• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Zelda Virgin: Where to start?

i'd say start with the latest game and more or less work backwards from there. i'm of the opinion that most games do not age well, especially if you have no nostalgia factor...

start with the latest, assuming they've improved over the years and learned from any past mistakes and then go backwards.
 
I think Link to the Past is the best one. Either start there or playt the latest one. I wouldn't start with the NES version. It IS VERY frustrating for a Zelda newcomer.
 
I would start... and finish with A Link to the Past. The 3D Zeldas did nothing for me, and the NES version is too dated for most people to care. Zelda III is an all around classic.
 
I really loved Windwaker. As a kid I loved Link to the Past. I played Ocarina of Time just a year ago and got bored with it (hard to live with the outdated graphics). I started Twilight Princess but quit it before I got to the first dungeon, I just realized this type of game no longer interested me anymore.
 
Ocarina of time was by far my favorite. good storyline, excellent maps, decent quests, etc. Didn't much care for Majora's Mask. Twilight Princess was also excellent...

Not that you can't start wherever, but I think those two are the best of the group, and are easy to get into. OoT has a pretty good, sweeping story as well...
 
Ocarina of Time is the best, by and far one of the best Zelda games ever released. But they are all good. The Legend of Zelda, and A Link to the Past are great too. Majora's Mask is fun, but I feel it is more for the hardcore Zelda fans. If you ever run across a used Zelda Collectors Edition GameCube disc I would highly recommend it, which has The Legend of Zelda, OoT, and Majora's Mask. The price can be high, but I found one for $50.00 used at Gamestop once. Of course, alternately, you can just download them from the Wii Shop Channel.

Zelda II - The Adventures of Link I loved when it first came out. Now days I don't really care for it all that much, but it's a solid game. I had a lot of fun with Wind Waker too.

I haven't ever played any of the Gameboy Zelda games, nor Twilight Princess. As for the time-line, I have my own that I go by.
 
I think the generally accepted timeline is something like this:

Link 1:
Ocarina of Time
Majora's Mask

Link 2:
Twilight Princess

Link 2 (Alternate Timeline):
Windwaker
Phantom Hourglass

Link 3:
Minish Cap
The Four Swords
Four Sword Adventures

Link 4:
A Link to The Past
Link's Awakening
Oracle of Ages/Seasons

Link 5:
The Legend Of Zelda
Zelda II

That's really off the top of my head though. There's not any real reason to play the games in chronological order, as there is no entirely correct answer. The continuity is convoluted, and doesn't really fit together perfectly any way you put it.
 
Game Trailers had a decent timeline in the last part of their Zelda retrospective video series. It was pre-Phantom Hourglass and Twilight Princess, though.
 
Phantom Hourglass is easy, it's a direct sequel to Windwaker. Twilight Princess is a little more difficult to place, but is obviously before Ganondorf's permanent transformation into Gannon. I think it's pretty much agreed that there are multiple Links and Zelda throughout the ages, but only one Gannon.
 
But Windwaker was a sequel to Ocarina, wasn't it? They lived on the flooded mountain tops where the Ocarina Link lived?
 
But Windwaker was a sequel to Ocarina, wasn't it? They lived on the flooded mountain tops where the Ocarina Link lived?

Yes, but it's generally agreed to be an alternate timeline. At the end of OoT, Zelda sends Link back to his childhood, and then disappears from Hyrule at the beginning of Ocarina of Time. So the logic is that Link both saved Hyrule in OoT, but then didn't at the same time because his past self disappeared. So continuing from Majora's Mask, we have the timeline where Hyrule is flooded by its king because Link isn't there to save it.

It's a mindfuck, I know, but that's the Zelda chronology in a nutshell, anyway. :p
 
It's dangerous to go alone.



I can't imagine not starting from the original NES one and moving forward in order that there were released. And I don't chalk that up to "nostalgia" but it would be hard jumping around graphic wise, plus, you can really see how things evolved and everything.
 
Yeah, but it would be a shame to feel that it was the original games that felt clichéd instead of the latter ones.

I don't think it's possible to go wrong by starting with Zelda: LTTP for SNES, it's the truest and most iconic of all the Zelda games, IMO, and perhaps the most plain fun.
 
I'll be nice and warn you about Zelda II, though. It's very different from the rest of the series in that it's mostly a side scroller. The difficulty is also borderline sadistic at times. Most fans would probably agree it's the weakest Zelda game overall (besides the CD-I ones.) It's to date the only Zelda game I've never completed.
 
I'll be nice and warn you about Zelda II, though. It's very different from the rest of the series in that it's mostly a side scroller. The difficulty is also borderline sadistic at times. Most fans would probably agree it's the weakest Zelda game overall (besides the CD-I ones.) It's to date the only Zelda game I've never completed.

Zelda II is a difficult game. The hardest part is probably the Valley of Death - I found that to be more difficult than the Great Palace. I did have a lot of fun with that game, collecting all the items, and getting all the magic powers. I agree that it is the weakest Zelda game, and I don't even count the those dismal CD-I games.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top