Zelda is pure BS in this list. Putting "(N64, GameCube, Wii)" behind it is even more cluless.
Zelda started on the NES, in case you forgot, and to say it didn't change is completely stupid, even taking only "(N64, GameCube, Wii)".
I know that and I'm not even a Zelda fan.
What was the point of putting Zelda there? Pissing people off?

 If you would have bothered looking at the article of thread title you would have noticed that it said in the last 10 years (though Twilight Princess Wii should not be included on that list because it did make changes).

What baffles me is that people are claiming that Pokemon has added all sorts of new things to the games, but it doesn't affect the gameplay.

...meanwhile, everything they mention is a core element of the gameplay.

Battle format for Red/Blue:
Pokemon A vs. Pokemon B, one gets defeated, another comes out. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Battle format for Diamond/Pearl:
Pokemon A (sometimes with Pokemon B) vs. Pokemon C (sometimes with Pokemon D), most of them are holding items, their internal natures affect how they do battle, the weather and time of day affect battle, stats optimized by breeding, feeding, and raising the Pokemon alter the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" aspect.

To say that Pokemon hasn't changed is utterly ridiculous.

For that matter, why isn't Dragon Quest on that list? I was a massive fan of the first three titles, and last year picked up DQ8 to find that it was basically a pretty DQ3. The battle system was identical.

This is sort of silly... Are people in any way surprised that two games with "Zelda" in the name have the same core gameplay? Two games with "Tetris", "Metroid", "God of War" or anything else in the title? Of course the core gameplay is going to be the same; that's why you bought the first one - you liked the core gameplay. If that changed, you would have an entirely different game that would upset fans of the series regardless of whether or not the game was good, simply because the game was not what they're looking for when they buy (say) a Zelda game.

The trick (and the best sequels are those that can successfully pull this off) is to keep the essentials of the core gameplay intact, and change other things up enough so that it doesn't feel like any other game before it. Sure, you save a princess in almost every Mario game ever, but the abilities at your disposal, the obstacles and terrain you must negotiate, the characters you encounter, the art style, music, gameplay concepts (water pack for Sunshine and the effects of space, spherical land-masses, etc for Galaxy) and numerous other aspects of the games often differ between titles. In this way, the game is never the same, but always has the element that drew you to the series.

The only series that deserve to be pointed at angrily are those that do not evolve those parts of the game that are non-core, those developers that don't take the time to think of new ideas to make the next game different and therefore worth playing.

Ocarina of Time often sits in the position of "Best Game" of several categories (occasionally the "of All Time" category), and rightly so. The Wind Waker was a good game, I loved it. But Ocarina of Time was downright unflappable. Twilight Princess missed stealing the crown by a hair, in my opinion.

 You may not agree with it being the 'best game of all time', but it still has the most right to call itself the best game of all time. Ocarina was and still is a freak occurrence in video game critics history, in where virtually EVERYONE loved the game. It is this that has earned it the highest average review score in videogame history and tops 'best game of all time' lists more than anything else.

Zelda? Well, Phantom Hourglass is the first of the Neo Zeldas...we'll see how much they haven't changed when Zelda Wii is revealed.