I was listening to RetroGamers podcast Zelda NES episode and thought it was interesting how they talked about Zelda 2. They said it was completely impossible without a guide or using Nintendo Power or whatever. That's what lots of people, myself included, say about Zelda 1.
But I got through Zelda 2 on my own with very little trouble. There was one point where I thought I was stuck, so I posted on a forum with the assumptions I was making to deduce that I might be in an unwinnable state. They told me one of my assumptions was wrong, and so I went back and wound up solving it on my own. I did have a friend who happened to be in the room during the final castle coach me through the boss fight, but no big deal. The point is, the "puzzles" were not nearly as difficult as these retrogamers are remembering or imagining them to be.
There are also articles like this:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19974...e-puzzles.html that talk about adventure game puzzles that are "impossible" to solve, but the 3 of those that I played I solved without any outside help.
My point is, people are really ****ing bad at guessing what constitutes a mentally difficult game/puzzle if they never actually attempted to put time into solving it themselves. It's easy to look at a solution and deem it "impossible" for anyone to figure out naturally, but when you're in the context of playing the game it might be much clearer than it seems.
So I'm probably wrong about Zelda 1 being all that difficult without help.