I read about half of that ridiculousness. The author seems to have a deficiency common with many gamers, wherein a person feels that every game must cater to their whims and tastes. Perhaps the author would like a ridiculously challenging game like Zelda II. Many people would not. Perhaps he would like to bomb every random wall in a 3D space. 99.99% of people would not.

Really, the author has to decide whether or not the series is right for them. If he wants to play Dark Souls, than he should just play Dark Souls. If that's the experience he's looking for, he has it right there. But the suggestion that Nintendo's view of what Zelda should be is wrong and that it needs to be more like his view is asinine and egotistical. I hate to harp on this, but the suggestion that marking bombable walls is a bad thing for the series shows how laughable out of touch with the average gamer that the author is.

I dislike Skyrim alot. I hate the lack of a strong central plot, I don't enjoy the useless breadth of the world map, and I don't enjoy the tedium of the level up system. On the contrary I loved Skyward Sword. Yet, that doesn't mean I think Bethesda should make Skyrim more like Skyward Sword. Skyrim doesn't need to meet my personal tastes any more than Zelda needs to meet the author's.

TheMythmaker said:

I have to quibble with you on...pretty much everything.
First, removing the story. As an experiment, maybe, but as an actual direction for an adventure series to take? Ludicrous.
The removal of the story removes the ability of the game to TELL a story. It removes a sense of forward movement that a plot gives an adventure. Sure, the Original Zelda got away with minimal story, but that was due to its scale. What small plot was there (Find Triforce, beat Ganon), was acceptable because, truthfully, the scale of the game was small.

Secondly, by removing any structure to the game, you remove the context of the game. What are you playing for? To get stronger so you can beat stronger enemies? To what end?

The kind of game you're suggesting will never be made because gaming has progressed past that. Simple mechanics work for simple games, but as environments get larger and games get longer, they stretch too thin to be fun.

In short, you want a concept, not an actual game.

The original Zelda got away with it, because the gameplay was engaging and addictive.

Secondly, yes. You play to get stronger, that's the original essence of Zelda. You play to get stronger to eventually beat up all bad guys and save Princess Zelda. You beat the game. You earn it.

Thirdly, Monster Hunter. The game is ridiculously bare bones for modern standards, but has been one of Japan's biggest hits in recent times. It's only played to get stronger and beat stronger enemies. The game has as much story as the original Zelda, only an even less interesting one.

Lastly, an actual game is one that you can win or lose. With losing not just being a remote possibility, but an ever present threat.

You're new here, aren't you?  That kind of mature, balanced posting is not something I'm used to here.  Welcome!

I was replying to a guy who was basically saying that the original Zelda wasn't an actual game while in reality it was far closer to being an actual game than many (or most) modern games are.