/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.922045]

Help me out, guys.
I have never played a Zelda game in my life, so I've decided I'm gonna play them all, but I can't decide in what order to play them. What do you suggest?
>Pic related
I was thinking on do it in this order, but I don't really want to start off with Skyward Sword

[Anonymous No.922049]

>>922045
why not just start based on actual releases? The story isn't connected enough to actually affect them (other than windwaker and oracle of seasons/ages and maybe majora's mask)

[Anonymous No.922087]

>The story isn't connected enough to actually affect them
I... didn't knew this.
Welp, I will follow the order in which they were released, then. Any games I should skip?

[Anonymous No.922120]

The only game that I would say necessitates playing an earlier title is Wind Waker. There are several games that are direct sequels to others in the series, such as Majora's Mask, but they are fairly detached from the events of the title they succeed. Wind Waker makes heavy reference to the events of OoT and its story is entirely based around the consequences that arose as a result of said events. TP is technically the same, but it isn't as intertwined as TWW is.

[Anonymous No.922129]

>>922087
>Any games I should skip?
Skip the Philips CD-i games (which aren't even acknowledged by most people). You can choose to play either Link's Awakening or the GBC DX version. You don't really need both. You may not like the touch screen stuff in the two DS games, but the games themselves are not terrible. For the most part, play the games in release order.

[Anonymous No.922162]

Ocarina of Time is pretty well rounded out in terms of gameplay, and is the most crucial to the overall plot of the series. Even though Majora is my personal favorite, I consider OoT the "essential" one.

[Anonymous No.922353]

>>922045
Order they came out
Each game is self-contained enough that you need no previous backstory to play any of them

[Anonymous No.922363]

I'd say order they came out in.

You're not done with Zelda 1 after you've beaten it once though.
Zelda 2 can turn some people off because it's a bit of an odd ball. It's not a bad game, but can be hard to give a shit about.
Link to the Past is good.
64 games are great
oracle games can be linked for extra story at the end of the both of them.

[Anonymous No.922454]

i'd have to say if you've never played a zelda game before you don't wanna start off with the classics first, ease yourself in with Wind Waker or Twilight Princess, then try OoT and MM, if you try going straight for Zelda 1 you'll get lost and zelda 2 will rape you.

[Anonymous No.922469]

Whatever the fuck order you want, it's not like Nintendo actually care about the quality of the story.

[Anonymous No.922504]

I'd say start with that timeline on the left in your picture, maybe play LA before the Oracle games, throw Minish Cap in there somewhere. After that, move onto OoT and just play the 3D games in release order. I'd skip Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks altogether, but that's just me.

[Anonymous No.922509]

Ocarina of Time, then Majora's Mask, then order of release.

[Anonymous No.922858]

Ages, then Seasons. Other way around is dissapointing.

[Anonymous No.923007]

Start 2D with ALTTP
Start 3D with OOT, preferably for 3DS
After that, you can play anything you want.

[Anonymous No.923020]

You should play Majoras Mask after Ocarina of Time. Besides that, it doesn't really matters. I would start with the first Zelda on the NES. Order of release.

[Anonymous No.923024]

>>922045
I would say start with Lttp, the Oot, and after that the order is inconsequential.

[Anonymous No.923028]

Always start anything (games, movies, TV shows, whatever) in release order. You will never lose context that way, since the creators themselves expect that end users who have been there from the beginning will experience them that way.

The simple reminder is to imagine how horrible it would be to watch Star Wars for the first time from episode 1-3, then 4-6. That is fucking retarded; you spoil everything that way.

[Anonymous No.923047]

All of the games are at least average in quality. It's a lot like Mario, even the worst games are still pretty good.

My advice for Zelda 1 is to really explore everything, you never know which bushes will hold secrets. I strongly recommend that you find the manual and map included with the cartridge, as the game was designed to be hard to figure out unaided. My advice for Zelda 2 is to embrace your inner action game, and do the same thing as in Zelda 1, really explore everything and use the provided help. I also recommend talking to everyone and writing down everything they say, even cryptic messages are better than nothing (and they're not nearly as useless of info as Simon's Quest NPCs).

