18
votes
I'm out of the loop, what is up with The Legend of Zelda ?
I've been seeing the mention of the game a lot lately, and I've seen many memes about it in the past week or so, I've never played the game so I don't know much about it, I'm guessing it's because of the new game that was released ? but why has it gotten so famous suddenly ?
Tears of the Kingdom released recently. It's a long-anticipated sequel to Breath of the Wild, with people literally waiting years for it. And from what I hear, it was worth the wait, which adds to the excitement.
And to add on to this, Zelda is a game series that has been going on since the original NES. It's one of the most famous game series in existence.
I had trouble with BOTW because I guess I don't understand open world games. I LOVED the art, but I had no idea what to do and ended up wasting so much time figuring out how not to die in the snowy parts that when I beat the "boss" there I was no longer having fun. Is Tears of the Kingdom the same, or did they add more of a storyline like Ocarina had?
If you didn't like BotW there is nothing in TotK that will change your mind. It's just more of the same. If you enjoyed BotW you will probably love TotK as it expands on the ideas they started exploring in the former.
expand your trend to 20 years and see that bump in 2017. That was when Breath of the Wild released. A launch title for the Switch (and ofc, the then latest entry to a 40+ year old evergreen franchise) which became one of the highest rated games on Metacritic and a landmark title that people point to for an example of good open world game design.
last month, the sequel to BOTW, Tears of the Kingdom, released. And it seems to be hitting those impossibly high expectations and then some, despite being part of the $70 price hike that is the ire of internet discourse as of late. People may have grown much more critical of the Switch in that time, but Zelda certainly stood the test of time.
So you can imagine the kinds of memes, posts, and other kinds of content creation that people will do with such a popular title.
I'm going to piggyback of your post to ask some more questions about Zelda.
I know it's a game series that's been around for a long time. I know the games are generally considered to be excellent across a range of things - gameplay, story, world building, artwork - even with the limitations of the consoles against more powerful gaming PCs of the same era. I know that the games are loved by fans, and are an important part of culture. (I love seeing the crafting and cos-play and creativity that are inspired by the games. It's genuinely lovely to see people so inspired to spend so much time crafting items.)
I haven't played any of the games, and it's a bit overwhelming to look at the series and wonder "Where do I start?"
So, assuming that I have access to every console, and assuming I have access to all the carts, Nintendo Optical Discs, etc -- What game should I start with, and why? (This might not be "which is the best game?" For example, it might be better to start with a smaller older game that lays foundations for later games.)
Ocarina of Time would be the best game to start with to really get a handle on what the series is. I would recommend playing it on something like Ship of Harkanian, which is a modern source port that is fairly easy to set up (the hard part is getting the right ROM, but you can find it by searching the checksum on Google), but it's perfectly fine in an N64 emulator as well.
The reason I say Ocarina of Time is the best to start with is that it is, in many ways, as close to a perfect formula as the series gets. The only constant in the series is the larger plot, Zelda is captured by Gannon(dorf), Link has to save her. Each game has some sort of gimmick in it, as well, such as BOTW's mechanics and damaged world with "Guardians" (giant laser-shooting automatons), or Ocarina of Time's time travel.
As for why it's a "perfect formula," a good chunk of the series follows a similar arc: An opening series of dungeons (usually 3), and a six-block chunk of main dungeons. You finish the first three, travel forward in time, and then wind up going back and forth across a seven year span to complete the story.
It introduced many important parts of the series such as Z-targeting (press "Z" to lock on an enemy), three dimensions, and more, and frankly has no business being as good as it is for the first 3d entry in the series. It has solid puzzles that typically are built around any tools you got in a given dungeon, and bossfights that do the same. All in all, it's basically the Zelda game.
I would also recommend Windwaker as a first, because it refines a lot on GameCube. I played it recently in Dolphin with HD textures in widescreen and everything and it was phenomenal. Instead of a horse you sail a boat across the ocean, and it has the same three/six dungeon structure as OOT. It's much more light-hearted, but it's a solid entry.
I would also recommend doing the original NES game for historical purposes. It's old and tough, but still kinda fun. I've never beaten it, and honestly never will without the use of savestates.
