Continuity within The Legend of Zelda resembles a faulty Rubik's Cube. Try as one might to find order, glaring contradictions pop up no matter the pieces' arrangement. The puzzle grows more complex with each subsequent release. Verily, how can all sixteen games in the main series fit together? It boggles the mind.

A counter-explanation adopted by certain fans proposes that the Zelda games are separate entities retelling the same iconic legend from varying perspectives. Ardent timeline chronologists swear there exists a linear progression from one game to the next, but my view sits alongside the segmented theory. As such, I've had no attachment to playing the games in chronological order. I started with whichever title felt right at the time and continued thereon.

Including this article, I've reviewed three Legend of Zelda games: Twilight Princess in 2007, Ocarina of Time in 2008, and A Link to the Past in 2012. Only now, during A Link to the Past's twentieth anniversary, have I ventured to beat this hallmark in the franchise. What took me so long?



The question struck me ages ago, long before I visited the Hyrule of Super Nintendo. While searching for an answer, I too became a Zelda chronologist, one delving into a far simpler conundrum than the search for Hyrulian linearity. Instead, I dug through an entirely personal timeline – my own history with the Zelda franchise – to find out whether I should have played A Link to the Past earlier in my life, and whether the delay marks a significant loss to the foundation of my gaming self.

When I was younger, I fantasized about The Legend of Zelda by planning out how to play through its storied history. In my fantasy, I put A Link to the Past first because it seemed like the right introduction to the series. I wasn't looking for the technological dawn of Zelda or the rumoured point of origin. Simply put, I wanted to start with the game that would get me to love The Legend of Zelda.