/vr/ - Retro Games

Skyward Sword or Ocarina of Time

Zelda 1, ALTTP or Ocarina of Time

All three are basically Zelda in its purest form.

Definitely start with Synagogue of Souls.
When you fight the four elemental golems I prayed to yaweh for safety.

>>1215760
>Skyward Sword
No, just no

ALttP
The NES games aren't that great.

Zelda 1, of course

The first one, so you can see just how badly the sense of exploration, discovery, and adventure was casually brushed aside to make way for block pushing and waifus.

>>1215993
>That moment in Link's Awakening when the game literally says 'If a door cannot be opened, try pushing a block!'
Well it seems logical to me.

>>1215991
>The NES games aren't that great.
Go back to /v/, kid.

Yes, OP, start with the original and best. Zelda 1 for NES. It all goes downhill after that.

The franchise is for casuals, so whatever game takes your fancy. You'll miss some references, but understand them eventually.

3D games are more or less identical, so play them in whatever order you want. 2D games are more varied; II is unique and the Gameboy games have a tonne of minor features unique to themselves.

>>1215995
>unironically thinking zelda 1 was good

>>1216010
>Actually disliking Zelda 1
Look, you don't have to think it's the best Zelda game ever but anyone who actually thinks it's a bad game? Fairly ignorant statement. Obviously nothing can be objectively good, but something can be objectively flawed or broken and Zelda 1 is NOT.

>>1216010
>unironically being a stupid head

>>1216017
Zelda 1 is a novelty game.
It's crude and unsophisticated but hey, at the time it offered almost a brand new experience...taken the freshness away, it really ain't good.Links Awakening and LttP are so much better and they are still genuinely good.

Same thing goes to Altered Beast, Last Ninja and Shadow of the Beast, nice tech demos at the time, but terrible games overall

>>1216017
You can argue it was influential, and that it was a great game at the time. But you seriously cannot argue that it's aged well when 99% of the population needs a walkthrough to get through it.

>inb4 "because they're casuals?

>>1216027
What makes LttP and LA better? The only objective differences I can think of are Zelda 1 being the only one with the bombing mechanic, whereaa in LttP they're just reskins of keys and cracks of doors, bosses are more focused on exploiting a weakneas rathee than hitting and dodging, and half the items are only used for a short period after finding them. Any impartial analysis concludes that Zelda 1 is superior

>>1216030
99% of the population is impatient. That doesn't mean they are casuals it just means they want instant gratification. The game is beatable without a walkthrough. I've done it myself and I wouldn't call myself "hardcore" by any means. If there's something you can't figure out there's normally an old man in a cave waiting to tell you exactly what to do (maybe it'll be a bit cryptic but still he tells you exactly what to do).
I think it has aged well. If they remade Zelda 1 with todays mentality it would be weighed down by dialogue explaining obvious things (There's two buttons, I can figure out how to swing my sword) and prevention of progression past where you are "supposed to be".
Zelda 1 is an adventure. Adventures aren't SUPPOSED to be easy. The game may not be for everyone but you seriously cannot call it bad or even poorly aged.
I think the reason this game is so divisive is that some people just don't want to bother figuring it out when in other Zelda games they blatantly tell you what to do all the time. Shit, I'm playing Link's Awakening and a room actually told me to move a stone to open the door. They couldn't just let me figure that one out myself? What's even the point if the game will literally tell me what to do. Later Zelda games are "can you follow instructions?" while Zelda 1 is "can you actually figure this out on your own?"

>>1216030
That's because they're just going "HERP DERP GONNA LOAD MUH ROM SHIT WHAT I DO" with a game that comes from an era where you literally COULD NOT FIT explanations into a game. They're not reading the manual.

They'd likely also play a game like King's Quest or something and go "WHAT DO I DO THIS GAME IS UNWINNABLE HOW WOULD YOU BEAT IT WITHOUT A MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION"

>>1216030
The sheer arrogance necessitated by thinking amything too hard for you is badly designed is just beyond my comorehension. If it is a result of bad design, you should point out these flaws rather blaming the game for people's incompetence

>>1215984
Fuck you.
Play them in chronological order OP.
Start off a different timeline after Ocarina in whatever order you like.

Captcha; agemthey thoroughly

>>1216039
This.
There are so many people on /vr/ who just pick up a game without even trying to figure it out, try to start playing immediately and just go "THIS GAME IS UNPLAYABLE!" Well yeah maybe it's unplayable if you don't read (or at least fucking skim) the manual. Oh, you don't have the manual? YOU HAVE THE INTERNET. You don't want to be bothered to look for the manual? Then keep playing and use your pattern recognition skills to notice how the game works.

>>1216042
Absolutely disgusting.

