The original message said nothing about mainline
Theyre still official Zelda games in that Nintendo legally gave the rights for them to be made, they just arent canon. If nintendo making the games is a requirement then Minish Cap isnt a zelda game either.
What kind of an argument is this? Being unique is now a bad thing?
Id argue that BOTWs breaking weapons is a good system because it forces you to explore more carefully, forces you to experiment with different weapon types, makes each weapon you get meaningful (unlike in a game like dark souls where you ignore 95% of weapons you get unless theyre both for your build AND stronger than what you already have) and keeps you from running straight to an OP weapon early and using it the whole game. However I can accept that other people disagree with that, its really an interesting game design discussion and clearly does not have an easy objective answer. As for stamina, Im willing to say youre absolutely wrong on that in my view. To remove the stamina system the game would have to be radically redesigned in such a way that would alter it for the worse in my opinion. And unlike the weapon durability I have never seen anyone agree with you before that the stamina system is a major flaw in the game. Same goes for the art, and the combat, while not stellar, is serviceable and certainly better than something like elder scrolls.
Again, horrible argument. Being similar to other games does not make it better. If anything it makes it worse, if two games are equal in quality ill generally enjoy the unique one more.
And ill end this post by saying that in a way BOTW is actually much more of a pure zelda title than SS is. Zelda originally was a series about being dropped in an unfamiliar land with nothing but a sword and a map and needing to discover secrets and beat bosses. Skyward sword is much more of a linear, story driven experience that doesnt give the player as much freedom as the original zelda games and doesnt have as much of a focus on secrets, exploration and discovery. BOTW to an extent is a return to form for the series, harkening back to the original focus on exploring a big hostile open world full of secrets without a story holding your hand through most of the game (granted botw has a story but it only pops up very rarely). This isnt to say botw is better than SS *because* it is more of a traditional zelda title than ss is, just that your argument about botw being the least 'zelda' zelda game is completely untrue.
While the first Zelda game did drop the player in the middle of nowhere with little instruction, as the series progressed and grew it became more story-focused and much less confusing - which was a very pleasant change.
In games like Ocarina of Time 3D, Majora's Mask, and A Link Between Worlds, while you were somewhat free to do what you wanted, it was still obvious what the main goals were and where places are. Other games, like The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, were far more linear, but that wasn't necessarily a bad thing.
BotW is indeed "different" to what Legend of Zelda has grown to be, and while change can be a good thing, going back to the first game's style - and doing it
worse by implementing stamina and fragility - just was not a good decision in my eyes. I strongly dislike being dumped with barely any direction or help; there's not even any map markers to guide me, aside from the inaccurate ones I place myself based on what I can see (which inevitably means missing content).
Games like Twilight Princess, The Wind Waker, and yes, Skyward Sword, are far more true to what "Legend of Zelda" has come to mean - and BotW suffers for wanting to be different. It's why I managed to finish Skyward Sword multiple times despite its many flaws, but not once managed to progress far into BotW - one at least felt kind of like a Legend of Zelda game, while the other just flat-out doesn't.
To me, this game is quite similar to Shenmue 3; it tries to mimic a game from decades ago, but in the process
failed to learn from the myriad of quality-of-life and gameplay improvements the industry has obtained over that time.
As for "breakable weapons forces the player to experiment", that's a horrible counterargument - games like Assassin's Creed Origins have plenty of different weapon types the player can try out, but it negates the potential frustration caused by weapons breaking - AND the resulting loss of interest in equipment rewards because the player knows said "rewards" will just break eventually anyway so what's the point - by simply leaving that crappy mechanic out. Instead, new weapons have explicit attack stats and bonus effects, with the general power level clearly increasing as the player levels up,
and if the player has enough money they can strengthen older weapons they like to keep up.
Assassin's Creed Origins has a far superior "experiment with weapon types" system than BotW does, because I actually WANT to try out new stuff, instead of being
forced to, and I can still keep and use old favourites if I want to.
As for "the game would have to be radically redesigned in such a way that would alter it for the worse", that's incorrect - all they would have to do is simply include a toggle or something. What would it change about the inherent gameplay? Barely anything of note - oh, sure, you can now climb whatever mountain you want, or glide for as long as you'd like, but would that be a bad thing? Climbing tall mountains would still be disincentivised due to the frigid climates mountaintops tend to have, and unlimited gliding would be a
benefit. Not to mention infinite sprinting and swimming and spin attacks, and the shrine orbs only being used to increase Hearts instead of having a stupid choice between Hearts or stamina.
Again, I fail to see how the game would have to be "radically redesigned" - it's a simple removal that would improve it quite a bit. Still wouldn't help fragility or the lack of map markers, or the hideous art style, though...
