I did lol. The thing is, those aren't puzzles. Attacking an enemy from the back isn't a puzzle, it's just where that particular enemy is vulnerable. If that's all you meant, then we're in agreement. But I still don't think specific items should be the only way to kill some enemies. Every weapon you get past the sword and arrow should be placed there to diversify your arcenal. Some enemies can be killed easier with bombs, for example, but if you wanted, you should be able to beat the entire game with just the sword, shield, and arrows.

I have many issues with puzzles in Zelda dungeons. They're hardly ever even good, challenging, or satisfying. They depend on lock and key item gimmicks that only evaporates any tension that could have been built in that dungeon. There's nothing scary or intimidating about sitting down and solving a puzzle. They force linear dungeon design. The only truely great ones are ones like the water temple in OoT (3D) where the puzzle spanned the entire dungeon instead of just in isolated rooms, which works completely against the brutal maze-like dungeon design that Zelda dungeons should be.

If they were called something else, didn't focus on combat at all, was just one huge, complex, and intricate puzzle that spanned through the entire area, and didn't depend on item gimmicks like even the Water Temple did, then I wouldn't mind their inclusion as a side objective to the standard 8 dungeons. Maybe they're specifically called Temples, there are only 3 of them, and they're created by the Godesses to test the wits of the hero, and you get some completely optional, yet extremely useful, items or upgrades there. I'd be down for that.

But no puzzles in the main dungeons.

No puzzles in Zelda dungeons?! Wut? I can see your reasoning, but there's a lot of games that satisfy your demands. Was thinking of God of War, but even that one has puzzles (and is some other type of gane..)

Wow, where to start.

For your dungeon theory, it is more or less fine.

Puzzles have always been part of the Zelda franchise, right from the first one. The second one is where it didn't really have much if them at all and it is generally known as the worst Zelda game even by Miyamoto himself. Part of it is the exploration and putting the puzzle together as well as problem solving. 

Sounds like you want an action oriented dungeon crawler like Diablo or... I'm having a hard time thinking of others that don't use puzzles in some aspect. Bayonetta 2, there is another but there isn't any real dungeon crawling and even a hint of a puzzle here and there. 

The truth is, you would never know if you have captured the perspective of a medieval person, because there are none around.  You can only think like you think they would think, which is very different.

I'm telling you - as someone who experienced the event of popping in that magical gold cartridge for the first time - that you have failed in your attempt to understand the perspective of Zelda 1.  You are calling it a broken game, weak, etc, and I'm advising you that you are quite simply wrong.  In my youth Zelda was the talk of the playground, the pinacle of gaming.  Not one person said it was too hard, or impossible without a guide, or any of that.  It was viewed as a challenging title, one a step above contemporaries like SMB.  Killing Ganon was the pinacle of playground gaming cred, one step above Mother Brain.  No one felt it was random or a grind.  It was a game where anything is possible so try anything.  That's a fundamental aspect your missing of the experience.

You're calling me an elitist, but you are the one saying you have an understanding of something that you didn't experience, and debating it with someone who did. Using your Holocaust example, it would be like me telling a survivor that it really wasn't that horrible and a modern genocide is actually much worse because I've read about it and imagined what it's like.  You should try to learn from those who actually experienced something.  It's a rare treat as a historian.

I would say that puzzles should be a central part of the Zelda experience. Zelda 1 may have felt like it wasn't puzzle heavy, but moving blocks for secret switches and lighting torches to open doors were the big puzzles of the day. Puzzles have gotten more complicated in modern times, and I think that's a good thing. Zelda 2 is probably the only one that didn't really have much in the way of puzzles and that wasn't a positive.

Your post is again all wrong. You do realize medieval persons have left us with sources that can learn us plenty? There are a lot of medieval diaries out there, that describe personal experiences of events they deemed important. And no real historian would ever say the Holocaust wasn't horrible. So your example is pretty bad. What you're refering to is what we call negationists... They do NOT master the historical sources. They distort it. 

I can read Middle Dutch hand written sources of the 14th century. Don't tell me I can't learn from those who experienced something. 

Zelda 1 was a weak entry, but it did provide something new to the gameworld. Future Zelda games have all improved on the formula of the first game (with the exception of the second game, which is even worse). 

Super Mario Bros. is still very much playable to this day. If you want a good top down Zelda game look no further than A Link to the Past. This is the game that left the biggest impact on the franchise together with Ocarina of Time. 

We're not looking here for games that were great in 1986, we're lookg for games that can still be good in 2015 (the year Zelda U will hopefully release). 

Campaign coop.

I'd rather no hero mode at all and that they just scale the main game so that the last few dungeons *feel* like they're on hero mode.

I don't think a game needs to be hard to be fun. As long as the bosses are fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfcbuxcsqBo

This is the best boss battle I can think off and it wasn't all that hard. It was fun and it felt like you fought a real human being that learns from his mistakes. 

That battle is what every Zelda boss should be like. A PUZZLE!

I agree, although at the same time i feel beating a game should be an accomplishment and not merely a time investment. I'm no glutton for punishment, but there's still something to be said for games balanced *just* right.