The Committee is in session. We’re taking on various issues in gaming, and our word is final. In this installment, we rank the Zelda games for posterity in honor of the series’ 25th anniversary.

In support

Gerry Pagan: Following in the footsteps of what I consider the biggest trainwreck in the Zelda series, Spirit Tracks does so many things right on a handheld that it revived my love for the franchise altogether. The clever and challenging dungeon design was a very welcome change when compared to the no-brainer dungeons in Phantom Hourglass, the touch controls were revamped so they actually worked, and the dynamics/interactions between Link and Zelda over the course of the game finally gave players a look inside the series’ namesake.

In opposition

Graham Russell: I don’t think Spirit Tracks is a bad game. In fact, it’s one of the better games on the system, but that just isn’t enough to contend with the rest of the franchise. To me, both DS entries are awkward hybrids, trying to bring analog controls into a game designed like Link’s earlier 2D adventures. That external frustration just knocks them down a bit from the rest of the series.

 

In support

Andrew Passafiume: Like Minish Cap, this game also gets a lot of undeserved hate. First, the touch screen controls were odd at first, but they work incredibly well once you get used to them, making the game move at a pretty fast pace. Being able to draw and make marks on your map is one of the best additions the series has seen and is helpful in any dungeon. The biggest complaint? The Temple of the Ocean King. People hated having to return to that dungeon multiple times, but I thought it was fun. The dungeon itself was excellently-designed and, in my mind, is the culmination of what makes Zelda dungeons great in the first place.

In opposition

Gerry Pagan: I wanted to like this game. I really did. I mean, it’s a sequel to my favorite Zelda game, so it should earn some points, right? Linebeck and the auto-sailing system are the only good things I can mention about it, since everything from the combat and controls to the easy and bland dungeon design are atrocious. There’s really no challenge to it other than fighting the game’s poorly executed touch controls and resisting the urge to throw away the cart after returning to the Temple of the Ocean King and redoing every puzzle for the 10th time.

 

In support

Mike Clark: Drastically changing the formula for a sequel isn’t always a bad thing. In fact, it can make a game even better despite the blatant change and Zelda II is one of those good games. Brutally hard in contrast to the first and a complete paradigm shift to a side-scrolling action-RPG, The Adventure of Link tried a different path and did really well at it. There are a few things one could nitpick about the title: the lack of maps, how small Link’s attack radius is, and a focus on non-linearity despite being a more linear title than its predecessor.

Yet even with these faults, the title is a strong one and worthy of praise. It paved the way for action RPGs of a different flavor compared to the prequel, and essentially functioned as a 2D version of what the later 3D titles would be (with some focus taken away from the RPG portion). People insult Zelda II for being “too different”, “too difficult” and “not Zelda-ish enough”, which all might be true but these only help to make a better product in being different and trying a separate route in style and design.

In opposition

Justin Last: Sometimes you need to take a chance. Sometimes that chance works out. Nintendo took a chance on Zelda II and eschewed everything that made the original great in order to try their hand at a more traditional side-scrolling RPG. It didn’t work. Zelda II is unnecessarily difficult, it is ugly (even for a NES game), and the magic is gone. Exploration doesn’t feel rewarding because the overworld is now a hub instead of a living, breathing, part of the Hyrulean landscape, and the scale seems out of whack because Link and any overworld monsters are often taller than the surrounding towns and caves. Equipment upgrading was replaced by experience levels in multiple areas, and combat was complicated by introducing attack and block heights and a magic meter. Concepts from Zelda II would eventually find their way into the series again, but the NES just wasn’t enough machine to handle them well.

 

In support

Andrew Passafiume: This is considered one of the weakest entries in the Zelda series by many, but I’ll never understand why. The game is gorgeous, the dungeons and puzzles are a perfect balance between simplistic and challenging, and the game is the perfect length for a portable experience. Some say it’s too easy or too short; while I disagree, I feel that those aren’t valid complaints as long as the game is fun. Minish Cap is a blast, and it is still the best handheld Zelda title to date.

In opposition

Gerry Pagan: Technically speaking, Minish Cap should be up there among the great 2D Zelda titles. But there’s just something about the game that feels lifeless. Outside of major story stuff, I can hardly remember things about the game like I do with the other Zelda titles, other than how short the game is. The kinstone system got a little out of hand at times, and some of the items you can collect are really of dubious nature as to how useful they are. It’s a good game, but it’s not as memorable as other games in the series.

 

In support

Mike Clark: This game is the whole reason we can thank for having this entire series and this ranking article alongside it! There’s an entire laundry list full of aspects that The Legend of Zelda created that are gaming standards. A fully non-linear adventure that was packed with secrets to discover and the first NES game to use the a save battery, this game was packed with innovation and good design choices.