[Anonymous No.923078]

>>923028
sorry but you talk out of your ass.
I think you can read/watch/play any series by starting off wherever the fuck you feel like. this goes especially for games.

all that tryhard bullshit to play everything in release order doesn't apply to most game series. rarely they pick up former storylines with complete stringency in the sequels.

OP, just pick any Zelda game from the list that you think it might interest you the most and jump in.

[Anonymous No.923136]

I would suggest to skipü the NES games alltogether.
Unless you want to experience the changes and advances the series went through, don't bother.
You'd spend a lot of time wandering around aimlessly, searchign for dungeons and items and whatnot.
Of course if you're into that, go ahead and start at the beginning, but I would suggest starting with ALttP and then go on in the order of release.

[Anonymous No.923151]

>>922045
I never understand this. Why wouldn't you play them in order of when they were released? That's how the rest of the world experienced them.

[Anonymous No.923157]

>>923151
>That's how the rest of the world experienced them.

All these shitty assumptions ITT piss me off. Just like yours.

A lot of people experienced it by starting with OoT. some with LA DX and some with OoS/A and went back and forth in terms of release order not giving a shit. Some started with Zelda 2. Another with ALttP and yet another with Minish Cap and Four Swords Adventure.

What's your fucking point?

[Anonymous No.923190]

>>923078
>sorry but you talk out of your ass.
lol, I'm convinced of whatever you have to say now.

>I think you can read/watch/play any series by starting off wherever the fuck you feel like. this goes especially for games.
I can understand this opinion but I really don't share it. While it's true that the Zelda series is not exactly a continuous storyline that builds on the previous release, you always cheat yourself out of *something* when you go out of order. For example, if you wanted to play through the entire series, you will spoil yourself on old releases by becoming accustom to play mechanics in later releases, and you will lose the context of lore in those later releases. I can understand jumping around if you are open to the possibility of skipping games that disinterest you, but I have just never played any game series that way.

>>923136
>Unless you want to experience the changes and advances the series went through
Well yeah. This is what I've always done.

>>923157
>All these shitty assumptions ITT piss me off. Just like yours.
I think it's possible you're so hostile and buttravaged over this issue because there is no way you personally can go back and play everything in order like we did, uncovering the lore of each series in the same order as the designers thought we might if we had been keeping up since the beginning. I don't know if you ever had the same kind of mindblow we did as kids when we noticed, for example, pic related for the first time. Why wouldn't I recommend the same to a new player to maximize their experience?

[Anonymous No.923207]

>>923136
>searchign for dungeons and items and whatnot.
that's called playing an adventure game you clown.
Zelda 2 is the best game in the series, why would you skip it?

[Anonymous No.923213]

>>922045
You should not care that much about the plot. Play the 2D ones in release order and the 3D ones in release order. Switch them around as you like, because they are pretty different.

[Anonymous No.923217]

>>922858
Why is this? I've just started Seasons and intend to play Ages afterwards. What disappointment am I in for?

[Anonymous No.923219]

>>923207

zelda 2 wasnt as bad as people used to say, but calling it the best is hilarious

[Anonymous No.923221]

>>923217

I think most people find Seasons to be more fun than Ages.

I liked ages more though.

[Anonymous No.923225]

I personally played them starting with A Link to the Past, followed by Ocarina of Time then a few of the non-retro ones. LttP is a good starting point but as some other Anons said it makes it difficult to play the older titles sometimes. If I were you I'd probably play them in release order.

[Anonymous No.923270]

>>923190

>lol, I'm convinced of whatever you have to say now.

when I say you talk out of your fat neckbeard ass, you fucking do exactly that and nothing else. I don't aim to convince you. but I'm afraid others might not question your bullshit.

>but I have just never played any game series that way.

autists tend to do that. but that's your problem.

seems like your fedora sits too tight. funny how you only speak about "we". and why do you talk about yourself in 1st person plural anyway?

also no, fuck everything you say. I think you can experience a game series fine by starting off in the middle, at the end or somewhere inbetween those.

