Which Zelda title first

#11bratt100Posted 7/15/2011 2:21:01 AM
I always thought the triforce wasn't a real thing in that it existed sighing others rather then being a physical object. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought it was just a representation of the personality traits within the heroes/villains.
Thanks He-man
#12niels200683Posted 7/15/2011 2:28:16 AM
bratt100 posted...
I always thought the triforce wasn't a real thing in that it existed sighing others rather then being a physical object. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought it was just a representation of the personality traits within the heroes/villains.

You are wrong.

Play any of the seasons games: In the intro, you are actually sent to your quest by a 'self-aware' Triforce.

Play the original zelda, and you are collecting pieces of the Triforce.
Do you believe in the Soul Cake Duck?
Einstein: My wife doesn't understand me.
#13niels200683Posted 7/15/2011 2:29:25 AM
P.s. - play Ocarina of time to see why the Triforce split in the three pieces in the first place. (As well as why it is made up of three pieces)
Do you believe in the Soul Cake Duck?
Einstein: My wife doesn't understand me.
#14chestershadowPosted 7/17/2011 1:53:32 PM
Muljo Stpho posted...
There's some truth to the statement that the games all work as standalone titles but don't listen to his pessimism about the timeline. (With that said, you don't really need to concern yourself with the timeline right away either. Just play the games.)

Excuse me, but pessimism with the timelines? We don't even know what the real timeline is because nintendo (and more importantly the Zelda Team) has never revealed their timeline for the games, even though they supposedly have one. I never said I don't believe that there is a timeline, but making assumptions when Nintendo could very easily put the games in almost whatever order they want if they ever choose to release the timeline is silly. Even if they somehow said WW was prequel to every game in the series ever, some of the fans will still find a way to justify it by coming up with even more theories about how it all fits together. Zelda is all about solving puzzles, but whoever said that each game's puzzles pieces fit together with the other games' pieces in a particular way?

Until Nintendo releases their timeline, why speculate? Why not just enjoy each game for their own sake rather than because its a part of the Zelda timeline somewhere. Especially with someone who is somewhat new to the series like TC said they were, theres no reason to put blinders on and start throwing in complicated and almost non-nonsensical timeline paradoxes. Let them enjoy each game and then let them decide once they get a bigger first hand experience if they want to buy into the timeline theories.

If you want an honest look at the series TC, play the games in the order they came out in, starting from the oldest and ending with the newest. In this particular topic ALTTP and then the oracle games. No need to confuse yourself with timelines and the paradoxes that come with them, just enjoy the immersion that each game brings on its own first. You get a much more natural look at the series that way anyway.
#15Muljo StphoPosted 7/18/2011 1:12:52 AM
Excuse me, but pessimism with the timelines?

You know, this attitude here:

Until Nintendo releases their timeline, why speculate?

It's this attitude that any little bit of uncertainty about any minor detail constitutes a giant glaring plothole that makes it worthless to discuss anything at all. Comments like this have been popping up in every topic they possibly can lately, and it contributes nothing to the discussion.

Why not just enjoy each game for their own sake rather than because its a part of the Zelda timeline somewhere.

Notice that I basically said this exact same thing to the TC though. "Just play the games." I agree that the best thing for anyone new to the series would be to just take each game as its own experience and decide later on if you want to connect the dots as well. (I also agree that release order wouldn't be a bad way to go, if he can get his hands on any older games first. The original NES game in particular needs to be enjoyed while it's still possible to enjoy it, before you've had a taste of anything newer than it. (It was great back in the day but it really hasn't aged well.) I don't personally feel like LttP shares in this problem, but some do and so it's probably best to get to that one as soon as possible as well.)

The timeline really is much simpler than people who have made comments like yours try to make it sound though. And that's all I was trying to tell him when I suggested that he not listen to the pessimism. Besides, it's not like you can't do both. You can enjoy the games AND enjoy piecing together where they belong. Some of us do, and that's why we discuss it.

I have to ask...