Start with Link's Awakening, then Oracles (both) and LttP if you want more of the same. Whatever the fuck you do don't play anything after Summoner's Symphony.

>>1216042

>>1216043
I'm pretty sure pattern recognition skills won't help me find a bombable hole in the wall to find something I need, or navigate using a map that does dick all, or understanding the nonsensically translated hints.

dont start with the gems of the series
get yourself something good like the oracles games or the minish cap, then move to something like LTTP and OOT

Well if you're a true newb to the Zelda experience play 1, not with the intent of beating it because it is long and hard but just to experience it. At least finish the first dungeon.
Don't play Zelda 2 only because it's fairly different from every Zelda game. There is a lot of controversy over whether it is actually a bad game but I think everyone will agree it's the most standout game in the entire series as being non-Zelda.
Zelda 3 AKA Link to the Past is awesome. Definitely finish this one.
Links Awakening comes back, once again definitely worth finishing.

Now is when the jump to 3D was made. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are both phenomenal. Wind Waker is divisive but I really enjoy it. Twilight Princess on becomes "enter at your own risk" because some long-time Zelda fans hate them, while others love it. This and Skyward Sword are probably the second most divisive games in the series, the first obv being Zelda 2.

Next 2D game was the Oracle games, which are kinda hard to play now since the true final level requires linking two gameboys together. Still their both really fun games.
There are more Zelda games after this but I've covered the true basics in my opinion. Plus from here on we become very non /vr/ related.

>>1216050
Yes they will. All of the necessary bombing spots are non-cryptic and the only nonsensical hint is the one about the sword upgrade. Of course you'd know that if you had actually played the game

>>1216050
Aside from the final dungeon which I can agree was too secretly hidden you don't actually HAVE to find any of the hidden locations.
Also, complaining that you can't find HIDDEN locations? For gods sake, how much do you "want to play a money making game?"
Although I will repeat, the fact that Ganon's dungeon was hidden in an inauspicious rock is kinda bullshit, but that's the only thing in the game that I think seriously aged shittily. That's LITERALLY the only thing in the game I feel that way about.

>>1216063
>>1216063
There was an old lady who told you to bomb one of those IIRC

>>1216053
>since the true final level requires linking two gameboys together

Actually all you need to do is enter a code for the other game. You don't link together systems at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZPXaSKjWzs

I fucking love Johnny. Literally every review I agree with everything he says, or at the very least I see where he's coming from.

>>1216053
>Oracle games hard to play now

The only way they're hard to play is getting the motivation to suffer through Rolling Ridge's non-stop minigames and the back-to-back Mermaid suit dungeons.

>>1216074
>All this casual
>"I feel so terrible for any kid in the 80s who played without a guide of any sort, or a friend who knew all the tricks of the trade"

He practically is spitting in my face.

>>1216102
Playing Zelda 1 with a guide defeats the purpose

for the 2d games, I'd say Link's Awakening - it's a contained story, there isn't much cryptic bullshit, and it's not super long so you can get to the end and decide if you want to play more or not.
For the 3D games, I'd say Ocarina or Wind Waker are the most accessible

>>1216107
Not him, but I'm pretty sure any kid in the 80s used Nintendo Power or rumors on the playground. Or the manual, which the guy cited as a guide.

>Ctrl+F
>no wands of gamelon

/vr/ I am dissapoint

Even though it's one of my least favorites, A Link to the Past is the best place to start hands-down. All the Zeldas that came after it follow its template much more than they follow either of the NES games', and it introduces the common "collect 3x, get sword, collect 7y" structure. It also introduces many of the most iconic themes and music in the series, like the Fairy Fountain theme.

Once you've played ALttP, go on to LA and the Oracle games if you want more 2D goodness, or Ocarina if you want to start getting into the 3D games. Playing ALttP first will help you appreciate OoT a lot more, since you will experience firsthand how well they were able to translate all the series staples into 3D.

tl;dr,
>if you like ALttP's 2D gameplay, go to LA and the Oracle games
>if you want to see the next evolution of ALttP's gameplay, go to OoT
After those, just play whatever you want.

>>1216237
>Even though it's one of my least favorites, A Link to the Past

May I ask why?

It's like, the perfect Zelda game. It's what I immediately think of when I hear the name.

Play Zelda 1,2 (NES), Link to the Past (SNES), Link's Awakening (Game Boy), Ocarina of Time (64) and Majora's Mask (64), Skip Wind Waker, then play the Gamecube release of Twilight Princess. then...if you want to enjoy Zelda for the love of god Stop. And pretend MM was the last Zelda game ever made.

>>1215760
For 3D Zelda's, Ocarina of Time.

For 2D either A link to the Past or Link's Awakening. I would say the first one, but that on got so much cryptic bullshit that most people would hate it unless they are used to that kind of games

>>1216252
Well, the last sentence came out wrong. By the first one I'm referring to the original The Legend of Zelda, not the first one I mentioned.

