First Zelda is far more open then the games that followed, in a number of the following games you have to finish the dungeons even where as the first the lock only applies until you get the item in the dungeon after that you can move on. This allowed a more free adventure than many of the following games for example in OOT it didn't matter if you got the item or not some dungeons had to be done before others unlocked, the games eventually where dungeon crawlers with a semi open world hub that you were restricted from exploring anyway they may as well have been linear with no hub as they all hinged on the dungeons resulting in it feeling less and less like an adventure like the original. BOTW isn't an unbalancing it's a rebalancing as now Hyrule is worth exploring again returning the feel of a free open adventure.

The last part of your doesn't make a lot of sense tbh because the are loads of videos highlighting the emergent gameplay having utility and a lot of it across the whole game and not just certain areas like you claim, the is a whole subculture with in the game dedicated to this.

Loved the trailer...

You, uh, trying to tell us something Captain?
Because we love and accept you for who you are.

No, but this is really damn funny. XD

Make shift desktop wallpaper.

It's been quite a while since I've played the original, so I'll just use someone else breakdown from some 8 years ago:

"So with the original NES game cited in the trailer as one of the sources of inspiration for this title, I wanted to run through exactly how "open world" it really is. While it's true you can essentially walk all across the overworld, accessing, and completing dungeons is not entirely devoid of structure to tier out enemies and establish a difficulty curve.

Take a look at the item requirements for each dungeon:

1st Quest
1 - none
2 - none
3 - none
4 - item from 3 (raft) to access
5 - item from 4 (ladder) to progress
6 - item from 1 (bow) and 4 to progress
7 - item from 5 (recorder) to access, item from 4 and 5 to progress; also requires bait (purchase)
8 - requires candle to access (can be purchased from shop) | (optional: item from 4 for a spare key, item from 1 for lion key)
9 - need to complete 1-8 to progress

Sequence: 3 before 4, 4 before 5-7, 1 before 6, 5 before 7, and 1-8 before 9. It's not a straight line, but still not 100% free of order.

So what this means is the first three dungeons, plus level 8 can technically be completed from the start, while 5 and 6 can be accessed but will have you turn around in an early room. Allowing such early access to level 8 is a high risk/high reward scenario, putting you up against tough enemies with low health but with potential early access to the lion key (although you'd need the bow from level 1 to get that).

I think this setup would be great to see continued; allowing access to a late game dungeon where the challenge is primarily on difficulty alone, and not on item requirements. However, I think it also best that not every dungeon be able to be completed from the start, and that they have some barriers in place to provide some structure.

2nd Quest
Now this gets a little more interesting, as some key-on-entry requirements (level 2 hits you up with a 3-key surplus that can be used in later dungeons), optional play, and even some backtracking/sequence breaking (levels 4-5) come into progression. If interested in seeing me nerd out over how f***ing awesome the 2nd quest is, please read the following article: http://www.gamingsymmetry.com/?p=8205

1 - none
2 - none
3 - item from 2 (recorder) to access; also requires 1 key to progress | (optional: bait needed to get magic boomerang)
4 - power bracelet (from the overworld) to access; item from 2 to progress; | (optional: item from 6 (ladder) for a key)
5 - item from 4 (raft) to access; also requires 1 key to progress | (optional: item from 6 for a key)
6 - item from 2 to access; item from 5 (bow) to progress; also requires 1 key
7 - candle for access (must be purchased from shop), item from 5 and 6 to progress | (optional: key for extra room)
8 - item from 6 to access, item from 2 and 6 to progress | (optional: key for extra room; bait needed to get lion key)
9 - need to complete 1-8

Sequence: 2 before 3-8, 4 before 5, 5 before 6-7, |6 to clear 4 and 5|, 6 before 7-8, 1-8 before 9

At first glance that sequence may seem more linear than the 1st quest, however what it also brings to the table is using the level design to encourage doing things out of order. You'll need to ladder from 6 in order to get some keys in 4 and 5, prompting either a sequence break or a return to the dungeons post-completion to clear them. That's also something I'd like to see in this new release; designing the game to have an intended order, but allowing for experimentation that can have rewarding effects on your progression.

