39 deaths doesn't seem too bad!  Did you use any guides or just go in blind? I'm trying to avoid using guides, but I have a feeling I'm gonna have to bend the rules a bit with Zelda II since I don't think I even beat the first palace.

I did not use guides but I did have a friend along for the ride who played it as a kid.  So basically, a literal... guide.  It had been years since he had played though so we still didn't know the layout to the palaces, where many of the palaces were, or how to navigate the cave maze.  His main contribution was recommending we level up instead of explore early on - it paid off. I don't think there's any shame in using a guide for some parts, it's a bit obscure. If you have all the time and patience to afford, try to go at it with no guides.  But frustration can mount quick in that game.  All in all, one of the most rewarding victories for me - good luck!

Why would playing it on the original hardware change the experience? It's the way it way meant to be played. Don't cheapen the experience by using something that has save states or whatever.

 

Well, I said playing on the NES would make it more difficult, and it does because of the lack of save states. But I do want to do it without save states and using guides only when I've run out of other options, it's just gonna make it very difficult for someone that has never played the game for more than an hour before.

Trust me dude, just do it on a real NES with a real cart. If I can do it without resorting to save states, you definitely can!

PM me if you get stuck and I can always help.

Will do, thanks!  

I beat the game a few years ago on the with a real NES and while it was frustating at parts it was enjoyable. The dungeon music is one of my favorite NES BGM.

Zelda 2 is such an underrated game. It introduced a lot of new concepts to the Zelda series and videogames in general. Zelda didn't have a genre at the time so it was okay to experiment and now is pretty much a genre of its own. It's not an RPG or full blown action game, it has elements of many genres. Even the first had levels rreminiscent of platformers. Zelda 2 brought more interaction to Zelda than the first. Everyone loves LoZ, but why? You just run around and stab things. Even the NPCs are dull. In Zelda 2 they move and have quests and stuff. I think people hate Z2 because it was just so much different than LoZ. People don't like a good thing to change, which is the only reason to continue making a series, to experiment with change.

I've always loved this game. Had it growing up along with Zelda. I never understood why people hated it or talked down upon it just because it wasn't the same style as other Zeldas. Reminds me of SMB2 in that it's different than the series, but still a great game. I always loved the leveling up aspect as well as the abilities that you acquire throughout the game.

Zelda II is still one if my favorites of the whole series. It was also the first Zelda game which I got my hands on. It's a shame that lot of people hate it just because it's different. At the time of it's release there was no typical Zelda, there was just Zelda I and II. I'm wondering, if part one would be as much hated, if Nintendo continued the series in the Zelda-II-style.