You're focusing on a null and void point here you're arguing about it being semi open when the point is the original Zelda being semi open allowed for an adventure experience that was massively free and open at the time in the mid 80s like what BOTW does now, it is this free open adventure that BOTW returns the series to for the modern era this is more apparent in how the developer created a 2d version of BOTW in the same veil as the original Zelda and how Aonuma has said they used the original as a template in building BOTW, returning to roots doesn't mean being identical in every aspect either BOTW very much still has the DNA of Zelda in it the new formula just focuses on the other parts of the series DNA.

I'm afraid it is you who is focusing on just one aspect of original Zelda, that is, free roam exploration, which was present in other games of that era (like Ultima who started it all) and disregarding completely other key mechanisms which were ditched from BotW.

BotW could've been true to original formula and designed as semi-open item-gated world, but they decided to change its DNA, so no, it is not really like original Zelda.

Quite the opposite actually BOTW is true to the original hence why it uses the original as a template and the fact that the development team agree that the free open adventuring aspect was what was the core appeal highlights this key mechanics weren't ditched in BOTW other mechanics were focused on/added/expanded on instead and for the better what you think is the DNA of Zelda was only ever part of it that appeal mainly to players like yourself now the whole DNA of Zelda if focused on. Comparing Ultima to Zelda is like comparing old hack and slash titles to the first DMC as while the former were using the concept already the latter's execution was far more advance and game changing in going forward.

I think the number of games in a series that play a certain way is more relevant for that series ”DNA” than what the first game in the series was.
I disslike BotW and I love most of the other games in the series. The popularity of BotW make it so that the type of Zelda I enjoy is a lot less likely to be created and released going forward. That is great for all the millions of people who think this is the right step.
But arguing that it is more correct in what a Zelda game is seems wrong since most other games in the franchise is different in this aspect.

Fair point but then the number of games isn't an absolute factor for example in future this stance becomes contradicted because more games will be like BOTW and thus would be argued that it is the DNA of the series under the same logic, especially for a series like Zelda which actually doesn't have that many mainline games to begin with. The other games have differences but they all retained the same rigid lock and key structure something the original was more lenient with for example look up retrospectives of the original game one thing that commonly comes up is the aspect of the open adventure something that you don't hear with the games after this is because of how they were structured and this is something the Zelda team felt needed to be addressed.

How prior games played doesn't mean that's the only way the DNA of the series can be either the are other aspects of the formula that can be focused on, you may like them focusing on the part of the DNA you enjoyed but for the series it was starting to become a liability especially as this is meant to be one of the first party big hitters and the is a lot in the DNA of Zelda to begin with which is why the first game comes up a lot. We saw this happen with another series in Resident Evil as it was in trouble sticking to the same formula and the series received a shake up in RE4, like you some argued about how the prior games were as far as series DNA goes but now more games in the series use RE4's gameplay template than the old.

Say what you like about the series' DNA but the exploration has always been what I love about Zelda.
Whether that involved semi-open worlds where you explore, progress, explore, progress, or fully open ones like BotW where the world is your oyster. The only time I've ever hated a Zelda game is when it removed the ability to explore completely, like in Spirit Tracks. There you were literally on rails until you reached your destination and it was a tiny area without anything worth exploring.

Development team could've said whatever they liked, games speak for themselves - both exploration and gated-item progression are key features of original Zelda DNA, BotW has only one of those. If they wished, they could've made the game that is actually true to original and add some of the new mechanisms, they just chose not to.

As I said, we'll never see eye to eye on BotW - I'm quite critical even toward games I like way, way more than any Zelda game, let alone BotW, you seem to be...well, very protective, to put it mildly, about BotW.

I wanted to write something about your remark about Ultima, what is arguably THE most influential video game IP of all times (if you know anything at all about VG history), but I'll just leave it at "No comment".

The games are speaking for themselves though you're just ignoring what you don't find appealing, BOTW has gated item progression just not to the extreme like you prefer the are options arounds it and you can still play your preferred gated approach for everyone else the other aspects of the series DNA is now expanded on. Pong is the most influential game of all time it doesn't stop following games having a better execution later on.

20 games isn't that many? It's one of the longest gaming franchises in existence.

They were shown in the second trailer.