I wasn't saying anything, I was citing the fallacy (ie. agreeing).
I'm bad at this, am I.
Isn't this extremely subjective? Couldn't you just as easily say that both games are worse off for being forcibly tied to the other one for accessing all the content, instead of just being fully featured packages on their own?
Seems like an amiibo for an optional minor dungeon for a bonus you don't need (ruppes do virtually nothing in TP, after all) is a better deal overall.
I don't know Zelda is notoriously bad at optional content.
I mean I can't remember a decent reward for doing any lengthy quest in Zelda since Link's Awakening?
The boomerang was really cool there.
OoT? The major sidequests gives you a sword that is less cool looking but deals double damage or infinite ruppees.
MM has plenty of cool reward though, the coolest looking sword is actually temporary.
WW has practically no cool reward I can think of.
TP had infinite ruppes that I saw coming a mile away that I never completed and the great cave with a shitty reward at the end.
SS I can't even remember any decent reward and that's the last of the bunch I completed, that should be telling.
It's actually cool that this dungeon gets a reward that is not utter shit.
and one day we're going to get an optional boss that is hard and fun to fight.
I'll even take an optional strong enemy.
The boss rush they added recently is a step in the right direction but not enough (and they need to stop limiting your options to what you had at the time you defeated the boss too)