Though the author seems aware of his subjective limitations ("...there are almost ZERO clones of Zelda. I’m probably missing a whole bunch but..."), he is nevertheless very quick to make sweeping pronouncements. And he defines the Zelda subgenre more or less recursively; to be like Zelda is to be Zelda-like in ways X, Y, and Z.
Through it all, the primary conditions for being like Zelda seem to be: a) to have been noticed by the author in his game-playing travels, and b) to have passed the author's retroactively applied taste test.
All of this is a shame, not because the author gives short shrift to every Zelda-style game out there, but because he does so to Zelda itself. Given his passion for the series, he could have written a very insightful dissection of what makes it work. Why is Zelda so revered, so timeless, and so enchanting? These are questions the author seems overly equipped to handle, and their answers would make for a very interesting post (or series of posts). I, for one, would love to see him take a deeper dive into the mechanics, psychology, mythology, setting, and style of the series. Relieved of the burden of proving a categorical declaration, he could instead focus his energies on a lively study. Rather than talking about what makes Zelda an exception, he could talk about what makes Zelda exceptional.
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?
Through it all, the primary conditions for being like Zelda seem to be: a) to have been noticed by the author in his game-playing travels, and b) to have passed the author's retroactively applied taste test.
All of this is a shame, not because the author gives short shrift to every Zelda-style game out there, but because he does so to Zelda itself. Given his passion for the series, he could have written a very insightful dissection of what makes it work. Why is Zelda so revered, so timeless, and so enchanting? These are questions the author seems overly equipped to handle, and their answers would make for a very interesting post (or series of posts). I, for one, would love to see him take a deeper dive into the mechanics, psychology, mythology, setting, and style of the series. Relieved of the burden of proving a categorical declaration, he could instead focus his energies on a lively study. Rather than talking about what makes Zelda an exception, he could talk about what makes Zelda exceptional.