Zork II

- View the most common tags (What's a tag?) (Log in to add your own tags)

5 star: (8) 4 star: (14) 3 star: (8) 2 star: (1) 1 star: (0)

Average Rating: Number of Reviews: 3 Write a review

Shorter than Zork I, and just as fun, October 4, 2008
So, like Zork I and like so many other games of its time, Zork II includes a lightsource limit (which, since the game is set underground, is as good as a game timer), puzzles which must be solved with information you gather by fiddling with stuff, cruel ways of getting stuck, and inventory limits. Surprisingly, it has no mazes. Well, it has a faux maze, which I believe is regarded as the single worst puzzle in Infocom history.

But it's just like playing Zork I when you know how to get rid of the thief and the lightsource limit very early on - if you know what can render your game unwinnable, you can avoid it; if you know that you have a lightsource limit, you can focus; if you know that there's a bug that allows you to carry stuff way beyond your limit (hint - has to do with implicit actions), exploration becomes easier; if you know the solution to the maze, you won't feel the urge to throw Zork II down a deep well.

In short, if you know some select spoilers about the game, you can still have a lot of fun.

Like in Zork I, the point of the game is to explore and solve puzzles. Like in Zork I, the overall goal of the game becomes vaguely apparent but not entirely clear - you know there's a wizard around, who can make your life miserable, and you may stumble into his domain. When you die (and you will), the ensuing sequence will give you even more information. It's pretty much feel-as-you-go-along.

Feel-as-you-go-along is very associated with simple dungeon crawl, but it's way more than that. It's piecing together a whole scenario which you, from the outset, know absolutely nothing about. Feel-as-you-go-along usually has a couple of moments where you are subtly nudged in the right direction. Not in Zork II - but amazingly, it's not necessary. The themes of the game include magical items and colours, and there's a certain simplicity to it which inspires quick connections. Connections the player has to make.

It works amazingly well within the overall theme, and the fate of the Wizard is only satisfying when you've gone through the whole game being hindered by that senile old bat.

Within isolated puzzles, however, it doesn't work as well. The basket, cloth bag and receptacle puzzle, in the volcano, is a very good example of an "identifying what it is and then acting accordingly" puzzle, and is rewarding. The true nature of the clay brick, however, is ridiculously underclued. (Spoiler - click to show) The game relies on experimentation to find out the nature of the brick. The action in question is "burn brick", which would blow it up, revealing it to be plastique explosive. Way back then, this wasn't a bad technique - games should last a long time, and should encourage exploration and active experimentation. But even then, I have to wonder who in their right mind would try to burn a brick. It is the text equivalent of the graphical adventure's "Use everything on everything" brute force.

The wizard himself can indeed be very annoying. He can freeze you for many turns, or hold you in a magical fence. The fence isn't a problem, because you can turn your lamp off (but grues are still a problem) - but if you're frozen, you have to resign yourself to losing precious turns of the lamp life.

But worst off, the wizard can cast a certain spell on you which sounds like a GREAT spell, one you want to keep, and which you only find out at the VERY end of the game renders it unwinnable. In fact, you may never find out at all. (Spoiler - click to show) The spell makes you shine brightly in the darkness. Sounds great, doesn't it? But the last puzzle of the game includes you entering a crypt, closing the door behind you and turning the lamp off, and in the resulting darkness (a state which by now it's unlikely any adventurer would allow himself to enter - the game had taught the player to avoid dark states, and now makes one necessary without previous clueing? That's a major design flaw) the light from behind a secret door is visible.

By the way, if you plan to play this game, I reccommend you read the spoilers. They're the kind of spoiler you should know about, unless you want a fun game to turn into a frustrating experience. Here's the spoiler for the maze, an absolute necessity if you're not american - (Spoiler - click to show) Starting from the baseball bat, go SE, NE, NW, SW. It's like a baseball field, or something. I didn't really understand it either.

And then there's the puzzles that are though but which are logical, rewarding, and offer a twist on what is and isn't in the scope of the player. The Bank of Zork, for instance, is a beautiful puzzle, subtly but fairly clued. It provides you with one of the sweetest "Aha!" moments you can hope for. But getting there can be quite a pain, because... well, because of the same reason that getting the red sphere can be tricky - just because you can't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there.

Of course, to many players today, if you can't see it then it ISN't there. That's the source of the difficulty in these two puzzles. But they are beautiful puzzles, nevertheless.

That's not the only example of this kind of puzzles, though. Pretty much all the puzzles in the game rely on visualization. It's like looking at a lot of dots in a sheet of paper - until you manage to see what the dots form, you won't solve the puzzle. You have to understand what you're seeing. Players who tend to dismiss descriptions and jump to the utilitarian side of things would do well to either adjust their gameplay style or skip this game altogether - and players who are able *see* the dragon even as it's being described to you, and appreciate that a giant chasm can be just a crack on the floor, depending on how big you are... those players might just be in for a real treat.

The GUE remains as vivid, as intriguing and as captivating as ever. The descriptions are terse, but very efficient. The game seems rather more compact than Zork I, in terms of the size of the map, but it's packed full of fun. There are more characters. They appear briefly, you can hardly interact with them, they might as well be objects. Still, they are there, and surprisingly that does make a difference.

Provided you can look past design issues that are simply historical artefacts (and speaking of history, there's a certain puzzle which today is considered done-to-death - could this be its first appearance? You'll know it when you see it), this is a game worth playing, and worth enjoying.

Oh, and don't let go of that mat. You can put stuff on it, you know.

More Zorkian Fun, January 16, 2010
I was a fan of Zork I since I played it at 10 years old on my grandmother's PC. I was excited to get into Zork II.

Now, after playing the Mainframe Dungeon, I see that Zork II is just a bunch of puzzles that wouldn't fit into Zork I anywhere, which is all fun.

You still have to manage your inventory, and it's difficult to get a permanent light source until most of the game's done anyway. (Spoiler - click to show)Once you get the wizard's wand, you can point it at an item and say "Fluoresce" and the item will permanently glow. Or, if you take too long, the wizard may cast this spell on you, making it impossible to win the game.

This game does have some impossible puzzles, such as the infamous baseball puzzle, which set the standard for what not to do in a puzzle, and the bank puzzle, which is really ingenious but horribly under-clued. Then there's the spinning room, which can be more of a nuisance than anything. Most frustrating, however is the Wizard. If you remember how pissed you were in Zork I when the thief showed up and stole your torch, you'll really get mad at the wizard, who randomly shows up and casts spells on you, sometimes causing you instant death (such as making you go into a frenzy while on a cliff, or freezing you in place near a lit bomb), or sometimes wasting precious light (freezing you wastes time while the lamp counts down), or even stealing treasures from you.

As in previous Zorks, you can be brought back to life, but many times your death still makes the game unwinable.

However, this is what added to the appeal of Zork I. I fondly remember as a child becoming nervous when my lamp got a bit dimmer. Even more so now, with no torch to fall back on. And the randomization makes the game have just a little bit more replay value. I'd even go out on a limb and say this is the best of the three Zork games, in term of fun (and certainly challenge- anyone who bests the baseball puzzle without hints is a master of all IFs.)

Okay, yet ripped off a bit., January 16, 2010
I feel like this is a bit ripped off of Alice in Wonderland at times. Yet this game has great writing and overall is better than Zork I because Zork II actually has a story present.

Related Games

People who like Zork II also gave high ratings to these games:

Polls

The following polls include votes for Zork II: