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.