So let me get this straight, in order to fully experience the

>>3773923
You can play them however you want. They're all self contained except for a couple like OoT and MM. Playing them in release order is good.

The stupid timeline didn't even exist until Skyward Sword.

>>3773923
I would play them in release order honestly.

I'd go pseudo-release order
>LoZ
>Adventure of Link
>Links Awakening
>A link to the past
>The Oracle Games
>Minish Cap
Then move onto 3D
>OoT
>MM
>Windwaker
>Twilight Princess
>Skyward Sword

Final 2 are by far the worst Zelda games ever made.

>>3773967
Nigga, Twilight Princess is one of the best ones.

>>3773958
But that's wrong. While the games are indeed fairly self-contained, there's always been a timeline. It's just that it was never fleshed out and some games made it extremely confusing to place them.

Zelda II was always a direct sequel to Zelda I.
Link to the Past was always a prequel to Zelda I.
Link's Awakening was always a sequel to LttP.
Ocarina of Time was originally intended to take place "before every other game."
Majora's Mask was always a direct sequel to OoT.

That right there was a fairly solid timeline. The only real question is wether or not it was the same characters through all six games.

After this, everything gets all fucked up as games start getting made that make no logical sense whatsoever in where they go. Especially Wind Waker. Despite it's backstory obviously being that of Ocarina of Time, there really was no logical way it could fit in with the other games, unless you started splitting shit. Other games released afterward were just as confusing. Twilight Princess, Four Swords, Minish Cap, etc.

>>3773967
You skipped over the only three games that actually do have a continuous story.

>Windwaker
>Phantom Hourglass
>Spirit Tracks

Those are all direct sequels.

>>3773923

'Official' timeline isn't even a good attempt at one.

>>3773976
This timeline was already crafted by the fandom at least a couple years prior. Nintendo copied it pretty much verbatim.

>>3773973
So what about Mario? Or Donkey Kong? Do they also have a timeline?

>>3773980
Zelda wasn't even supposed to have a timeline.
Fans just kept pestering Nintendo about it.

>>3773984
Except the two games alone literally prove you wrong.

>>3773980
Don't be retarded.

>>3773978

I wish they'd at least try and explain pre-Ganon moblins or how goriyas went from mustachio'd rats into the fraggle rock looking things in LttP.

An honest attempt at expanding the lore in an actual game would be pretty damn amazing. I'd love to see a good writer try and fill the gaps in to match up all the different dungeons or something. Another time-hopping mechanic showing things like how the deku tree dungeon eventually became the eagle dungeon or similar would start to write itself after a while.

>>3773986
>Except the two games alone literally prove you wrong.
Except Miyamoto himself literally proves you wrong when he says they're not supposed to be related, faggot.

>>3773997
Please, keep making shit up, and keep being wrong.

File: The Legend of the Donkey and the Kong.jpg (1MB, 2257x3101px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2257x3101px

>>3773923
Why would anyone ever care to experience Zelda games based on their lackluster story, especially on some retconned made up chart based on an already lackluster story? That's a better question.

>>3773986
>believing and supporting a Zelda timeline.
>calling someone else retarded.

>>3773986
Games in a series can be sequential without there being a timeline.

I.e: Windwaker->Phantom Hourglass->Spirit Tracks are all sequential, but the don't have to fit anywhere inside a complete timeline.
The Zelda series just all takes place in the same world, with shared backstory and mythology.
Many of them even fit together, but there wasn't supposed to be some grand timeline linking them all.

>>3773996
The Hyrule Historia book *kinda* attempts to do that in some areas. One example that comes immediately to mind is talking about how Hyrule was a land in decline at the time of Zelda 1, so the people retreated to living in underground caverns.

>>3774000
>"Dan Owsen: Heh, well, all I can tell you is, when I asked Mr. Miyamoto about the order of the games, he admitted that he didn't know! I really think the order of the stories is not that important to the game's creators. Each game is a stand-alone piece, and if there are connections between them, that's great. But they never intentionally do things in a game just so it will connect with another. The creators did tell me a few times that they didn't want to set any story points in stone, as that would restrict them in future games. I worked on three Zelda games screen text. Even when writing the text, it was funky because they were very picky about the wording so it wasn't specific. It made it sound strange, but hey it was their game so I did the text the way they wanted.
Don't you look fucking stupid now, faggot. Miyamoto never gave that much of a fuck of the idea of there being a linear timeline and it shows in the games.

File: ZoraTAoLstand[1].png (3KB, 48x87px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 48x87px

>>3773996
Goriya in LttP is a "let's give it a common Zelda name'. They're called Copies in Japan, because they copy you movement.

Funny enough, Zelda 2 does the reverse: the enemies that crawl around and occasionally rear up to breath fireballs at you are Basiliks in the US version, but the Japanese version reveals they're Zoras.

>>3774023

I always figured as much. Little tidbits like that being retconned into something cohesive would be cool as hell. Just every game having so many similar themes and events gives it kind of a self-emerging lore. Ninty just needs to reign it in and give it some more depth.

>>3774013
that conflicts with thousands of other interviews stating otherwise.

so I guess miyamoto is just a hack!
btw not even the guy you're fighting with

>>3774113
>that conflicts with thousands of other interviews stating otherwise.
Such as?

>playing Zelda in chronological order

Pants on head retarded

You wouldn't even get anything out of it anyway except for playing Wind Waker after Ocarina of Time. These games have such loose connections with the non-sequels that the time line may as well not even exist.

Just play Ocarina before Wind Waker, and any of the sequel games after their counterparts and you'll be golden.

>>3774113

If you've paid any amount of attention to interviews, especially in recent years, they are always waffling and spouting revisionist bullshit that directly contradicts earlier interviews, or other widely known facts.

Never take interviews as word of god, especially not from Nintendo.

The Zelda timeline is honestly fine besides the multiplayer games being shoehorned in and OoT lacking a game over scene to suggest the downfall branch.

It's the best you're gonna get considering the series' standard for writing, all the style changes over the years and each individual title being pretty self-contained.