The puzzles within the game weren’t as complex as later games, it did encourage the use of items and exploration to find your way through each area. Later games were more restrictive, but they also had more plot to them. It was one of the few to have a “Second Quest” or harder replay that completely changed the flow of the game – in contrast to Super Mario Bros. replacement of Goombas with Buzzy Beetles and shorter floating platforms – and paved the way for a plethora of games and series that drew inspiration from it.

In opposition

Shawn Vermette: Lots of people might argue that just because this was the original game, it deserves a higher spot in our ranking. Unfortunately, that doesn’t pass muster with me. Zelda did a lot of things right, but I just can’t get past the early NES graphics. I’ve never played it, and, due to the roughness of the graphics, I just don’t see me ever playing it, when I can get my classic Zelda fix with Link to the Past instead. 

 

In support

Graham Russell: You know what? Four Swords Adventures doesn’t feel like a Zelda game. It feels more like Secret of Mana, and that’s a genre that’s significantly less well-trodden. The cooperative-competitive aspect is nice, and pulling out all the needed equipment for a full four-player adventure is rewarded with some innovative tech that could (and should) have been more successfully done with Wii and DS. It’s not epic like the rest of the series, but it wasn’t trying to be for a second.

In opposition

Andrew Passafiume: Four Swords Adventures is an interesting experiment, combining the great elements from the Zelda series with a local cooperative/competitive multiplayer element. You can play it by yourself, but the real fun comes from a full four-player game. The problem? Nothing about it stands out. The multiplayer is fun, but you’ll often be hindering your progress more than furthering it, making it feel less like a Zelda game and more of a generic multiplayer experience that feels somewhat similar to Zelda.

 

In support

Shawn Vermette: Ocarina of Time is, quite possibly, one of the best games of all time. So, it being first among Zelda games is, in my eyes, somewhat of a no-brainer. The puzzles and dungeons, the graphics(at the time), and the nostalgia factor(now), mean nothing else in the Zelda series can come close.

In opposition

Justin Last: We had to make the jump to 3D at some point. That doesn’t mean that the transition has to be smooth though. The Nintendo 64 was a lot of things, but a 3D powerhouse was not one of them. While capable of creating beautiful games like Paper Mario and Kirby 64, developers (including Nintendo) pushed the console to its limits and were not rewarded for it. N64-era 3D is not attractive, and the N64 pad was not designed for manipulating a 3D camera (though to be fair, neither was the GCN pad or the Wii remote). C-buttons just don’t do the job. Ocarina of Time could have and should have been great, but it was hamstrung at every opportunity by its platform. Maybe it’s better on the Virtual Console with a decent controller, but as it was released, Ocarina of Time is not the bright spot in the franchise that the fan base makes it out to be.

 

In support

Justin Last: The only thing better than one portable Zelda game is two portable Zelda games. And depending on what type of game you’d like to play, the Oracle games have you covered. If you’re looking for headier puzzles then grab Oracle of Ages. If you’re in a combat mood, then Oracle of Seasons is the game for you. Both games feature multiple maps (similar to LttP’s light and dark worlds) and puzzles that span the two of them. In OoA you often need to act in the past to create or clear paths in the future, and is OoS a path blocked with snow and ice is clear and open in the summer. The two games work in concert as well. When you finish one you can import your clear data into the other and continue the adventure. Importing data and beating both games is the only way to face the final boss and truly save Holodrum. Capcom makes great portable Zelda games, and the Oracle pair is no exception.

In opposition

Mike Clark: The biggest complaint here for the Oracle games is the password and trade system. They’re horribly unintuitive and force the player to deal with antiquitated Pokémon-styled trading nonsense that breaks immersion and brings the game down. On top of that, you can’t get the complete experience without having both games and a link cable which further permeates the consumerist bull that should be kept away from the Zelda series.

Beyond that, both games have difficult-to-navigate overworlds thanks to the duo’s time and season mechanics being gimmicky. Thankfully, Seasons works better than its counterpart with a focus on action. But Ages has some of the hardest dungeons in the series thanks to being focused on puzzles, which brings down the experience. It worsens even more so in that, despite being built on the Link’s Awakening engine, they chose to enlarge the size of the rooms beyond the Game Boy Color’s screen. This caused the puzzles to be even worse and further bring down a frustrating game that should have been better than what Capcom produced. While both do have their strong points, the carelessness and frustration within the puzzle design and the trading shenanigans hit hard in bringing the titles down.

 

In support

Shawn Vermette: Twilight Princess held more anticipation to me than any other Zelda game ever has, leading up to its release. Getting to play it on the Wii at a Wii preview event in Texas only heightened my anticipation more. I’m on the record as saying that most of the time, I really dislike motion controls. However, as rudimentary as they were, the controls in Twilight Princess were enough to vault it way up in my rankings out of the sheer enjoyment I got out of it when playing it.

