Drakmyth Reviews: Zork II

My Rating: 3 / 5

After many failed attempts at Zork I before finally completing it, I was very eager to jump into Zork II for the first time! I was expecting more of the mysterious and vibrant, yet utterly abandoned world that the first painted such a glorious picture of. Zork II has shades of that world, but is so much more surreal and less consistent that it feels less like a world to explore and more like a loose collection of puzzles strung together.

In contrast to Zork I where you really only had a couple different locales (forest, cavern, river, mine) and they were all mostly consistent with each other, each room in Zork II feels like it was glued together from a collage of different ideas. One minute you’re standing on a bridge in a great marble hall, then you’re in a frozen cavern with a glacier blocking a path, then you’re on a spinning carousel that fills an entire room, then you’re at the bottom of a giant well in a magic bucket, then you’re in a pool full of tears that are pouring in from the ceiling, then you’re in a machine room with whirring gears and steaming pipes while you bark commands at a robot. You never know what the next room may hold.

There is some excitement in being able to find just about anything around the next corner, but what made the world of the first game so engaging is that it was realistic. You start next to a house in a forest, then descend through a trapdoor into a non-descript cavern. Every step along the way, what you find may be fantastical but is grounded in a pseudo-modern pseudo-fantasy setting that is very consistent and believable. This then facilitates solving the puzzles you find as you can mostly just try taking actions that you would reasonably take if you were in that world, which is not a stretch to imagine due to how immersive the setting is. Zork II on the other hand, due to its strange and inconsistent environments, makes it much more difficult to consider how you would interact with the world if you were really there. Because the world feels like a game board rather than a living, breathing place, it causes the player to think of actions in terms of locks and keys - “Do I have the specific item I need to ‘solve’ this room?” rather than the first game’s “I want to do a thing, is there a tool I can use to do that?”.

This mindset change, unfortunately, also breeds frustration as unlike the first game there are a significant number of red herrings and items that while seemingly important actually serve no purpose. This then compounds against the player when combined with many puzzles having very unintuitive solutions. For example: At the top of the magic well (which has its own unreasonably cryptic solution) you enter a room with four cakes themed very obviously around Alice in Wonderland. One of the cakes is labeled “Eat Me”, the tiny writing on the others is unreadable. Eating the cake shrinks you down and allows you access to the aforementioned pool of tears. There is a flask of poison here you can take, and there is a shadow of something in the pool. These two rooms are the only ones you have access to. With nowhere to go and nothing else to interact with, a player will likely take one of two actions at this point: Restore and come back later, thinking they may need an item they don’t have yet for this, or try eating the other cakes to see what happens. If the player does the latter, they will discover one of the cakes makes them grow, the other two kill them. Solving a puzzle by trial-and-error is never satisfying, but the intended solution I would suggest is one I think it unlikely a player will think of. The player is supposed to use the flask as a magnifying glass to read the tiny writing on the cakes. This is actually necessary to some degree, as the player needs to throw the cake labeled “Evaporate” into the pool to acquire the critical item there. While the flask is mentioned as having a clear liquid in it, there is no mention of it distorting the room as you look through it. A student who happens to be currently studying the properties of light in fluids might think to use it in the intended way, but the average player is likely to think it just a flask of poison to be used elsewhere, especially as you can identify the “Enlarge” cake by just trying them all and be able to leave the room with your new flask in tow.

In the first game, the player’s frustration could be curbed somewhat by the knowledge that if they couldn’t figure out how to solve a puzzle, it was likely because the tool they needed was elsewhere and they just hadn’t found it yet. Then, when the player got stuck, they could focus in on things they hadn’t solved or items they hadn’t found a use for. Unfortunately Zork II also throws a wrench in this process. Not only do a number of items just have no use (e.g. the perfect rose and wooden club - granted this is supposed to be a clue to the nature of the Oddly-Angled Room, but it’s a poor clue and has no physical use) but from very early on you are introduced to the wizard who periodically appears and casts spells on you. This quickly gives the player the thought that they might gain the ability to cast spells themselves, which they do, but now it becomes very tempting to attribute any elusive solution to “I guess I need a spell for that”. In my playthrough of this game I specifically forbid that thinking from my approach as I didn’t want to be wandering from unsolved puzzle to unsolved puzzle thinking I just couldn’t solve them yet, but I had no way of knowing if that approach would pay off or doom me. Thankfully it paid off.