I would suggest A Link To The Past - it's one of the most solid and tight 2D action adventure games available.
Ocarina of Time is amazing and I'll give that a +1, so long as the dated graphics don't put you off. The music alone is amazing.
There's a bonus too, in that Link to the past has an excellent sequel (A Link Between Worlds) - so if they enjoy that they have something they can jump right into afterward.
The only reason I didn't suggest LTTP is there's a difficulty curve to it I wouldn't recommend to somebody as a first game. It has tight controls, but the design is sort of "meh" in a few ways, like the fact you reset to the pyramid in the dark world.
Great suggestion and explanation. One other thing about the LoZ series that I think has elevated it is the music and sound design. In Ocarina of Time, especially, from simple things like the jingle when you open a chest or complete an element of a dungeon puzzle room, or even simply the sound effects like a picking up a rupee or hearing a Skulltula nearby—to the phenomenal music themes like when you first step out into Hyrule field, or enter the Zora’s domain, or learn Zelda’s lullaby—the music and soundscape is unforgettable. Just every element is a home run in Ocarina of Time. Truly a master class in video game design, development, direction, and production.
To be honest, start with whichever one looks the most interesting to you! The games are generally only loosely connected, with different reincarnations of the characters each time (there are some exceptions, like tears of the kingdom directly following breath of the wild.) If you’re a bigger fan of 2d games, Link to the Past on SNES is a great 2d Zelda. Link’s Awakening is great too, and just had a remake for the switch. If you like open world exploration, breath of the wild or the original Zelda 1 should do that for you. Ocarina of Time is one of the highest rated games in the series (and of all games in all time) so it’s a solid one to start with too.
I'm going to preface my comment with a disclaimer to call out my own bias. I loathe Breath of the Wild and I do not consider it to be a Zelda game due to it not using many of the core elements that are fundamental to the franchise. I do not and will not ever recommend Breath of the Wild to anybody as a Zelda game because I do not believe it to be a Zelda game. On top of that, if you start with Breath of the Wild as your first game, you will be in for a massive shock when you play a real Zelda game due to the stark differences.
A couple times throughout this post I reference the "Zelda Formula". Just to explain what that is, at a base level the Zelda games all follow a fairly similar layout. There are dungeons in the game. Those dungeons normally contain some kind of key item that let's you progress through the dungeon, unlock side areas, and progress in the game. There are of course other elements in each game, and none of the games are exactly the same, but they all generally follow this formula.
As for what game should you start with and why, there are a couple of different answers to this in my opinion. If you truly want peak Zelda and want to play what many consider the best game in the franchise, then play Ocarina of Time (OoT). It was the first 3d Zelda and set the bar for what it meant to be a Zelda game. The "Zelda Formula" was arguably perfected in OoT. You may have trouble with the controls as they are very dated, and visually the game hasn't aged the best. However, I do think it is a "necessary" point in the franchise for someone to play.
If you go a little farther back, you have A Link to the Past. This is arguably where the "Zelda Formula" was first introduced. It's a top down pixel art game that holds up very well. It's decently long and has a lot of interesting items and puzzles for someone to solve. Personally it is a game I am very nostalgic towards and I occasionally return to replay it.
Those are the two games I would suggest starting with. They're the "Zelda-iest Zelda games" in my opinion. After that you could branch off into some more different games, such as Windwaker or Majora's Mask. I hope that you enjoy your adventures through Hyrule.
Two questions:
(1) How does it feel to be in the tiny minority among even other Hyrulian fans?
(2) does Cadence of Hyrule count as a Zelda game, then, even if the style is cute and it's a rhythm based game? It's got a world map and you complete mini dungeons to collect items, some trivial, some makes you stronger, and some are unskippabke key items necessary to progressing. Once you've unlocked enough stuff and opened enough areas, the final dungeon opens up and it's a long hard dungeon which still has keys and little secrets, then a "this isn't even my final form" style final boss.
