Ages/Seasons

[Emmanuel]

Well, fourteen years later, I got my hands on copies of Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons for the Game Boy Color. I popped them both into my Game Boy Adapter for the Gamecube and they both work, but I've never actually played either game before. I understand they can be completed in any order. But which one should I start with?

 

[A Link In Time]

It doesn't matter what order you play the games in. The Oracles are designed so that one game is the sequel to the other after inputing a password.

 

[Pen]

Yeah, what ALIT said.

I'd just like to add, though, that I personally found OoA to be a bit easier than OoS, so maybe that can help you decide the order you'll be playing them in. ^^

 

[Seth]

OoS is more action oriented, OoA more puzzle oriented. Both amazing games, and as said before can be played in any order or standalone. I am glad you picked them up, I am a huge fan of them myself.

 

[Baga Jr]

They're both extremely good, dungeons are awesome, the overworlds are a joy to explore, but I personally think Oracle of Ages is better since the dungeons have more puzzles that are very rewarding to solve. It really doesn't make a difference which one you choose first.

 

[Mellow Ezlo]

I went with Ages first, simply because I heard from several people that it was the better of the two. Overall, though, they're both excellent games, and as others have said, it's ultimately up to you which one you play first.

 

[PhantomTriforce]

I think you should play Ages first. The final linked boss is much easier with the items you get in Seasons compared to the items you get in Ages.

 

[Iridescence]

Doesn't matter which one you play first.

Perhaps play the easier one first. OoS is easier on puzzles and OoA is easier on action.

 

[Emmanuel]

Thanks for the responses! I think I will get around to doing Ages first and work my way to Seasons.

 

[Farore's Chosen]

I like Ages a bit better, but I find Seasons to be the easier of the two. Congratz and have fun! They're amazing games

 

[Iridescence]

As for which one I prefer, it would be Ages as well.

Both games tried to copy the origins of the series. Ages wanted to reprise A Link to the Past's puzzle-based world-traveling and did so very successfully.

Seasons, on the other hand, tried to emulate the original Legend of Zelda but copied the wrong aspects of it. Yes, the motifs and the bosses are there, but the key component missing was the wholly free exploration. Granted, the game is less linear than the majority of the games in the series that came after it. In addition, the high action difficulty in Zelda 1 was less punishing because dungeons were small and easy to navigate. If you died in Seasons, you had to restart it a lot.

 

[Moonstone]

You've probably already started, but I played in the order of Seasons first, Ages second, only because my sister owned Ages and I owned Seasons.

I liked playing it that way, though. To me, Seasons had a more light-hearted story than Ages, and, as people have stated before, Seasons is more action based and Ages is more puzzle based. So young Link being bull-headed and rushing his way through his quest only to later learn that he needs to think before he acts makes a lot of sense to me.