In opposition

Mike Clark: The fans wanted a new 3D Zelda game and they were given Wind Waker. They cried foul and called for something akin to an Ocarina of Time remake. They were given Twilight Princess, and they still cried foul. A spruced-up OoT clone that took a lengthy period of time to develop, Twilight Princess fails in several places. The entire wolf form seemed tacked on for the purpose of some fetch quests, a few puzzles and as a form of warp. 

In addition, Twilight Princess felt rushed and patched-together. The final two dungeons seemed significantly shorter than the prior well-built seven and felt thrown together, and the plot twists out of nowhere leaving it a muddled mess. On top of that, many of the game’s items become obsolete or worthless by way of upgrades or never being used again. And as the final nail in the coffin, TP is the 3D Zelda with the least amount of character interaction with few NPCs that actually have characterization or are even worth caring about. The game tries to be good, but functions as a sloppy, muddled, rushed mess.

 

In support

Graham Russell: Link’s Awakening walked the line between the simple charm of the NES originals and the interesting innovations of Link to the Past. It felt manageable, yet with tons of charm. The DX version brought it up to decent technical standards, and everything after it feels just a bit gimmicky.

In opposition

Shawn Vermette: Sure, tons of people love Link’s Awakening. I mean, who wouldn’t want to play a game with Link AND Yoshi in it? Well, I’d love to, but not if it means playing a game with Game Boy graphics. They limitations of the system just serve to frustrate me these days, no matter how critically acclaimed a game on it is.

 

In support

Gerry Pagan: People tend to unjustly compare this to Ocarina of Time, when both games share some fundamental differences. Majora’s Mask is a technical improvement over it’s predecessor, expanding even further with the special abilities gained via the use of masks (which were just an after-thought in OoT). The world is grittier and darker, with the world’s atmosphere increasing in tension and urgency as the moon that threatens to destroy Termina moves closer. If Ocarina of Time can be called an epic adventure, Majora’s Mask can be likened to a dark tale, where the stakes are much more personal than just “overthrowing an evil overlord”.

In opposition

Justin Last: Time limits are terrible, and Majora’s Mask is built on them. Combine that with my complaints about OoT (ugly 3D, bad camera & camera controls) and you have one of the low points in the series. I want to like Majora’s Mask. Darker, more sinister LoZ sounds great. Visiting a new land with new problems (Termina instead of Hyrule) is just the breath of fresh air the series needed. But the whole thing is just as clunky as its predecessor. 3D Zelda is better represented by the GameCube and the Wii. Low dungeon count doesn’t help Majora’s Mask either. Four is not very many dungeons, and replaying them is not fun. Unfortunately the replay mechanic made a return in the DS’s Phantom Hourglass, and it wasn’t fun there either. Majora’s Mask is not as bad as Zelda II, but the continuation of the OoT design and the introduction of strict time limits make Majora’s Mask a tedious chore to play.

 

In support

Andrew Passafiume: This is the ultimate Zelda game. It contains all of the best elements found in previous games, has the best dungeons, and some of the best versions of the classic music. It takes everything great about the original Zelda and improves it greatly. In my mind, when I think of the Zelda series, this is the first game that comes to my mind. The original set the groundwork and Ocarina of Time was the first time the series ventured in 3D, but neither felt as remarkable as this classic.

In opposition

Gerry Pagan: I personally find A Link to the Past a bit underwhelming. As good as the game is, I can’t feel the love that many people do for it, probably due to the low amount of NPC interaction and how little hinting there is to the existence of some of the hidden items. Nonetheless, it’s still a solid title, though not as charming as the Oracle titles were.

 

In support

Justin Last: I love Wind Waker. It is my absolute favorite Zelda game. The cel-shaded graphics, Link’s expressive eyes, and the gorgeous vistas that I got to sail across combined with franchise staples of solid dungeon design and responsive combat make WW a joy to play. Link’s story here starts out small and personal and grows to fill in the world-saving beats we all know and expect from the series, but through it all Link never really stops being believable as a kid. Some people were waiting for OoT’s adult Link to make a triumphant return, but I loved taking young Link through Dragon Roost Cavern, The Forbidden Forest, and the Tower of the Gods. I also love sailing. The King of Red Lions is a small enough ship to feel exciting when taking it across the waves, naval combat is fun, and whenever I hear it again I hum the sailing tune for days. WW is unabashedly child-like in its treatment of adventure from start to finish, and it is wonderful for it. 

In opposition

Graham Russell: Most entries in the Zelda series have something going for them: the original started it all, Ocarina of Time took it into 3D, and Link’s Awakening hit a portable. I loved Nintendo’s creative renaissance during the GameCube era, but they tried a lot of things that were hit-or-miss. Wind Waker is fun, and I don’t mind the visual style. Is what’s essentially a change-of-pace release worthy of the best-of-all-time mantle, though?

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Let us know in the comments!