>>1216045
>>1216049
Not that guy, but fuck the both of you. SS is perfectly fine. Aside from it being not retro

>>1216260
I've played every game in the series. SS is the only one I can firmly say I will never replay ever again. It *sucked*. And it's definitely not the best Zelda to start with.

>>1216264
Another guy, Have also played every game in the series (not counting the CDi games) and the one I'd never touch ever again is PH. I've enjoyed every Zelda game expect that one.

>>1215760
>I'm New to Zelda Games , where to start
what the actual fuck? are you one of the following?
not 'murican/japanese
very young if yes, gtfo
an impoverished person


Start with the first game and work your way up from there, in order of release.

>>1216272
Oh. Yeah I wouldn't replay PH either, I forgot about that. But I feel that SS is overall worse.

>>1216278
I think SS has it flaws but PH is god awful. The temple of the ocean king is the worst idea ever, the touch controls are hardly working, the boating was the most boring "exploration" ever and the dungeons were short and easy with boring items.

At least SS had it's combat which worked for some (like me) and had a couple of fun bosses and enjoyable temples, especially those that involved the time stones.

I just feel that PH has zero redeeming features while SS was at least ok if you managed to get the combat working. But that shouldn't have been a issue to start with I guess.

>>1216285
>the boating was the most boring "exploration"
That perfectly describes anothernot retro and grossly overrated Zelda game

>>1215760
>that image
This is the reason I hate the series after it went to 3D. It attracted all these Sonic-level autists and hambeasts.

>>1216337

No it didn't.

>>1216337
That's a pretty childish reason to hate a series.

>>1216312
Wind Waker? If so It's exploration is still way ahead of PH. Actually pretty much every Zelda game has exploration that's way ahead of it, even SS in which exploration was probably it's weakest feature considering how linear it was and how empty the sky felt.

>>1216052
the Oracles ARE the gems of the series

Zelda has always excelled on handhelds (well, except for it's DS iterations)

>>1216374
Seasons is the gem. Ages is the cubic zirconium.

Whatever you do, don't play either of the NES games. They're not even real games, they're fucking obtuse bullshit designed to sell guides and Nintendo Power subscriptions.

>>1216035
>99% of the population is impatient. That doesn't mean they are casuals it just means they want instant gratification.

Thus why many gamers say FF>DQ

>>1216374
>except for it's DS iterations

am I the only one who loved the DS games?

>>1216414
I only had Zelda 2 on the NES as a kid, so I just recently got to pick up the first game on Club Nintendo for the 3DS eshop

I beat it in a few days without a guide
There was a decent amount of wandering around, but the game is very very simple in its gameplay, it's not like you aren't cut off from parts of the map before you clear certain areas, so for most of the game you have sections to explore that make it much less of a hassle to get around than if you had the whole map at once

>>1216417
>Thus why many gamers say FF>DQ

No it isn't.

Zelda 1: Going to be extremely retro. I'd go so far as to call it an upgraded atari game. Good game, but it's old. (Also get a map. It came with one)

Zelda 2: More adventuring. Hard. If you like a challenge (And link visiting hookers in town) it's bretty gud.

Lttp: Awesome game at the time. Hard for me to judge without nostalgia goggles.

Start with OOT, go to MM, from there do WW and then after that order doesnt matter

I'll try to be as unbiased about this as I can.

Legend of Zelda
>Known for its high level of freedom, you can essentially do whatever you want right from the start of the game with few restrictions (you must do the last level at the end, for example). People who recommend this game usually do so on the basis of this; play LoZ first if you have interest in seeing the series' roots and/or you want a really exploratory adventure. The combat is also quite a bit more difficult than the later standard entries although whether this is because of challenge or because of how comparatively rudimentary it is is up to you to decide.
>The dungeon puzzles (and, indeed, the dungeons themselves) are much more basic than in later incarnations. In addition, many of the overworld "puzzles" actually come down to bombing or burning random parts of the landscape with varying levels of hints for how and where to do this. The game is practically unplayable today without the included map, so be sure to use that.
>LoZ is rather short. It shouldn't take you more than a few days if you do everything and don't spoil the game for yourself.

Adventures of Link
>Very, very different from the rest of the series. It's a combat-oriented sidescroller with RPG elements. Rather linear, too. Play this one first if you want to play a hybrid between Ninja Gaiden and Zelda.
>There are very few puzzles, but they're definitely more sophisticated than the first game. Don't play this for the puzzles though, as you will likely be disappointed.
>AoL is somewhat longer and the runtime will depend on how successful you are at actually playing the game. It's still rather short, however.