For the most part people just dismiss what I say without reading my argument and then spit back something like "BotW is actually closer to the original Zelda from the NES than all of the other games" despite that not being anywhere close to correct. I don't really care as I fundamentally believe that BotW is not a Zelda game. I will note however that I do consider Tears of the Kingdom a Zelda game, although I would rank it very low on its "Zeldaness" still. To me TotK looks like Nintendo went "oh, we forgot to make BotW a Zelda game so let's fix that".
To throw another controversial take in there, I'm not just in the minority of Hyrulian fans, I'm in the minority of gamers as I think Breath of the Wild is just a bad game in general.
See this is somewhat of a difficult question for me to answer. If I had to boil down to the core of what I believe a Zelda game is, I would say that it requires two things. One, have the core fundamentals of the Zelda formula. Dungeons, Key Items, etc. Two, be part of the Zelda game series. If a game only satisfies the first requirement, I would call it a Zelda-like (akin to Doom-like). If a game only satisfies the second requirement, I would say it's just a different genre of game using the Zelda characters. This for example would be games such as Breath of the Wild, Hyrule Warriors, Link's Crossbow Training.
I unfortunately haven't played through much of Cadence of Hyrule, I just couldn't get into it, but assuming that what you're saying about it is true then it fulfills the first requirement, so it's at the very least a Zelda-like. However I'm not sure if I would consider it part of the Zelda game series as it's a crossover. Personally I would err on the side of it not being part of the Zelda game series, but I can see the argument for it being part of it. I guess at the end of it I wouldn't fault someone for calling Cadence of Hyrule a Zelda game, but I don't think I would personally call it one.
Cadence of Hyrule is one of the best Zelda games I've ever played, as a lifelong fan who has played most of them.
While it is a crossover, in theme and setting it's 100% Zelda, with the singular exception of the character Cadence existing at all, there's no other necrodancer-original entities, locations, etc present. If anything it's more like a game design / mechanics crossover, but I personally would consider it a Zelda game by my own standards and by my understanding of your criteria.
My point is that theme and setting is not enough to make something a Zelda game. A "Zelda game" carries some definition along with it, and while that does include theme and setting, it also includes things like mechanics, story elements, certain NPCs or types of NPCs, etc. There's more that goes into a Zelda game than just having Link fighting Ganon to save Zelda and Hyrule.
I agree with you though. I think Cadence of Hyrule specifically feels weird because it's a foreign entity (Cadence) suddenly coming into Hyrule. I think it exists in a kind of weird space.
I understood that part of your point, I didn't really mean say setting and theme alone are enough.
The reason I replied to you at all is because the word "crossover," weirdly enough, feels like a miss or a stretch for CoH to me, somehow. When people use the word crossover I'm more ready to think along the lines of Mario + Rabbids, or Tokyo Mirage Sessions, or Smash Bros or something like that, where characters, theme, and setting are mixed too. With CoH only borrowing 1 character from the Necrodancer side, it feels like it's not a crossover in any ways thematic, setting, aesthetic, branding, etc. That's why I addressed theme and setting, because I weigh those more heavily when describing something as a crossover. Maybe it's just the FGC influence making me think of crossover characters or the FFXIV player thinking of the Nier raids as crossover content. But there's always a lot of theme/setting/branding mixes going on in these examples, and not a lot in CoH.
Since I fundamentally view things differently in terms of qualifying a Zelda game from your criteria I didn't really want to engage with that part much, especially on the topic of BotW/TotK because my view of it has no room to budge in your direction and I'm not looking for an argument.
However, since I opened the box on that myself with my original opening statement and you very understandably replied in that context, I might as well speak for CoH at least.
Since what I feel is 'crossed over' is in game mechanics, before playing the game on a first impression one might say it's a Zelda skinned Necrodancer game, but that isn't quite right as the game's level and world design is different from vanilla CotN.
A playthrough does track through a CoH world enough like a classic 2D Zelda would for me to have felt like I was playing a Zelda game overall with moment-to-moment CotN gameplay. It's a little light on dungeon puzzles and key items but it does have enough for me personally to accept it fully, but if we talk more you'd find me very fast and loose with what I'll accept as belonging in a franchise to begin with. I am, after all, an even bigger Final Fantasy fan than I am of Zelda, and could you imagine if I tried to treat the FF franchise with as tight of criteria as your Zelda ones? I think I'd have given up on the franchise if I did.
