I don't agree that it has. In the first dungeon, you weren't solving puzzles at all. Lighting a torch just allowed you to illunimate a dark room, and pushing a block/burning a bush/bombing a wall isn't a puzzle. But sure, if you consider those puzzles, than that is the extent of the puzzle solving I want in Zelda U. Like I keep saying, Dark Souls, Dark Souls, Dark Souls.

I'd rather the whole game *feel* like it's on Hero mode... Hence the option for Hero Mode, lol. Even hero mode isn't very challenging, so I wish they'd tweak it a lot to make it more challenging. No bottling fairies. Much more aggressive enemy AI. That sort of thing.

Boss fights that are actually in any way challenging.

I think that a big reason why Zelda became as big as it is today was because it was hard. I don't think that that type of boss battle should be at all what Zelda battles should be. They should be challenging, not a puzzle. They should take skill. Like they used to.

Well, that's why I said "mini puzzles" ;) And the thing is, they are puzzles in the sense that you have to figure them out. Sort of. It's just not hack'n'slash, although, I DO want those kind of enemies as well. But that's "canon fodder" ;) And I agree that items should be optional on enemies, kinda like Mega Man and bosses. But items could and maybe should allow you to explore certain areas in either the Overworld, or the dungeons, that you can't reach without said item. Just as a bonus area. And puzzles could work in the same vein; "if you wanna access this restricted area (which is in no way obligatory) you need to solve this puzzle".

Dungeons can be intimidating with puzzles though; do it wrong and more enemies come, or a trap is triggered. Or, before you solve the puzzle you'll need to take care of these two mini bosses. Things like that could work quite well.

But from what I hear, the bosses in DS2 isn't all that good; it sounds as if more of a wait-for-the-boss-attack-for-you-to-counter-attack thing. And that's not what I want from Zelda. I'd much rather fool the boss to attack me, so that it shows its weak spot so I can attack

If items are used to create logical shortcuts through dungeons like bombing walls of connected rooms in Zelda 1, then I can get behind that. I can't get behind halting my progress to solve what is always a mundane puzzle. And don't think I can get behind item exclusive secret areas either unless it's for inconsequential rewards like a bunch of rupees or something like that.

Like I said. Sprawling dungeons where you're solving one macro puzzle throughout work if they are separate from the main dungeons. Have those be separate, though. There's not many puzzles in Zelda where you get them wrong. You just don't get them correct yet. Also all of those things aren't causing intimidation through puzzle solving. The puzzles are just acting as a tedious key to open a door. You take your time solving a puzzle, you get it wrong, and then your intimidated by enemies or a trap. You are intimidated by two mini bosses, and then calm down to solve a puzzle.

I don't think I've ever played a Zelda game where you aren't just waiting for the boss to attack so you can counter attack aside from Zelda 1. And you're never fooling a boss into attacking you. You're waiting for them to because until they do, they are usually literally invincable and you have no other option but to wait. With Dark Souls, the game teaches you to create openings for yourself. It can teach you to be patient or be punished. They are almost always vulnerable, but they also know that you're vulnerable and will try to harm you. They are defensive through offense, which Zelda can stand to learn. I'd actually rather more of the boss fights be aggressive like in Bloodborne than passive like in Dark Souls as it fits Zelda better in my opinion.

Things like interrupting a boss mid attack to stun them and create an opening is what I really want to see in Zelda bosses. You don't need to do that, but it would limit your effectiveness if you didn't. Options. With recent Zelda bosses, there's always only one way to defeat them. In the Souls games and Bloodborne, there are many. Since bomb arrows are confirmed, let that be a way to stun large bosses. If you are able to score a hit on them while they are attacking, then they become dazed temperarily, opening them up for a follow up, however the bosses actually are smart enough to dodge obvious attacks. Same with the sheild bash. If you can block a powerful hit, there's a chance you can daze the boss, but they can also punish you by knocking you off your balance if you abuse it. The parry system in WW would have been so much better if there were no visual cue. If you could only parry by paying attention to the way your enemy telegraphs an attack and also the alert sound, it would have felt less cheap. Also, they should have had you manually attack the enemy after you parry rather than it simply being automatic. Press A to parry and then time pressing B correctly to successfully execute the counter attack.

But yeah, the boss fights in Dark Souls are awesome.

I'd rather be tested on my intellect than my reflexes. Puzzles need to stay, they just need a breath of fresh air. And that's what ALBW provided. 

ALBW is my favorite 2D Zelda, and it's dungeons were the worst part. The puzzles don't test your intellect. They try and trick you into feeling smart. They need to go, or be completely separate and optional from the dungeons. Working your way through a labyrinth is testing your intellect, far more effectively than any modern Zelda does.

The dungeons were easy and fun. The gimmick (wall painting) is the most creative thing to ever come out the Zelda franchise. If Aunuma (what's his name) thought of that, he should stay! :p 

There was also plenty of exploration in that game. I just felt very smart when I found the red tunic and the master ore in that Dark Temple (I think it was that one). Maiamai >>>>>>>>>>>>> Skulltullas (which I never bothered finding)