I bet you're one of those fanboys who defend the shitty Zelda timeline or even enforced it. and that's retarded enough as it is.

now go suck dick you flaming homo, but oh don't forget to do it in release order. old farts come first, babby dick last. don't you ever forget that.

[Anonymous No.923306]

>>923270
upboat

Now I'll read the OP to see what this thread is about, then the fifth post, then the second one, then the rest in reverse chrono order.

[Anonymous No.923384]

>>923207
>Calling Adventure of Link the best
>Calling me a clown

And I know that searching for your shit is the backbone of adventure games, but the point I wanted to make is, that with these two games it can be quite tedious.

[Anonymous No.923404]

First play Link's Awakening or The Legend Of Zelda
Then the one you didn't play out of those
Then Link's Adventure or A Link To The Past
Then the one you didn't play out of those
Then Oracle Of Ages/Seasons
(the order of OOA and OOS doesnt matter just play one after the other)
Maybe play OOT and MM after that

then never play any zelda games ever again

[Anonymous No.923420]

the best zeldas is the SNES one, its the only one that matters if you can only play 1 of them

ocarina of time honestly looked dated as fuck on the day it came out, now it looks like a triangle maze. the only thing that saves it is some ok music, majora mask doesnt even have that going for it

twilight princess is the worst one in the whole series, not counting the really bad DS ones, it literally looks like a call of duty game and has nothing new in it

links awakening is probably the 2nd best one since it has great gameplay and puzzles, its very old looking however

oracle of seasons and whatever are basically just inferior versions of links awakening

zelda 2 is frankly terrible in spite of positive memories. id play it for a while just to get the cool vibe it has, but dont bother finishing it, its a nightmare

the original zelda is no longer playable, sorry

minish cap is too short and too gimmicky, doesnt feel like a real zelda at all

never played SS yet, its not exactly a priority after the disaster called TP

[Anonymous No.923439]

>>923420
>zelda 2 is frankly terrible
whats wrong with it its a great game

[Anonymous No.923483]

>>923439
I like it too.

I think it gets a bad rap because it's a big departure from every other Zelda game.

[Anonymous No.923493]

>>923420
>the original zelda is no longer playable, sorry
What_the_fuck_am_I_reading?.jpg

[Anonymous No.923538]

>>922045
>implying that's the correct timeline

[Anonymous No.923834]

>>923420

>it literally looks like a call of duty game

/v/ pls go.

[Anonymous No.923842]

>>923420
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.923898]

>>923483
It's not a "big departure".

First of all it is the second ever Zelda game, so there wasn't really much of a formula to depart from at the time. On top of that, it expanded on the original Zelda in a logical way, keeping the action/exploration gameplay while adding to it.

Not only that, but Zelda II added many elements that have become standard Zelda to this day: towns populated with NPCs, sidequests, a magic meter, several quest items that were re-used in later games such as the hammer and boots, and even the triforce of courage all originated in this game.

It is a bit of a difference to get used to the side-scrolling gameplay, if you are used to the top-down or 3rd-person view gameplay styles, but being unique in this regard shouldn't discourage you. It still features the classic Zelda gameplay of explore overworld, explore dungeon, get keys, get item, defeat boss, repeat, all within an enjoyable package.

[Category !.Jb7KRfgJg No.924045]

>>923404
This guy knows it (though in his options, you can miss one of each. Especially links adventure)

[Anonymous No.924080]

>>923420
>Obviously from /v/ due to lack of cohesive reasons to back up his statements.
It's been fun guys.

[Anonymous No.924274]

>>924080
It's obviously a merry prank. He has just enough content to rope you into reading his whole post.

[Anonymous No.924450]

>>924080

>not groupthink

IT MUST BE A TROLL

I have never told the truth and not received this cheerful response, ive heard it a billion times

I dont like the same shit as you, what kind of world would it be if I did

are you seriously saying that you liked twilight princess? we could never have been friends anyway so nothing is lost

[Anonymous No.926724]

>>923898
>It's not a "big departure".
>It is a bit of a difference to get used to the side-scrolling gameplay,
Big departure.