Anyway, random sidenote, Nintendo should consider licensing to indies a bit more frequently, regardless of qualifying it either way, CoH was a great game and hopefully they considered it a success.
I actually don't miss the dungeons. At all.
I think to me Zelda is at its core the chance to explore, meet the Zora/Gorons/Gerudo/Kokiri and their ilk, fix their problems, fight bosses, get gadgets, and learn a heap of lore.
So stuff that's all in BotW too.
Dungeons, while some have their charm, are mostly places where you have to actually get away from what makes a game a Zelda game. They are usually such isolated things that they don't often feel like a place where you learn meaningful lore. They hunt down an aesthetic and put puzzles and monsters in it. And if you're really unlucky you get the Water Temple which is downright frustrating.
Sure, they can be done well maybe. But I don't need them.
Oh, do give me more banger music tracks again though. That's what I miss in BotW the most.
That being said @DanBC, check out the Oracle games (Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons). They are very charming, with tons of quirky characters, exploration and music. The dungeons are fine, too. Nothing too harsh IIRC. Either one is fine to start with.
Dungeons have been a core element of the Zelda games since their inception though. I agree with you that an important part of Zelda is exploration, and I will concede that Breath of the Wild has a (albeit rather empty) world to explore. However, I think you're dismissing dungeons because they're a different type of exploration that you just don't enjoy as much. The over world of a Zelda game is this huge, grand area to run around in and explore, but the cramped passageways of a dungeon, looking for danger and treasure, is also a type of exploration that people love (Dungeons and Dragons was built on that entire concept for example).
If you don't personally enjoy that, that's perfectly valid. It's a game at the end of the day, and games are a subjective experience. However I don't think it's fair to dismiss dungeons as being not exploration just because you don't enjoy the type of exploration that comes with them. On top of that, saying that a core element of every single Zelda game since 1986 actually isn't part of the core identity of Zelda games isn't something that I can agree with.
Ok, sure. I can follow that dungeons might just not be a type of exploration I personally enjoy.
But to say that BotW isn't a Zelda game specifically because it lacks dungeons is taking it a bit too far imho. Especially since until relatively recently we just didn't have the technology for open worlds. A game without seperate areas just straight up couldn't exist. We came far since 1986.
Also Nintendo caught a lot of flack for being overtly formulaic (see Twilight Princess discourse), and BotW kind of was an answer to that. It paid off greatly too.
The world of BotW could at times feel empty, true. TotK less so, I think they're learning/have learnt how to properly set up an open world.
I guess they can go a little bit more dungeon heavy if others truly love it, the wind temple in TotK was kind of fun. But they don't have to do that for me in order to keep that Zelda identity. Especially not ten unskippable dungeons in one game.
Dungeons aren't the only thing that Breath of the Wild lacks.
There's a lack of key items which in turn causes a lack of any real form of progression throughout the game. You start the game and are immediately given every tool you need to go anywhere, which isn't a good thing. There's no challenge exploring anywhere, you can just get there. There's no reason to come back to an area once you've gotten a new tool because you already have every tool.
Yes you can make it easier on yourself by getting more stamina to explore with, which is progression, but making something that's already easy even easier isn't really the mark of good design.
The lack of enemy variety in the game is also horrible. There was 31 years of monsters to pull from and they had about 14 unique enemies. Where were the Armos, Darknuts, Leevers, Like-Likes, Peahats. Ocarina of Time had 40+ unique enemies as a comparison.
The general empty feeling of the world was also a pretty big let down as well. In previous titles there were always things to discover, side quests to do, and actual reasons to explore. BotW's only real reward for exploring was shrines, which just got repetitive after you did 15 or 20 of them (not to mention 1/5th of the shrines were combat shrines which were all exactly the same). I agreed with you before that exploration is an important part of the Zelda series and quite frankly I would give BotW a failing grade on having good exploration.
