I Can't agree more. 

SS is the epitome of Aonuma Style, where the exploration/dangers of the Zelda Universe were substituted for puzzles and lock and key mechanisms. 

Legend of Zelda, Zelda II, Link of the Past, Oracles series, GB Zelda and Ocarina have more exploration/danger overworld/ skilled action than linearity/puzzle-oriented of the Aonuma Zeldas. 

With Aonuma in charge, Zelda became more Adventure of Lolo, than Legend of Zelda. Become more an Adventure game with action and less a blend RPG/Action game with an emphasis on exploration. 

I do like OoT but what has to explore on it for? The overworld is just empty, all the action is on dungeons

A Link to the Past (and I Link Between Worlds) and Oracle Series I agree there is a focus on the overworld and some myseries and secrets to uncover, but still that most of the fun on the gameplay is actually spent on the dungeons too. I personally never really liked the overworld and at most find it very annoying to explore, as you need to endlessly kill enemies you already beaten before again and again every time you pass somewhere, but that's just a matter of taste I guess 

The point is all those Zeldas made a very big deal on dungeons and puzzle solving. I don't get people on this forum (is really the only place I see this) being so vocal against puzzle-heavy Zelda games, even BOTW made sure to put a puzzle to solve in every corner 

And I advocate BOTW is far from being a skilled action game. Indeed I've beaten it 2 times and still having no idea how to fight properly on this game, I just runned away from most of battles (easy to do in a open world game) and level up on shrines until I had enough hearts and fancy weapons to beat divine beats. 

A Link Between Worlds was the same, I've beaten it fighting as little as possible you, mostly only on dungeons.

Thinking better, I've never mastered a single battle system in any Zelda game and always find fantastic how I could level up without even know how to battle properly, which is a very interesting game design choice and again goes AGAINST what you state about Zelda being originally an action oriented game. Could that be an action oriented game when you can skip so much action (besides boss battles) and what is really required to progres in story is actually... solving puzzles?

As always, second hand is your friend if you aren’t up to the launch price!

The game is fun. Paying for stuff is not fun. The balance between is your purchasing decision.

You can beat Zelda botw with a branch and some rusted weapons. I do this(only 3 hearts). It's a skilled action I talk about. See some speedrunners, beyond bugs, and clips all have stupendous ability in-game. The game allows you to play the way you want. Run it's an option, stealth it's another, do crazy things it's an option, be good in a fight and don't depend on upgradeability, etc. The action focus permits all-action focus and the games modes like you wanna play, not otherwise. You can beat the game without mastered its Nintendo approach, easy to learn and hard to master. The replayability and its inherent of all arcade Nintendo games. It is not against my state, but embrace that. You play the game and each player have a unique experience. Aonuma Zelda it's like Adventure of Lolo and other adventure game with some actions. But the player's actions it's no the focus. It's the puzzle-solving. And Zelda Botw puzzle it's more problem solving because of systemic game mechanics. 

Ocarina is the same thing, Oracle of Ages and Season same thing. Zelda I, II e Lttp too. Action focus and not annoying sidekick guidance and linear experience. 

I agree, most Zelda games are trash! (I know you don't believe the linearity thing) 

depends. Uncharted is a great series. Branch, good battle system, a good flow of game, and option in actions turn a linear game into a Goty experience.  

So we are talking about a series where beating dungeons and puzzle solving are the MINIMUM requirements to beat the game (expect maybe OG Zelda and BOTW) and you are still thinking this is a franchise about skilled action and not, deep down, about beating dungeons and problem/puzzle solving ?

I mean, I can beat 90% of Zelda games sucking hard in combat (and so I did), but beating its dungeons. But I doubt you can beat them being good in combat, but avoid dungeons and puzzles 

It's hard to conceive the idea a game you can avoid action altogether (most of 2D Zeldas) is actually an action game and not an adventure game 

60 USD is standard retail price for a Switch game, as far as I know. So it really depends on you. Do you plan on playing it from beginning to end? If yes, then the cost of the 40-60 hours of your life you're spending on the game vastly exceeds the cost of the game. The difference between 5 and 60 USD becomes trivial.
And any perceived value of a product using metrics like "graphics" are purely imaginary; if the graphics are bad enough you don't want to play the game at all, then you shouldn't get it for any price.

In the end, do you want to spend 40-60 hours on this game, or 40-60 hours doing something else? Then you get your answer.

I can't disagree more.