I still like it.

[Anonymous No.926741]

I just skimmed the thread so I don't know if anyone else posted it, but:

When playing Zelda 1, make sure you find the manual for it. Zelda 1 is definitely a cryptic game, but the manual is a big help; it even has a partial map with the first four dungeon locations.


Now, if that game ends up still being too cryptic, my personal recommendation is playing Link's Awakening (either the original or DX), followed by the Oracle games. In my opinion, the Game Boy Zeldas are the absolute best of the series.

[Anonymous No.926749]

>>926741
>cryptic
>cryptic
>cryptic
The game practically explains where every dungeon is, what more do people want?

[Anonymous No.926758]

>>926749
The translations aren't always clear. Yes, some of them are clear, like the fifth dungeon hint explicitly saying to climb the mountain, but others aren't.

It's not -that- bad, I agree, but relative to later games it's definiitely cryptic.

[Anonymous No.926759]

ocarina of time doesnt really look any more dated than mario 64. both zelda n64 games are just as playable as the first zelda where it looked like you were fighting balloon and pancakes half the time

anyway, you should give all of them pre-gamecube at least a try, they are easy as shit to emulate nowadays so no excuse not to. after you get past the n64 games, play wind waker. feel free to skip twilight princess, it's pretty shit

[Anonymous No.926765]

>>926759
>skip twilight princess, it's pretty shit

I thought it was only the Wii version. Granted, I've only played the Wii version, so I don't know.

[Anonymous No.926773]

>>926758
Level 5 is stated by the woman in the waterfall
Level 6 is out in the open
Level 7 is hinted at in a dungeon AND easily discovered by using the recorder to warp around
Level 9 is stated by a NPC in Level 8
Level 8 is the only one where the location is not painfully obvious, but the tree placement clearly stands out.

I've heard the argument about the translation leaving a lot to be desired, but when it comes to dungeon locations they're pretty spot-on.

[Anonymous No.926783]

>>926765

the gamecube one too.

Twilight Princess in general is boring as shit, and it was pretty much the only thing that guy earlier got right in his terrible post. The environments are dull and barren and boring with no interesting locals to visit, the dungeons are all retreads of shit in ocarina of time except for one of them, and the bosses are terrible (again except for one of them) To top it all off it's waaaaay too easy, and it has nothing going for it that Wind Waker had to make up for that same flaw.

[Anonymous No.926812]

Just do it chronologically and you won't have to worry about missing a context cue.

[Anonymous No.926817]

>>926741
>>In my opinion, the Game Boy Zeldas are the absolute best of the series.

Totally agree.

[Anonymous No.926825]

I think the official timeline is a horrible idea and it takes away from the self-contained world and magic of each game that isn't explicitly tied to another one in the series.

That said, play Zelda II because it's the best game in the series. No other Zelda will give you the amount of satisfaction and accomplishment you feel after beating each trial because the game actively wants to make you lose. Also, it has the most heroic ending music out of all of them, especially considering your victory against Ganon is a final one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vez-Q_Eo57I

[Anonymous No.926847]

>>922045
The legend of zelda
Adventure of Link
A link to the past
Ocarina of time-Majora's Mask
Oracles in any order
Link's Awakening DX

That way you will get a better game each time to enjoy the series to the most and keep the dissapointment at low.

Also you can play

Wind waker
Minish Cap-Four Swords

But don't bother playing the rest of the shit.

[Anonymous No.926917]

>>926825

You don't fight Ganon in Zelda II.

You stop him from resurrecting though

[Anonymous No.926932]

>>926724
What I meant is it's not so much a "big", more of a "small-to-medium-sized" departure but I see your point. I was mainly arguing against people who say it isn't a "real" Zelda game, or doesn't feel like one, while in my opinion it definitely feels very Zelda-esque and in the spirit of the series.

