Although I understand what you mean, I also understand the author's point about 'being zelda-ish'. I.e. I really like Zelda (I'm currently playing the last one and really enjoying it), but I'd enjoy any other games based on Zelda's principle game mechanics which the author rightly described.
For instance, I enjoy how the same region will evolve over time depending on where you are in your main quest. At first, it's just a road to go to the temple. But as the game progress and you get more items, you can explore it in depth and discover awesome quests/items.
I agree with him/her that there's really few games out there that mimics the game mechanics of zelda. Mario 64 comes close but, for instance, miss the in depth strategy and the various items. Zelda really have unique game play and it's not just about the world of Zelda.. you could create a totally different world and still copy the game mechanics.. but lots of really successful game use only a part of zelda's game play which is on what the author argue.
In fact, it can be summarized as Zelda being the intersection between multiple 'genres'. And it's surprising that nobody copies it exactly as we all know how Zelda is a success and is popular.
"I agree with him/her that there's really few games out there that mimics the game mechanics of zelda."
I guess I take two general issues with that statement. The first is that the author's criterion, or yours, about what constitutes "very few" is vaguely defined. How many would be "more than a few"? I'm really not trying to pick nits here. I very much understand and appreciate your main point. But it seems as if the comment section of this article is brimming over with examples of Zelda-like games (whether or not they are true "clones" is also vague and subjective).
Second, do we really want games to be "mimicking" Zelda? Is that a goal we're generally in favor of? Personally speaking, I'm completely content to let Zelda be Zelda, and let other developers and publishers try to break different ground in different areas. If we're generally in favor of an expansion of the Zelda-type subgenre of Action RPGs, that's fine. But why must games in this subgenre have to "mimick" Zelda in order to meet our needs? By very definition, isn't the attempt at mimicking Zelda going to doom those games to being second-rate Zelda clones?
For instance, I enjoy how the same region will evolve over time depending on where you are in your main quest. At first, it's just a road to go to the temple. But as the game progress and you get more items, you can explore it in depth and discover awesome quests/items.
I agree with him/her that there's really few games out there that mimics the game mechanics of zelda. Mario 64 comes close but, for instance, miss the in depth strategy and the various items. Zelda really have unique game play and it's not just about the world of Zelda.. you could create a totally different world and still copy the game mechanics.. but lots of really successful game use only a part of zelda's game play which is on what the author argue.
In fact, it can be summarized as Zelda being the intersection between multiple 'genres'. And it's surprising that nobody copies it exactly as we all know how Zelda is a success and is popular.