I'm not saying that Breath of the Wild isn't a Zelda game because it lacks one thing. I'm saying it lacks anything that marks it as a Zelda game aside from having a guy named Link running around a kingdom called Hyrule. The similarities between BotW and real Zelda games are skin deep.
Daggerfall came out in 1996 and has a reputation for being an absolutely massive open world game, far far larger than BotW's map. We've had the technology for open worlds for a very long time so I'm not really sure where you're coming from with this statement. There are also open world games that predate Zelda 1.
The main discourse over Twilight Princess was people not enjoying the dark aesthetics and it feeling more like an updated Ocarina of Time rather than its own game. It's also tied with Tears of the Kingdom for the 3rd most sold Zelda game.
I was somewhat disappointed by TotK's dungeons (although I still need to do one of them). They were an improvement over the Divine Beasts but still lacked the oomph of previous dungeons, and I felt like the puzzles in them were pretty basic. With that said I thought the bosses of the dungeons were massive improvements over the Ganon Blights. They all used the "key item" of the dungeon (the Sage Abilities aren't really key items, but I think they fill a similar role) pretty well and the fights were unique and enjoyable.
Right, so let me be clear: TotK is without question my favorite game, period. BotW was when it came out as well.
Personally I think there's nothing wrong with casting away parts of the series in order to try something new, and innovation is how we grow and develop. I want to see this series continue to grow and be refreshing and new for another 37 years, so I'm okay with having to drop some stuff.
That said, I understand thinking it's not very Zelda-y, but by that token you're really saying, "It's not like ALttP" and my answer is an emphatic, "So what?" It's still a great game, and it's loaded with Zelda references and lore, and I'd argue that the story necessitates it being in Zelda. You could change things to work for other IPs, but its impact comes from being Zelda.
I still don't know how you think it's not anything like the original Zelda, the difference is that there are dungeons with items and BotW/TotK doesn't have as many dungeons. I'd honestly argue that the dungeons from game one just don't have a ton of creativity so that's a really unimportant distinction. Otherwise, there's hidden secrets all over, an open world for you to explore in your own way at your own pace. It's just modernized.
I don't think I can ever consider OoT the best in the franchise (not that I'm saying you do) but it's fine. Still a good game, literally every Zelda is, but I just don't think it's the pinnacle of achievement. The 3DS remakes did fix a lot of issues for it and MM so they're definitely playable nowadays, I just never enjoy OoT as much as plenty of other Zeldas, even excluding BotW and TotK.
But the last point I have is that Zelda is an ephemeral and emotional series - every game is unique because they're so willing to change things and improve. I appreciate this so much and can't believe how lucky I am that I get to gush about this series every once in a while. I recently went through and replayed every Zelda I could (not the multiplayer ones, basically) in the wait for TotK and I've gotta say, we're the luckiest fans in the world.
You can try new things in a game series without completely throwing away the core of that game series. Ocarina of Time added an entire dimension to the game while still remaining a Zelda game.
I'm not saying it's not like A Link to the Past. I'm saying it's not like a Zelda game, because when you slap the word "Zelda" on something there is an expectation of what that game is going to contain. If the game doesn't live up to those expectations then it isn't really part of that game series.
No no, Breath of the Wild doesn't have dungeons. Full stop. The Divine Beasts are glorified shrines, not dungeons. BotW completely lacks dungeons and many, many other aspects that are central to a Zelda game. At the end of the day BotW is just an open world RPG with a Zelda skin slapped on top of it.
If every game is unique, but every game aside from BotW managed to follow the Zelda formula still, why couldn't BotW do the same? You can't argue both that the formula was getting stale while also arguing that every game is unique. I do agree with you, every game is unique and put its own twist on the formula. I'm disappointed that Nintendo failed to do that with Breath of the Wild.
Historically Zelda dungeons contain several aspects:
There may be others that I'm missing like a compass and map and treasure chests scattered throughout.
It's been some time since I've played botw, but I think it has all but #3 for the divine beasts, right? I don't think this counts as a glorified shrine of it hits each aspect except one.
