on an NES, you probably played this game at least a few hundreds of dozen times.  The game was highly regarded and well-loved by players and critics alike.  So when Nintendo hinted at a sequel, anticipation and excitement was at a ridiculous high.

When it came out, everyone loved it.  But a lot changed from the venerable Super Mario Bros. [1] we've been playing all this time.  No princess to save?  No Bowser, Koopas or Goombas?  You have to pick vegetables and throw them at your enemies?   It didn't matter at the time as it was (and still is) a great game and an essential for any respectable NES library.  Looking back, though, it's hard not to notice that "2" veered off the path and then back onto it again with the release of Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World.   Why is Super Mario Bros. 2 such a "different" game?

Not SMB2.  Not Mario.

That's because it was a "different" game - in a literal sense of the word.  There was a proper sequel in Japan, that Nintendo of America did not like.  It was little more than an "expansion pack" of sorts, and a frustratingly difficult one at that.  Instead of making a completely new Super Mario Bros. sequel, they just set their eyes on a little Famicom Disk System game in Japan called Doki Doki Panic.   A few little changes to match the Mario-universe and viola!  You've got yourself a hit sequel.

The "Oddball": Castlevania II: Simon's Quest

Despite its challenging gameplay, most classic gamers remember playing and enjoying the original Castlevania for the NES.  Konami managed to make a game about classic movie monsters entertaining.  Many of the series' staples are still in place today: the whip, hearts replenishing the sub weapons, various meat products hidden in the castle walls.  But when it was time to make a sequel to the original, Konami decided to try something a little different.

Nintendo Power scares
your children.

Whereas the first game (and the third and "super" fourth) utilized a system of progressive self-contained levels one must complete to get to the end, Simon's Quest turned the formula into an adventure game with RPG elements where players must explore, gather items and talk to townspeople during a rotating day/night cycle.  Hearts were no longer ammo, but currency.  You had to purchase weapons and whip upgrades.  Furthermore, you had to kill about five hundred monsters to gather the experience points to fight tougher enemies.  What many games probably remember the most about Simon's Quest though, were the terribly obtuse puzzles you needed to solve in order to progress.  If you say you were able to summon the tornado to proceed to the next castle without consulting Nintendo Power for help, there's a good chance you are lying.

Despite the criticisms, Castlevania II: Simon's Quest is still a solid game (especially now that we have an internet to guide us through it).   And it's interesting to note that while immediate sequels to Simon's Quest went back to the simpler gameplay of the original, later games in the series (such as the excellent Symphony of the Night) incorporated RPG elements back into them with greater success (and less "kneeling with crystals").

The "Oddball": Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

The Legend of Zelda, a highly-regarded game to this day, is remembered for it's successful blending of action, adventure, exploration and puzzle-solving.  Zelda II: The Adventure of Link upped the action, added a healthy dose of RPG "ability-upgrading" and, if we're going to nitpick, changed the naming convention used for 99% of all "Zelda" titles (i.e. the word "Legend" is not used; a roman numeral is).

Instead of the top-down view we grew accustomed to, we were given a side-view of the action.   While it lent itself nicely to deeper sword-play, it was still a jarring change for those looking for the more serene adventuring found in the first game.  And for the first and only time, Link was given multiple lives - a convention usually found only in action-oriented games.   Comparing it to the rest of Zelda series (even the later 3-D ones), it's hard to imagine this wasn't just some other game quickly reprogrammed with new sprites like in the case of Super Mario Bros. 2.

Hey there's Zelda.  I won!  Oh, wait.
This is where you start the game...

Still, Zelda II is a fine game.  Yes, it's slightly more challenging and requires slightly less thinking but this is by no means a bad entry.  And in case you haven't noticed the pattern in this post, the subsequent The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past returned the series to its top-down roots, which would be retained until the series successfully went 3-D in later years.

Overall, it's not hard to imagine what was going on with these "Oddball Two's".  Game companies were trying something different.  It's easy enough to point out inconsistencies with these titles and playfully mock them.  But maybe it's better than sequels that add nothing but minor changes, cosmetic improvements and, maybe, a new hat and call it a fresh experience while charging full price.