First, to get this out of the way just in case it's needed...
"Apocryphal" means that something, usually a text or memoir but not always, is of questionable veracity. It basically means [citation needed].
Anyway, while I am not usually one for diving deep into Zelda lore, I think one interesting lens of interpretation can be to treat the games with very dated graphics as if the origin of that particular legend in the anthology has very bare-bones or sketchy source material to draw from. Perhaps it was found only mentioned once in a great tome of many stories, or exists only as a series of hieroglyphs in a long corridor of some abandoned temple (I am particularly fond of applying this outlook to the Zelda I and II). Basically you just treat the graphical fidelity of the game as the amount of verified information contained in any particular legend. If you view the games from this perspective it can be fun to think of what major events can be presented as truth but in fact be quite wrong, being made largely of extrapolated material or authorial embellishment. This happens in our own real-world history as well, especially when dealing with larger-than-life historical figures. Fame gets inflated and personalities become twisted or caricatured to fit the narrative of those retelling the stories. Accounts get mixed up. And even when accurate records are kept, for instance when generals and officers have detailed records of how a battle went, the sheer scope of such events makes it impossible for everything to be truly captured. This is true ten times over when truly mythical figures wielding powerful magics come into play.
Anyway, that's just my fun take on things.
"Apocryphal" means that something, usually a text or memoir but not always, is of questionable veracity. It basically means [citation needed].
Anyway, while I am not usually one for diving deep into Zelda lore, I think one interesting lens of interpretation can be to treat the games with very dated graphics as if the origin of that particular legend in the anthology has very bare-bones or sketchy source material to draw from. Perhaps it was found only mentioned once in a great tome of many stories, or exists only as a series of hieroglyphs in a long corridor of some abandoned temple (I am particularly fond of applying this outlook to the Zelda I and II). Basically you just treat the graphical fidelity of the game as the amount of verified information contained in any particular legend. If you view the games from this perspective it can be fun to think of what major events can be presented as truth but in fact be quite wrong, being made largely of extrapolated material or authorial embellishment. This happens in our own real-world history as well, especially when dealing with larger-than-life historical figures. Fame gets inflated and personalities become twisted or caricatured to fit the narrative of those retelling the stories. Accounts get mixed up. And even when accurate records are kept, for instance when generals and officers have detailed records of how a battle went, the sheer scope of such events makes it impossible for everything to be truly captured. This is true ten times over when truly mythical figures wielding powerful magics come into play.
Anyway, that's just my fun take on things.