So, did you miss the boat intentionally or by accident? Because you say you don't like them, but "missing the boat" is not the same thing.

They're good quality overhead ARPG's (the 2D ones anyways. The only other game I've played which came close was Final Fantasy Adventure.
This sentiment needs to die a savage death. If you're a gamer, not purely a PC gamer, why would it make any difference what you play on what system? There's good games to be had on nearly every console (Philips CDI and Jaguar CD may be exceptions. There's probably others), PC or otherwise.

Actually, the Water Temple was my favorite dungeon in the game; it is the one dungeon that actually makes use of the game's 3D (from a gameplay standpoint). The only things I would consider "fixing" about this dungeon are the following:
1. Make the Iron Boots a C button item. (I believe the 3DS version actually did this.)
2. Modify the boss fight. In particular, get rid of the cutscene that appears when the player gets grabbed. (It is extremely infuriating when the game takes control away from the player; having to wait many seconds just because you got hit is not fun.)
3. Include some water sections in later dungeons, so the Iron Boots don't go to waste. (Why doesn't the final dungeon have a water section, anyway?)

By the way, I do highly recommend Zelda 2. Just don't let it affect your opinion of the series as a whole, and don't let your opinion of the rest of the series affect Zelda 2; treat it as its own game. Someone who otherwise dislikes the rest of the series might like this particular game.

A Link to the Past then if you like 2D continue with Link's Awakening.

Ocarina of Time then if you like 3D continue with Majora's Mask then Twilight Princess.

The Zelda games are not RPGs, so please don't use that term to describe them. Even Zelda 2 really isn't any more RPGish than, say, Gargoyle's Quest. (I actually consider the term RPG to be inappropriate to apply to *any* action game; even something like Final Fantasy Adventure isn't an RPG, as I see it.)

Final Fantasy Legend (which *is* an RPG) is completely different. (It also, despite its age, manages to avoid many of the genre conventions, including experience points, but it also has a PRNG so bad it negatively affects casual play.)

Strictly speaking, they're adventure games, yes. But, they have enough elements to qualify for "Action RPG" status.

I see, well the filter now sounds sounds like the lesser of the two evils. thanks for the explanation.

You know it's mostly a joke right? I know there are some tools around there who take the PC master race thing seriously, just as there are people who take console wars seriously. But come on it's just banter.

Oh so it finally came out, well i got my 3ds before that thing was even announced. Such is life.

They lack combat that is determined by character skill rather than player skill, and therefore don't have what I might consider the defining aspect of being an RPG.

Edit: Also, did you mix up Final Fantasy Legend (turn-based RPG, actually SaGa) with Final Fantasy Adventure (Zelda-stype action game with some Final Fantasy flavor)?

Yeah, it's not so bad after the first time. My problem was dummy me not checking every nook and cranny. I think there was a chest I didn't think to look behind or something which got me stuck for awhile.

Okay, starting with the first Legend of Zelda is stupid; it hasn't aged well.

I suggest starting with LTTP, Minish Cap, and Ocarina of Time.

If you enjoy pointless waggle, slow text, a helper that makes Clippy look useful, and an asinine story, you could start with what is currently the first game in the canon, Skyward Sword.

About the timeline, I personally think Nintendo created it so fans would shut up.

Call me old fashioned, but I think the whole notion of a define timeline in the Zelda universe is just silly. The stories work best when viewed as independent entities (excepting direct sequels and companion games). I feel that by adding a timeline, Nintendo risks becoming less creative as they are forced to adapt their stories to an overarching narrative.

Maybe the whole timeline thing was just an excuse to sell some additional merch :P

I'm interested in how you feel about TP's Wii controls? Because I hated them, but I quite enjoyed SS's 'waggle'. I felt like it actually added depth to the combat, even to the extent of some fights sort of being puzzles. I agree with all your other criticisms though, but I still enjoyed SS more than TP. :)

There was always a definite timeline, and at the beginning it was quite clear.
Zelda II is a direct sequel to Zelda I, aLttP was a prequel set hundreds of years earlier and LA was a direct sequel to aLttP.
OoT was a prequel to aLttP and MM was a direct sequel to OoT. All of that was made clear at the time in the actual games, long before the timeline was published. I don't dispute that the games work fine on their own, but at the beginning they had very well defined relationships and the idea that they only retroactively added a timeline is completely false.

The Oracle games and Wind Waker were the first ones where we went "eh?" and they had to cook up the split timeline thing.

The Games should be played in whatever order you see fit, they are mostly enjoyable each for different reasons

though the Killer bees are terrible knock off of the Bombers

I find it Motion Controlls perfectly fine and i also enjoyed the game. i have never Twilight Princess with the motion controls so i don't know how bad they were

though i would probably say there is one heart piece i would have obtained if it had traditional controls.

i do know that some game definitely are better with the Wiimote controls as i preferred Pikmin with the Wiimote than i did with the GC controller and RE4 i couldn't see the Red Dot properly when i used the GC Controller on the game

I'd call this a solid recommendation.
This. Pointless that Nintendo even did it.