I could go on about a number of other puzzles in this game I thought unfair, but this review is long enough already and I think I’ve gotten the point across. Overall, this is not a bad game. I still had fun playing it and the world portrayed here is definitely creative, if less immersive. I don’t know how many of this game’s issues come from mainframe Zork being split into three parts and just not translating well and how much of it is just it being less well designed than the first game - the lack of many of these issues being present in Zork I leads me to think the latter. I do hope Zork III, which I move on to now, will be more like the first and less like the second. Either way, I am looking forward to finally experiencing the conclusion of this trilogy that I have held in such high regard for so long!

7 Likes

Zork II was my 2nd Infocom game, after Zork III. I didn’t play it until about 1987. I found it a delight; its charm has lasted to this day. When I eventually tried Zork I, it was a disappointment—I thought the puzzles were inferior.
Here are a couple of my experiences that are different from yours:

  1. I solved the pool room through “learn by dying”. When you eat the right cake, it dehydrates you to death.
  2. I used the wooden club as balloon fuel.
5 Likes

Different commands using “look” (LOOK IN, LOOK BEHIND, LOOK THROUGH, etc) might have been more explicit in the folio manuals as a courtesy (they are mentioned). A contemporary game might hint toward that in the item description. On the other hand, people read manuals carefully in those days. I just ate everything and restored as needed, which really wasn’t a big deal for players at the time. As I said in the Zork I thread, this kind of thing leads to a question of how to talk about these works in 2025. They don’t support “undo”, for instance, or allow us to use “X” as an abbreviation for “EXAMINE.” I think it’s challenging to avoid evaluating them as modern games, but there’s merit in doing so.

I also think Zork II is better than Zork I. Its biggest problem points are the Bank of Zork and the baseball maze. I don’t think the BoZ should have travelled from Dungeon without changes. To me, that’s a bungle. The baseball problem is more of a noble failure, since trying to make mazes that weren’t mazes was an innovative practice. Even if it failed, it is more interesting than many successes. I think, in terms of the big picture, the baseball maze is a positive thing.

5 Likes

Zork I contains almost only things from mainframe Zork, but adds a new ending. Even the layout is similar, though it has (thankfully!) been simplified a lot. I can navigate through most of Zork I by memory, but I get completely lost in mainframe Zork without a map because of all the twists and turns.

Zork II uses much of what was left and adds several rooms, puzzles, and characters (including the Wizard). Zork III uses one of the puzzles and the entire endgame, but everything else is new.

The only things I can remember from mainframe Zork that didn’t make it into the Zork Trilogy was the “last lousy point”, and a puzzle involving the coal chute that instead made it into Sorcerer as part of a much larger puzzle.

I think Zork III is probably the most interesting of the three, but it also has some design decisions that just rub me the wrong way. So Zork I is the one I find most enjoyable to play. Zork II has some good parts, but I think it suffers a bit from using the weirdest parts of mainframe Zork. (I also find the Wizard terribly annoying. Much more so than the thief.)

4 Likes

The wizard is a bummer. But I might group him under a more general heading of lamp battery life. Without a torch or other alternative, pressure to maintain efficiency with light is heightened. & the wizard, along with the carousel room, is a massive time waster.

5 Likes
  1. I used the wooden club as balloon fuel.

Interesting! I landed on using the newspaper, which when I read the Invisiclues later is what it says to use. Had no clue that the club could be used for that too.

1 Like

One of the oddest design decisions that I remember wondering about is why the coil of shiny wire in Dungeon was changed to a coil of black string in Zork II. Maybe to make its purpose a bit less obscure? (I remember stumbling upon it by trying random things out of desperation)

3 Likes

I almost
 almost
 like the Bank of Zork puzzle. If it weren’t for the distinction of “south” and “walk through south wall”, I would have been totally on board. This was one of the puzzles I had to look up, and it just left me feeling frustrated, saying “I tried going south even though there was a wall, and it wouldn’t let me”.