>>1216569
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
>This is a really big jump over the previous two games. While there are parts of the game that are non-linear, it is mostly a journey played in order. There's also a ton of stuff to do and a lot of people to talk to. Puzzle-solving and dungeons are much more sophisticated than the first two games. Of particular note is that the game no longer assumes you're using any supplemental materials to get through it, which has the added effect of making the overworld feel more populated (due to it providing you with more information). The puzzles still aren't all that difficult, however, and they mostly exist to break up the pace of the game. Play this one first if you want a long 2D Zelda experience and aren't particularly concerned with linearity or difficulty.
>While it's not exactly long, you would have a hard time playing through this in a couple of days unless you used a guide or did nothing but play it.

Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
>Takes the refinements of Link to the Past and puts them in a more compact environment. While there's less stuff, what's there is more visible and relevant; it's not rare, for example, to have an item visible to you but out of reach for much of the game, providing a sense of satisfaction when you actually do obtain it. The dungeons and puzzles are roughly on par with LttP; nothing is particularly challenging but they do a good job of regulating the pace of the game. Play this if the idea of a more concise, scaled down version of a Link to the Past appeals to you.
>I would call this about half the length of LttP.

>>1216578
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
>The first 3D Zelda and subsequently another big jump for the series. Ocarina of Time features a lot of systems that have since become standard for the series and essentially has them in their most refined form. Dungeons now constitute the focus of the game and most of the game is spent in them. In turn, puzzles are now iterative and instead of tasking you with, say, moving a block, they depend on your ability to utilize the items you have (or the items you've just obtained) in different and increasingly complex ways. Overworld puzzles funciton like this as well. Combat is satisfying to control and fun but it's on the easy side for the most part. There's a rather substantial amount of stuff to do and people to talk to outside of the dungeons (as well as various environments to do this in) but the overworld lacks the high density nature of LTTP. In addition, the game is now almost completely linear and, outside of one notable exception, the game expects you to do the dungeons in order. Play Ocarina of Time first if the idea of a superbly designed and varied but explicitly linear game appeals to you.
> Ocarina of Time is the longest of the retro Zeldas. Expect to put at least forty hours into it.

Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
>Majora's Mask is a combination of Ocarina of Time and the older Ultima games. There is a heavy emphasis on the environment and setting, and most of the interest of the game derives from that. There are half as many dungeons, but a proper playthrough of the game will involve investigating them many times. Play Majora's Mask first if you want to play a game about world-building rather than adventuring.
>Not quite as long as Ocarina of Time but still rather time-consuming. It really depends a lot on how much you want to complete, however.

>>1216419

I thought PH was good, but spirit tracks grinds my gears. Opposite of what most say. Also, Skyward Sword had the best dungeons since ocarina, shame the world felt so dead and empty

>>1216569
>>1216578
>>1216591
I know they're slightly out of /vr/ territory but they were GBC games, humor me and do the Oracles

>>1216637
>slightly out of /vr/ territory

Pffft. I'm pretty sure GBC still counts as /vr/. It's still 8-bit. It's only GBA and up that aren't allowed.

>>1216646
That's what I meant, the console fits but the games were released in I believe 2001

>>1215760
A Link to the Past for 2D, Ocarina of Time for 3D. If you like them, then give them all a go eventually.

>>1216637
Honestly, I didn't want to comment on two games that I've barely played and have almost no recollection of. I've actually beaten all of the non-mobile/non-CDi games in the series now (as well as LA) outside of SS so maybe I should get on them.

I mostly believe nowadays that where people should start depends on their attitude towards linearity, as it really polarizes people with Zelda. As far as I'm aware, OoA/OoS doesn't really fall very far to either extreme on that spectrum so its exclusion shouldn't really affect anyone.

People will start on LoZ if they want nonlinearity.
They'll start on AoL if they want an action game.
They'll start on LTTP or AL if they want a linear top-down adventure depending on how focused they want it to be. Perhaps OoS and OoA fit here too.
They'll start on OoT if they want a really tailor-made Zelda.
They'll start on MM if they want Zelda plus Ultima.

ALttP is the most accessible, start with that.

Then work through them in this order: LA, OoS, OoA, LoZ, AoL.

I'm not saying that LoZ or AoL are bad, they aren't. In fact, LoZ is my favorite of the series. You just might have difficulty with their design.

>>1216027
Nah. I first played Zelda 1 after having played most of the other games in the series, and I still enjoyed it a lot.

>>1216419
I liked them, but they felt overall like the developers didn't put as much effort into them. Like compared to the other handheld Zeldas, which felt like a big a game they could make with the hardware, the DS games felt like they were designed with the idea of being Zelda-lite.

As a Zelda fan since 1998, here's my recommended order OP:

LttP
OoT
MM
WW
LA
OoS/OoA

After that it's up to you.