And of course, in both cases every barrier is inventory-based and conquered by the player; not removed by whenever a developer thinks it's time for it to go!"

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/632936-the-legend-of-zelda-breath-of-the-wild/69420558

I agree, later entries to tend to become more and more closed (until they get wrecked completely with Aonuma 3D Zeldas), but original was not so open either. There was always a place in video games for properly made semi-open worlds (which original Zelda is), and honestly I think that is the sweet spot for developers between exploration and narrative (since there is no DM in game to react to you and your actions and make it interesting no matter where you go and what you do, unlike with Pen&Paper RPGs). In going too open and giving player all the tools from, practically, very start, BotW lost lot of its Zelda DNA. I grew up with fully open world games (starting back in 80s on C64) and played them more or less whole my life, but I don't need for Zelda to necessarily be one of them if its abandoning its original design - Zelda 1 template is the sweet spot IMO, and I don't think BotW formula is anywhere near it.

I'm well aware of those videos and emergent gameplay - we've been through this long time ago.  BotW gives its players tools to use, and they can use them, and then arbitrarily restricts them on lot of occasions. It was a step in right direction, but I don't find it as consistent or revolutionary as when Ultima: Stygian Abyss did it back in 1992. I do hope to see more of it in future titles, if properly incorporated in all design segments of the game (that "only one solution" entry into Gerudo town particularly irks me to no end, being a classic case for players going wild with ideas in any tabletop RPG, and slapping BotW player in the face for trying anything other than "proper" solution - as if designers couldn't have quite decided what game they were making).

This just backs what I highlighted as fact is the original was still more open than all the games that followed it and unlike those games this was back in the 80s and you were given better freedom in your adventure than the others this is why the following games struggled to recapture its success with the exception of OOT which benefitted from the franchise's well executed jump from 2d to 3d and TP which was a call back to OOT as the rigid lock and key structure inavertedly held back the series appeal for many players this is why BOTW is appeal to so many new players as the element of "hey you can't beat this dungeon well you're stuck at this part of the game forever" is now gone and they can still freely enjoy the rest of the game regardless, BOTW recaptured what the original brought for the modern era. A key example of when this lock and key aspect goes wrong is OOT's Water Temple which back in the 90s had many players stuck on it for months, in the modern formula they could just leave and continue their adventure back in OOT the game grinds to a halt, the is always a place for the old formula yes but not as the mainline games anymore as ultimately having a fully focused Hyrule that's the centre of the game's adventure is better than tying the adventure to dungeon crawling a set number dungeons that rigidly dictate things.

Again as I highlighted before the majority of the game is open to emergent gameplay it doesn't matter how you feel on it as this is not a subjective view it's a fully proven objective which is why your notion on emergent gameplay is contradicted by the actual reality of the game itself.

Yes, Zelda 1 is more open than subsequent entries and we've been talking about Zelda 1 in previous posts, so not sure where you're going with your statement.

BotW is not like Zelda 1, it is not really back to roots, because those roots are semi-open item-gated world design, which BotW is not. Sure, it has given us exploration that was so sadly missing from Aonuma's 3D Zeldas, but it killed off other mechanisms that were part of what defined Zelda. You and many others might be fine with it and like the new formula, I am not and I don't. As I said on many occasions, there are IPs that I like more than Zelda that were subsequently changed too much and lost its DNA, so I've stopped enjoying those IPs...and life went on and I moved to other IPs that I enjoy more.

We'll never see eye to eye about BotW, but that's fine...for me there are much better open world games and much better Zeldas and I guess in 5-6 years will see what next Zelda after TotK will bring.

Is it wrong that I hope the ReDeads are in Tears of The Kingdom?