>>926783
I think TP's problem is it's a very polished and well put-together game, but it feels kind of "so what?" It just felt like playing Wind Waker with the tone of OoT/MM shoved in. It seems as if they went with the tone to keep with certain people's expectations rather than what would actually organically fit the game, which you should never do. And came up with the story ideas, such as Link turning into a wolf, before coming up with the gameplay and design, rather than the other way around.

>>926825
Agreed. I don't think I've felt that level of satisfaction and achievement from a Zelda game, especially after the ending of Zelda 1 which was sort of a letdown. By the time you are at the final stretch, traversing that great wall, the path up the mountain and finally down the depths of the Great Palace, it fills you with a great determination to finish your epic quest.

[Anonymous No.926940]

Ocarina of Time is the definitive 3D Zelda, Link To The Past is the definitive 2D Zelda. Neither are the best Zelda games, but they are the most important.

If you like OoT, go on to Majora's Mask. Don't worry if you don't like it, it's very unusual, so play Twilight Princess which is OoT2.0. If you do like MM, play Wind Waker because that also makes big changes from Ocarina. If you really like Wind Waker, play Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks because they are related. If you still want more Zelda, play Skyward Sword even though it's the worst 3D Zelda.

If you like LttP and want more, play Link's Awakening DX. If you want even more of that, play the Oracles games. Personally, I think LA/OoA/OoS are the three best Zelda games. You ought to play the first Zelda after LttP, as it might put newcomers off due to not being the most straight forward of games without a guide. Play Zelda II after you play the original game, and if you don't like it that's fair enough - it is the least Zelda of all the Zelda games.

[Anonymous No.926946]

>>926940
Oops, I forgot Minish Cap. Its tone is somewhere between the GBC Zelda games and Wind Waker. Worth playing, but by no means essential. Though if you do enjoy it, you should play Four Swords Adventures too. It's set in the Hyrule from LttP, and has similar elements to Minish Cap as well as the same art style. Not the best Zelda, as it's very linear and has levels instead of an actual overworld to explore, but the multiplayer is great fun.

[Anonymous No.926951]

>>926946
One more thing, don't pay attention to timelines. The stories are all self contained, but because a few of the 3D games take place after the events of OoT (split timeline shit it doesn't matter) make sure OoT is the first 3D game you play.

[Anonymous No.926960]

>>923217

No disappointment at all, this is how it goes.

Seasons is based around combat while Ages is based around puzzles.

In my opinion, Ages is better than Seasons but that's mainly because I enjoyed the dungeons which were about as difficult as the original Zelda 1 dungeons were and the bosses some strategy to defeat.

Not to say I don't enjoy seasons though, in fact, I enjoyed playing some of the classic zelda 1 bosses in a new game and the rod of seasons added some puzzle solving elements to the overworld.

All in all, it just comes down to a matter of opinion.

[Anonymous No.926972]

>>926960
That's a bit of a black-and-white generalization. Each game has plenty of both; Seasons has more combat than puzzles, and Ages has more puzzles than combat, but I always find it really unfair to generalize one game as the combat game and the other as the puzzle game.

[Anonymous No.926989]

>>926972
They both have both aspects, but they were developed with Ages as the more puzzle based game (Triforce of Wisdom), Seasons more action based (Triforce of Power). There was to be a third game, to do with Courage, but it was scrapped.

I personally prefer Seasons as it's a lot jollier, but Ages definitely has a much better story.

[Anonymous No.926995]

>>926972

I never said that one was necessarily on one concept at the cost of the other, I merely said that one was focused on one thing more than the other because that was how they were designed.

I understand where you're coming from though and I apologize if I mistyped in my post. The main idea that I was trying to get across was that ages was just as good as seasons was and that both had their high points that made them stand up as standalone titles.

[Anonymous No.927007]

>>923404
>then never play any zelda games ever again

[Anonymous No.927296]

>>926951
I think he will be fine as long as he plays OoT before MM, if only for all the reused characters and stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.927301]

start with a link to the past or the original zelda for the nes

from there you can either play all the other 2d zeldas or go directly to ocarina of time

[Anonymous No.927308]

>>922087
Have you ever played the Final Fantasy games?
It's basically the same deal. They're each completely separate.