Right — I can't speak for TotK because I'm avoiding spoilers, but in BotW I really missed the classic formula where all of the puzzles in a dungeon were sort of tangled together. If you solve one puzzle it doesn't mean much until you see how it fits into the larger puzzle.
BotW's shrines are decent enough puzzles but they're independent and pretty linear. Off the top of my head I can't remember a shrine where you backtrack. But every classic Zelda I've played, 2D or 3D, has points where I'm dying to go back and re-explore some bit because I just unlocked something. You use the same physical areas multiple times in different ways. There's usually points where you realize you can't make progress so you have to approach it from a different angle — and that usually involves solving a different puzzle. Can't just plow through every puzzle you see in the order you see em.
So here's my hot take: OoT's Water Temple is one of the Zeldiest dungeons because most of your time is spent figuring out how to navigate the single central area — you can see everything when you first enter, you just can't use anything.
The one after the waterfall/rapids room? I must've been one of the lucky ones, I don't remember looking for that at all. I do remember wondering if I was softlocked at one point though.
What did trip me up for probably 15 actual minutes was figuring out how to get into the basement.
You're also right like they're missing a compass and a map but I can concede on those not truly being necessary, and while they do have chests within them, Breath of the Wild (and honestly Tears of the Kingdom) have some of the worst chest contents I've seen in a game. It is so unexciting to open a chest because you know you're just going to get a weapon that will break in the next fight you use it in.
I'm with you. Botw didn't really do anything for me and I beat it. No desire to play ToTK when the whole game just seems like a vehicle for wacky gmod physics experiments. I think the two games made the Zelda series much more accessible. Which isn't a bad thing! The accessibility opened up the series to people who otherwise may not have been a fan of the series. But they're a significant departure from the rest of the games and I feel that Nintendo has seen the success of them and will likely continue in a similar direction in the future.
I just hope Nintendo hasn't given up on the classic zelda formula. God, I even enjoyed Skyward Sword more than BoTW.
I actually think that Tears of the Kingdom is a massive improvement over Breath of the Wild, to the point where I fully believe that TotK was Nintendo realizing they forgot the Zelda part of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and realized they needed to fix it.
all Zelda games broadly exist in the same universe (Hyrule) but there isn't really any continuity* between games. so you can play them in more or less any order. but in particular the ones I think would be best to start with:
Breath of the Wild (I wouldn't recommend starting with Tears of the Kingdom, because it builds on BotW)
Ocarina of Time (originally for the N64, and the first 3D Zelda game). its sequel Majora's Mask is also really good, but again I'd recommend playing Ocarina first because they build on each other and MM tends to assume you're familiar with mechanics from OOT.
A Link to the Past (originally for the SNES)
pick your poison - do you want modern graphics, 1990s 3D graphics, or top-down 2D graphics?
the two older games are both available on the Switch, and are widely considered some of the best games released for their respective consoles.
* at least, not canonically...some serious Zelda fans have found details / easter eggs and tried to figure out some sort of chronology between the games, but you can enjoy them without ever venturing down this rabbit-hole
Isn’t Hyrule Historia supposed to have a canonical timeline of sorts? Even if it’s crazy convoluted.
Pretty sure that botW and ToTK broke the timeline again.
Fair enough. The timeline never really mattered anyways. Even in ToTK they barely mention anything that happens in BotW - nobody even mentions that the bad guy has the same name as the last bad guy that ravaged the kingdom.
Do they know his name in BotW? I know we get it in the UI, but I don't recall if he was ever referred to by name.
I know for sure that Link, Zelda, the champions, and all the Shiekah know it for sure.
But I don’t recall if the entire world knew of it, except that they were going through an event called a Calamity.
Speaking as a die hard fan of Zelda who absolutely loves Ocarina/Majora back to back, it's hard for me to recommend Ocarina as your first because it has aged the most of all the games in terms of mechanics. The story and writing are lacking as well and I do feel it deserves a proper remake.
All Zelda games are a time investment though, so if you must play just one, make it Breath of the Wild. The franchise was never that good until it rolled around. Tears of the Kingdom somehow tops it. It's incredible, and I do feel that starting with Botw will increase your emotional investment in Tears if you ever get around to it.
