Whether you use bombs form your bomb bag or bomb flowers, you're still essentially defeating KD the same way regardless; those two methods don't require you to engage with the boss in a different way or mindset. I forgot about being able to use the Hookshot for PG and BB though. I'm pretty sure you need the Boomerang to slay Barinade, however. And you do need the Master Sword to defeat Ganon; IIRC, if you keep hitting his tail with any other weapon after retrieving the MS, he won't fall down again until you use the MS.
Yes, I admit that my point about King Dodongo was a technicality at best, and the boomerang is actually required for barinade.
However, saying that the master sword is required for Ganon is like saying that a sword is required for him in Zelda 1. That’s still your main method of attack, you’re never going to not have it, and it’s only required for the final blow with a cutscene. Hell, at least you can damage him without the Master Sword unlike in LttP. I’ll give you Barinade and King Dodongo, but Ganon is a huge stretch.
so in total, the amount of bosses that require items in OoT is 5 (King Dodongo, Barinade, Volvagia, Morpha, Twinrova), as opposed to Zelda 1s 4 (Gohma, Dodongo, Digdoger, Ganon). While yes, that’s higher, it’s still a very comparable number.
Look at Helmsaur King, for example; you can use the hammer or bombs in the first phase. Using bombs allows you to place a bomb near his mask then back away, but you use resources that way, and he might move away before the bomb can go off. If you use the hammer, then you're not using up any resources, but it's riskier because there's a higher chance of contact damage. In the second phase, you can use the sword or the arrows. Again using arrows is less risky, but uses resources and is harder to hit him with. Using the sword is poses more of a risk, especially with how fast he moves in this phase, but doesn't use resources. The strategy you choose to utilize changes the way you engage with the boss, and is dependent on the player's playstyle.
The same could be said for every listed OoT boss. Hell even Volvagia can be damaged in multiple ways without the hammer, you just need it to set a single flag.
I mean, literally the only puzzle I can think of in Zelda 1 is occasionally pushing a single block to open a door or access a stairway...
Most of them were on the overworld. Navigating the dead woods, continuing up until you reached level 5, playing the recorder on the lake to reach level 7, stuff like that. Even still there were a handful of puzzles in the dungeons that involved finding secret rooms or using the bait on the hungry goriya.
I mean, let's break it down:
The dungeons in BotW require you to alter the shape of them to complete them.(aside from Medoh, which CAN actually be beaten without obtaining the map)
STT requires you to alter the shape of it to complete it.
I'll be the first to admit that due to the execution, this point might be a bit of a stretch compared to the other ones mentioned.. At the same time, though, with all the other gameplay related concepts that take after other Zelda games in BotW, I wouldn't put it past them if the base point of ''change dungeon to progress'' was a wink to MM.
In basic concept they’re similar, yes, but they’re implemented in such drastically different ways that I highly doubt that it was any sort of homage to MM.
I would argue that SM64 was a WAY bigger departure from previous Mario platformers than BotW is from the previous Zelda titles, however, and no one has tried to argue that SM64 isn't a ''real'' Mario game, to my knowledge.
SM64 and BotW both have completely different structures of progression from previous titles in their respective series, the world design is insanely different (SM64 had a mute larger emphasis on exploration, while BotWs focused on being almost sandbox like in design), both had movement and a control setup that no game in the series had even come close to utilizing, id say that BotW is just as much of a departure from Zelda as SM64 is from Mario.
And yes, i would absolutely argue that at the time, SM64 was not in anyway similar to the rest of the franchise. I’ve met numerous people who consider 2D and 3D Mario to be completely different series due to how drastically different they are, as I imagine is going to be the case with BotW and it’s sequels eventually.
Sorry, but BotW itself disagrees with you; the game has the ''Divine Beasts'' under Main Quests, not Side Quests. If you mean to say that it's effectively a side quest due to it not being required to defeat Ganon, well, you cn't get the complete ending without the DBs. Can you really say you've beaten the game if you don't get the full ending? Also, I'm pretty damn sure first time players aren't expected to run to HC right off the bat.
It doesn’t matter what BotW says. Anything that isn’t required to beat the game, by definition, is a sidequest. True endings also aren’t required to beat the game, otherwise the masks in MM would be considered mandatory, and don’t even think about dying in LA if you want to actually beat the game.
Just the fact that the game expects you to do this sidequest in particular is another way that BotW has a completely different design philosophy than previous titles.
The multiplayer titles literally have NO overworld whatsoever, or any sidequests. I would also argue that PH and ST have a very minimal overworld as they're both on rails(literally in the case of ST), which also leads to exploration being rather lacking.
Yeah, that’s why I said that the multiplayer titles are the ones I’d agree with you on.
However, the traversal of the overworld in the DS games isn’t as linear as you’re making it out to be, nor is any explanation hindered by it. Yes, ST does restrict where you can go to rails, but those rails still go everywhere, and you’re still exploring which one is the best way to get to where you need to go. I’ll give you that they are a departure from the main series in terms of navigation, but they still generally follow the same concept of “exploring to find the path” and not “exploring to make a path” that BotW utilizes.
Alot of them are, though. The main dungeons are accessed by visiting the areas that serve as the domain of different races, with the dungeons having to be solved to solve whatever problems they have like in other games, With the dungeons themselves having puzzles solving with some combat(although the combat isn't given as much focus in these dungeons), with a boss that you defeat at the end that gives you a Heart Container like other dungeon bosses(Zelda 2, interestingly, doesn't have that happen when a dungeon boss is defeated), an overworld ripe with exploration like Zelda 1, ALttP, TWW, ALBW, etc. Progression related to items/abilities is the only thing that is doone fairly differently, and even then, there is SOME progression, like the Zora Armour allowing you to swim up waterfalls, the Champion abilities, etc.
Similar in story structure, maybe, but in mechanical structure the dungeons in BotW have almost nothing in common with dungeons in every other title.
You mention that the items are utilized differently, but item progression and dungeon design go hand in hand. Every dungeon in previous titles, has had a singular item (or in very rare cases 2) that is almost always required for traversal. The dungeons themselves weren’t the part people liked, it was the items you got within them that completely changed the way you played the game. After Zelda 2, it became the general design choice for each dungeon to become a tutorial for their respective item (even in Zelda 1 and 2, there were a few items that their respective dungeons revolved around), allowing you to play with each of them in a controlled environment, just to let you loose on the world and utilize them. It wasn’t always perfect, TP in particular had it’s dungeons items become completely worthless as soon as you left, with the dominion rod literally falling apart afterwards, but that was a design choice that held every game together until
In BotW, the closest thing to a dungeon item, something that is integral to Zeldas dungeon design, are the champions abilities. Even then, none of them are ever utilized in their Dungeons. The dungeons would’ve been significantly better and more akin to a normal Zelda game if you got the abilities towards the beginning of the dungeon, and if the dungeon design revolved around it. Not necessarily making them required, but making it the intended solution to each puzzle. Of course this would only really work with Revali and Urbosas abilities, but the point still stands that the Divine Beasts share no design concepts with those of the rest of the franchise.
Also, I would add ''puzzles'' to the formula now that I've thought about it, and BotW has some of the best puzzles in the series yet IMO.
Puzzles are important, and for the most part BotW handles them in a very similar fashion, I will concede that point. Calling BotWs “the best,” however, is debatable. They’re pretty great at first, however the vast majority of them are just “how do I abuse the physics engine to get [X] object to [Y] position.” Hell, every single one of the Korok turds falls into one of a handful of “puzzles.” They’re alright, but there’s almost no variety.