I think it’s challenging to avoid evaluating them as modern games, but there’s merit in doing so.

There certainly is! I’m explicitly reviewing these games with a view toward how approachable they are to a modern person with no notable prior experience. That said, I’m not looking at all toward what it was attempting to do (as you mentioned the baseball puzzle was an interesting, if failed, attempt at a more interesting maze) nor how significant the games are from a technical perspective. Having a character like the wizard that seems to have a personality of his own and can cast a wide array of spells that all do different things is really impressive and brings a certain life to the world that other contemporaries didn’t really have. There’s a lot of really cool and interesting things in all these games that give me a deep love and appreciation for them
 even if their gameplay doesn’t exactly hold up.

1 Like

So Zork I is the one I find most enjoyable to play. Zork II has some good parts, but I think it suffers a bit from using the weirdest parts of mainframe Zork. (I also find the Wizard terribly annoying. Much more so than the thief.)

I haven’t played mainframe Zork yet, but this echoes my thoughts entirely right now. Zork I I found very fun to play. Zork II had highlights that were decent, but it really felt much less satisfying and the Wizard was very frustrating. After the first couple encounters, it just felt like he was there to waste my time (and my lamp fuel) more than be an actual challenge to overcome.

I’m so excited to experience Zork III and see how it compares!

1 Like

The story goes that Dave Lebling, who was responsible for Zork II as a project, asked Marc Blank what the Bank of Zork puzzle was about (it was Blank’s design), and Lebling remained unable to explain it after talking to Blank. Or perhaps he was muddy on the details.

In any case, a perceived lack of authorial clarity has become part of the reception history of the BoZ puzzle.

4 Likes

i’m not sure why but zork II was always my favorite of the three. it definitely has some of the worst and most unfair puzzles (i never understood the BoZ puzzle even after reading the invisiclues).

but when i originally played it i remember feeling that the NON-unfair puzzles in zork II were overall fairer and more satisfying than Z1 and while i appreciated the tone of Z3 it just never grabbed me like the others, probably cause it wasn’t overall as “puzzle-y” (although it has some excellent ones), and the ending, cobbled on from mainframe zork, always felt a bit “off” to me.

1 Like

The Great Underground Empire is made by engineering students, for engineering students.

2 Likes

The source has this stanza:

	 <COND (<VERB? LOOK-INSIDE>
		<TELL
"You notice that objects behind the flask appear to be somewhat magnified.
You might try looking at something through the flask." CR>)

That message wasn’t in the earliest releases (the v2 version) but it was in zork2-r15-s820308.z3, implying that Infocom got some pretty pointed feedback from players.

(My problem was that I visualized the flask as an Erlenmeyer flask – conical, not spherical, so it wouldn’t make a good magnifier!)

3 Likes

Huh! I was picturing it as a vial myself, but a conical flask would have been my second thought.

I didn’t even think to look inside the flask. The inventory description already says:

A stoppered glass flask with a skull-and-crossbones marking is here. The flask is filled with some clear liquid.

and EXAMINE FLASK just gives:

There is a skull-and-crossbones engraved on the glass.

so it didn’t occur to me to investigate further. Had it not mentioned the flask was filled with clear liquid, I likely would have tried LOOK IN FLASK. With the clue that it does magnify things, I actually wouldn’t have any issue with this puzzle!

Yeah, that’s ultimately true. I’ve been intentionally ignoring that context during my reviews - I go back to it wasn’t common in those days to consider how approachable any given puzzle would be to a general audience, which is who my reviews are for - but a LOT of the puzzles throughout make a lot more sense (or at least the thinking can be understood) when keeping that in mind.

Oh, it is (was) a commercial product and it should 100% be held to the fire for “come on, fellas” moments. It’s just interesting to note how often Infocom WTF things can be understood by reflecting “everybody involved in this had advanced mechanical engineering degrees, so to them it all seemed entirely clear and normal.”

1 Like

There are good and bad puzzles in all of the Zork:s, but I think the time-travel puzzle in Z3 is one of the better in the whole series.

9 Likes