Yeah, BotW is a Japanese take on the Western open world RPG with some Zelda flavor. Like I said above, it's not easily comparable to any other game really. You can say "Witcher 3!" but that game is narrative driven in a way BotW is VERY much not, and doesn't have that Zelda flavoring. That's why BotW was heralded by so many as a fresh experience, because it combines two things in a unique way and does a mostly Western genre with a Japanese twist.

I hear Darksiders 2 is more an open world game than the first one though, so it might be the best comparison if it's a mix of Darksiders 1 (Zelda basically) and an open world RPG.

Imo there is nothing comparable XP

I know some people compare that game to other open world games like Skyrim but that is quite different still, although open world games in general can have some comparison.
Apparently Cornerstone: The Song of Tyrim is like a Zelda like game, and might be good for a bit of fun? Or at least I heard someone on this thread asking for Zelda like games in general so yeah, this one is open world though.

The power of Christ compels Cornerstone!!!

Good thing it had a demo. That scared me away from the get-go. ;)

oh ok, i have only played 2 hours so far. It is a good game tbh

Haven't played BotW yet, but from what I've seen Psychonauts (which I have played) seems a little similar. And even if not, it's a spectacular game (starts off a little slow though, but starts to pick up after the underwater level)

Joke post, right?

Not saying it's right, but that is honestly my impression.

Actually, the first Zelda didn't really use that philosohy much. The raft, ladder, and flute are used to access new places, but those are the only non-buyable items you actually need for that. The bow is needed to kill certain enemies, but I don't remember if any spot in the first quest is gated by that. Bombs and the blue candle can be bought in shops, the red candle isn't necessary, and the only other item you actually *need* to beat the game is the silver arrow.

* Master key is unnecessary because you can buy keys.
* The letter only lets you get potions, which are not necessary (though they *are* useful).
* The wooden sword is given at the start, and that's all you technically need. (In fact, you can get past everything except Gannon without it.)
* The wand and book aren't required (though at least the wand is useful; it's debatable whether the book is worth getting).
* The power bracelet doesn't actually gate anything that you need, though it does make travel easier and is (IIRC) used to get the letter.

So, 3 items you need to find, and almost the entire game is open to you. Add a sword, and you can now complete the entire game. Not *quite* as free as Breath of the Wild (but then again, there's no tutorial plateau, either), but you don't need as many of the items as you think.

It's not until Zelda 2 where you find your progress constantly gated by items or spells that you need to find.

Also, A Link to the Past's dark world is non-linear; the many of the dungeon treasures are only needed in that dungeon. (In fact, I find that doing level 4 before 2 or 3 is a good strategy in order to get the sword upgrade early.)

o.O What an odd comparison. Other than bog-standard gameplay mechanics like walking, running, jumping, and climbing they couldn't be any more different.

Good post, apparently I don't remember the first game as well as I thought I did. I was thinking of the raft and ladder when I wrote that, but I'd forgotten that a good number of the other items are buyable. Having said that, you still have to find the correct shop.
For aLttP I'm aware you can tackle the Dark World Palaces out of sequence, but there are still a lot of dungeon items that have uses in the overworld, letting you get pieces of heart and so on. The point of the post you were replying to wasn't about whether the items were required to get to the end of the game but about the fact that items gated areas (even if non-essential areas).