And even then, the most you can find connection-wise between each game are subtle things that can be easily blown out of proportion, such as stone carvings on the wall of a dungeon (i.e. windwaker depicting gorons and zora's on temple walls when in WW they are supposedly extinct races).

WTF were you referring to here? What "stone carvings on the wall of a dungeon" have ever been used by anyone as evidence of anyth... ****, are you talking about the ****ing Tingle scribbles that someone used in an argument in favor of the single timeline before we had the split timeline confirmed by the developers? That story doesn't even sound that much like MM anyway. It has the phrase "burst balloon" that fits, but everything else is completely wrong. Tingle's just some delusional nutcase and his story means nothing.

As for the Goron and Zora. TWW tells us that guardianship of the Zora passed from Jabu-Jabu to Valoo and under his care they have been transforming into the Rito. And the Goron were not completely missing from TWW. There were some wandering merchants in the game who were Goron. At no point did it ever say that the Goron were extinct. (Also, they definitely aren't extinct 100 years later when we see a tribe of them living in the new Hyrule founded by Link and Tetra.)

Despite what you might think (and despite whatever crazyass over-the-top debates you may have seen), you really don't need to analyze every last detail under a microscope to discuss the timeline. People get into these absurd arguments over pitifully small details because of disagreements about some minor point that usually doesn't actually affect anything. Please don't take **** like that as representative of discussions of the subject in general. I don't understand those people either.

And, of course, you don't need to pay attention to such discussions if you don't want to anyway. Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything here.
"This ain't like fieldwork. You never have to notarize a man and kill him in triplicate. Well... Almost never..." - Ruby
#16xCha0sPosted 7/18/2011 1:20:02 AM
a link to the past tends to be long and hard for brand new players today because its a bit retro and came out when nintendo power days were popular, but if you know where to go and have experience, its classic length of being rather short, and i can complete the entire game in 1-2 sittings, literally. and almost all heart pieces at that. (lttp has some of the easiest heart pieces to get in the series(
#17chestershadowPosted 7/22/2011 5:39:59 PM
Muljo, I know you said that to the tc as well. But my view on the timeline has nothing to do with pessimism. Not once did I say anywhere for people to stop speculating about the timeline. Taking what I said out of context to the tc's situation IS what my argument stops at. You can speculate on the timeline all you want. In tge topics where people do discuss tge timeline, I keep my mouth shut and read what arguments people make for their connections. Some are very solid and reasonable, particularly alot of tge connections you made and presented here are well constructed, and aren't quite so farfetched. This split people talk about in the timeline circa oot into tp or oot into mm and then windwaker are a bit hard to swallow because there could be any number of explanations, including a future Zelda game that fits in that gap somewhere.

I believe that there is a timeline, Ive made my own connections in some based on whats logical. But the speculation of where the timelines split I don't quite buy into, because it's not my turn, it's nintendo's move and they still have lots of pawns to move. Nintendo has hinted heavily about a timeline, you can speculate all you want, but who's to say the game after skyward sword doesn't give a different explanation to the supposed timeline split? Who's to say for sure the timeline splits at oot FOR CERTAIN? That's the thing about theories, you could be right on the dot, close, or way off base. Until I see something more definite, I'm goin to keep my skepticism, and I suggest tc take things at face value On a game by game basis. I never once said they arent allowed to put their own theories together on how the series is connected or how unconnected they are. But looking at the bigger picture without first knowing the smaller one throws all sense of immersion out the window (which even you agreed with).
#18strongo9Posted 7/22/2011 6:03:30 PM
The Zelda games are all connected, but the order you play most of the games doesn't matter.
I can't wait for Super Mario 3D, Mario Kart 3D, Paper Mario 3D, Luigi's Mansion 2,
Kid Icarus: Uprising, Kirby Mass Attack, Kirby Wii, and Skyward Sword!
#19mrfatcatmiedPosted 7/22/2011 6:07:02 PM
Don't play PH first, or at all, it's considered the worst Zelda game, and it spoils Wind Waker a TON.
Level is the unofficial pony board: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/42-level