...I think it's downright impossible to make absolutely any criticism of the series without people jumping up and down ranting that all you want to do is turn the game into Okami/Darksiders/God of War/Ico/Shadow of the Colossus/Oblivion/Skyrim/Uncharted/Demon's Souls/Dark Souls/Insert Flavor of the Month.
Doesn't really foster a good discussion.
Yet isn't that the kind of exhausted attitude you'll find, when so many people do say, effectively, "Zelda is uncool now that I like <insert different game>, Zelda should be like this game that isn't really Zelda."
The problem, as I see it, is that one of Nintendo's strengths once upon a time, was that they focused purely on creating extremely high quality games regardless of trends, fashion, or flavors of the week. They were, and by some people still are, lauded with remembering how to make good games, by not just making another grey-brown yearly first person shooter series, or generic sports games, or whatever else is often cited as demonstrations of the rest of the industry being creatively bankrupt.
I'm not saying all Zelda criticisms miss the point, but a lot do. It's no different from when people actually still say "Nintendo is kiddy and should make matoor games", ignoring the basic premise that Nintendo's bread and butter is making all-ages games that are neither "kiddy" nor "matoor".
I can't shake the feeling that a lot of gamers who try a Zelda game shiver and reel back from something that isn't unmistakably (and stereotypically) Big AAA Western game, then say "Zelda is old and uncool. Take this series behind the barn and shoot it! Who would want to play this?" They don't have a really objective criticism of the series' fundamentals, but it's not trendy with the targeted 20-30 year old male gamer crowd, so it's got to go.
So sure. A lot of people sigh and headdesk when a Zelda gripe session starts. I guess it doesn't foster great conversation, but I see where it's coming from.
The irony here is that I think the article that started this thread DOES actually make a sincere effort at critiquing
Zelda as Zelda, not whining
why-isn't-Zelda-like-Skyrim-god-I-hate-reading-text-is-so-N64.
I think the author is attacking it from somewhat the wrong angle and trying too hard to justify why he doesn't want to play 3D Zelda games. But at least he's not someone who just thinks
"Nintendo is so lame, why can't they be cool like Bioware".
I'd much rather harp on "peripheral issues". The "core" isn't broken; it's my favorite core design of them all. The shell is broken. Nintendo is so concerned that idiots might not know how to play their game that they've ruined the experience for the rest of us.
I feel here is where the real conversation about Zelda lay. Zelda's core design is so timeless and strong that other developers are still studying it intensely after all these years and trying to copy it piecemeal or wholesale (*waves at Darksiders*).
IMO here's what really bothers people about Zelda today:
1. It doesn't have high tech HD graphics.
2. It doesn't have western style presentation, aka epic but edgy tryhard cut scenes, wall to wall voice acting, hyper stylish UI.
3. Its storytelling, even with Skyward Sword's evolution (and it is evolved) is still too "teh kiddy". Translation: it's Pixar. People want
Skyrim Goathead Berserker Screaming at Motherfucking Dragons.
4. It's paranoid about people being overwhelmed by playing a long and complex adventure with multi-faceted puzzles, and so holds the player's hand every step of the way to the point that it hampers the experience.
Hmm....
I know what the single truly important item on this this is.