If you want the quintessential retro Zelda, then Link to the Past is perfect. It's a perfect game. Its mechanics and story are perfect for what it needs to be.
Links Awakening remake on the Switch is charming and a great example of proper "Zelda like" gameplay. There are a few spots that benefit from a walkthrough as isn't always obvious what you're meant to do next.
Wind Waker is also a great Zelda game and feels like an epic adventure.
Start with breath of the wild, or tears of the kingdom. They are the best games in the series, and the most modern. You aren't missing anything major by not playing the earlier instalments. I recommend staying with botw, because if you stay with totk, it will be hard to go back to a game with less to do.
That said, starting with the very first game will be fun, and introduce you to the exploration aspect of the series
Play a link to the past then ocarina of time. Alttp is my favorite zelda of all time and there is no disputing it among the greats. Ocarina of time has already had a great argument for why you should play it.
Once your feet are wet, majoras mask awaits.
I want to point out that there are many light hearted zelda games, and there are few that are quite "dark" or eerie.
It would also be perfectly legit to start with the very first one, just to get the clearest understanding of the series and where the enemies & lore started getting built.
One thing I cannot stress enough though: do NOT start with Zelda II: The Adventure of Link. They tried something wholly new for it and it did not land, in my humble opinion.
For whatever it's worth, my into to Zelda was Link to the Past, and to this day it remains one of my most loved games.
Any. Literally. While some have narrative ties, they're all basically intended to be independent from each other. I've not heard of much discourse on which one is best to start with because most players' first Zelda is whichever one was most recent when they got it.
For me, it was OoT3D and for what it's worth, it's a good one.
To be completely honest, you might have a bit too high of an expectation. It’s really the gameplay that makes the Zelda games so beloved. I look at the other stuff you mentioned and those things tend to be good in general, but almost never great. In Tears of the Kingdom, all of the most dramatic moments happen away from the gameplay; the plot points that the title comes from is told entirely through cutscenes that are conceptually detached from the actions you take to trigger them.
To be honest it’s hard to say what exactly makes these games so appealing, because I don’t think it’s entirely gameplay. There is this ephemeral nameless quality to them that make them inherently enjoyable. It’s a mix of the apparent simplicity and relatively lighthearted atmosphere and childlike or clownish characters.
The games have changed quite a bit over the years so it’s really hard to recommend any particular game to start with. Maybe watch some gameplay footage and see which one calls out to you the most?
In addition to what others have said, the game is groundbreaking in the sense that even other game developers have no clue how Nintendo managed to make this game. The game allows you to stick basically any object in the world onto any other object and create a new object/vehicle/weapon. There's nearly infinite combinations that users can invent on the fly and yet everything runs smoothly and the physics engine just... handles it.
The new game, Tears of the Kingdom, was waited on for six years. It's a sequel and improvement to the already stellar Breath of the Wild which, as mentioned, was released to fan and critic acclaim. It provides an amazing open-world RPG experience, while still being accessible enough for most people to enjoy it.
Zelda is one of those games that doesn't get a lot of fanfare until there's a new game, but there are way more fans than you would think.
As others have said it’s a great game and a sequel to a massively popular release, on the current top selling console. That’s a reason in part but not all of it, I think.
A big part for the word of mouth this time is because the game has introduced a new building mechanism which is simple to get into but quite robust. It allows for a lot of fun inventions or creative solutions to problems in the game, which appears to have given rise to a lot of content that demonstrates things people have built. This is a completely new thing for the franchise and it look a to be a big part of the press this game is getting, with a constant stream of new creations making news sites.
It’s also a massive title so people are going to be at it for a while and won’t blow through it in a weekend. It thus holds gamers conscious for some time.
I would start with either BOTW or Tears of the Kingdom. They are both exceptional, and you won’t miss anything not having played all the previous ones. They are both fantastic.
Completely OT/Meta, but:
@mycketforvirrad is the first to answer the question without actually posting a comment. Someone got scooped by the tag god.
Taking efficiency to a whole new level. 😉