> The original Legend of Zelda plopped you on the map and gave you nothing. zero guidance. I consider this very good.

You literally can’t get far off the beach until you hit a specific milestone. And then the next milestone and so on. Zelda NES was very strictly linear, as was ALTTP, Ocarina, Majora, GC Wind Waker etc.

As for “handholding” I’ve never felt that way for a moment while playing e.g. Link’s Awakening or even the later titles like Oracle of Time/Seasons (Seasons was incredibly difficult but ultimately still linear!)

I personally did not find “But you can technically just go fight Ganon with a stick!” a plus. It’s about as much of a Zelda game as Zelda 2.

"zero guidance" and "zero requirements to proceed" are not the same.

I'm talking about "zero guidance" mostly, but I'll switch to progress requirements since that seems to be what you're interested in.

in Breath of the Wild, you are free to go up against Ganon unarmed, if you choose. you will lose, but you can do it. in LoZ, you can't reach Ganon without meeting the prerequisites to gain entry. those are both gates to progress, but one is implicit and one is explicit. in both cases, the games give you very little help on how to proceed until you seek out that info yourself. I prefer when you are given the choice about how to proceed yourself.

in BotW, if I am a skilled player, I can make whatever weapons and food I have go much further than I could if I were an unskilled player.

in LoZ, the requirements are the same for everyone, even if you are capable enough as a player to kill him before you collect all the gear, you can't. you have to do it all. those are rails. rails are bad. it's not handholding, though, which is good, because handholding is also bad. to me.

I liked Zelda 2. A lot. you may choose to use that little factoid to dismiss all I've said, and that's your prerogative, but I also loved the first Zelda, and the third. and Ocarina of Time. and many others. it's when the game leads you by the nose to the end that I dislike things, and that's what Skyward Sword was, very much.

> in LoZ, the requirements are the same for everyone, even if you are capable enough as a player to kill him before you collect all the gear, you can't. you have to do it all. those are rails. rails are bad.

So every other Zelda game has rails, and rails are (to you) bad. Got it.

I personally find the “rails” (being a fundamental and defining feature that distinguishes the gameplay of every Zelda game) to be a good thing.

I’m a bit confused here. You’re a fan of the Zelda series, but the “rails” that are a fundamental mechanic in every other game are “bad”? Wouldn’t that mean that BotW is the first fundamentally “good” Zelda game from your perspective?

If so, that makes sense! We are in fact talking about two different definitions of what is “a Zelda game”! For me that’s a continuation of a very enjoyable and distinct game design style that began with the NES, for others it might be “the playable character is named Link”

I guess. if you want the same game every time, then play the same game every time.

I want new stuff. I want new things to do, and new ways to discover what is possible. I do not want to be led around by the nose like an ox.

I want to learn about the overall Hyrule lore, and the repeated battle between Ganon(dorf) and the forces of Good. I want to know more about this universe, even if... no, especially if I need to discover it myself, without the game outright telling me.