A semantic debate requires a semantic answer:
"Classic" does not mean "original," and the first example of something is not always going to be referred to as the classic style.
A Link to the Past and its design were judged as very high quality and became the template going forward, codifying the direction of the series for the next 25 years. That's textbook definition of classic.
You could argue that
Link to the Past iterated upon the original, focusing in on a particular element of the gameplay loop, because it totally did, just as
Breath of the Wild has gone back and focused in on a completely different element of the original, to the detriment of those factors highlighted by the past 25 years of the series.
While it might not be "the classic
Zelda style," the original certainly is
foundational, and you can see its effects and a throughline of where later games find their inspiration in it.
But
in definition and in common parlance, it's not going to be "the classic Zelda formula.
That's all connected to but separate from the assertion that
Breath of the Wild and the original belong in one group and everything else in another.
Again, Nintendo went back to the original for the
feel of freedom in the original
The Legend of Zelda, but it also jettisoned the other elements which were iterated upon in the series throughout its history. The original did, after all, have a decent focus on the dungeons and on receiving and using new items, and this was iterated upon going forward -- even in the maverick
Adventure of Link.
The later games, iterating upon the same classic formula, have a throughline directly from the original game; it never would make sense to say Nintendo went back to the original for these elements because the formula didn't deviate from that. Nintendo is going back to the original for the
feel of freedom, but makes
Breath of the Wild unlike its progenitor when it jettisons other aspects.
Breath of the Wild takes inspiration from the original game in one specific way, and also takes inspiration from elsewhere. in the end, it is different in essence from the NES original, and the insistence on grouping them entirely together to the detriment of all else belies that you don't understand either of them in the way you imply.
For instance, you go from insisting that suggesting the classic template refers to
A Link to the Past onward is somehow essentially removing the original from existence entirely, to tossing or the role of dungeons entirely because they're not what you personally care about:
You're rewriting history to confirm to your ideas of what classic Zelda is. Zelda 1 will ALWAYS exist whether you like it or not.
My point isn't really about the dungeons. The most interesting part about Zelda for me was always the overworld.
There's a disconnect here. Dungeons have ALWAYS been integral to the Zelda series and will ALWAYS be essential for any
real Zelda.
Point is, tossing those out of discussion because they contradict the point you're trying to make, go against the argument you want to
win is counterproductive to productive discourse.
Breath of the Wild draws from the original Zelda in a
feel it's trying to emulate; the others draw from it through other ways.
In the end, though, the bulk of the series has followed and iterated upon a particular formula, which has, for the longest time, been codified as the
Zelda formula.
This is what is referred to as the classic Zelda formula.
I know I'm going to lose this poll because most younger gamers have never even looked at Zelda 1, which is really sad to me. But you really owe it to yourself to try and beat it at least one time.
For what it's worth, my first Zelda game was the original.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56885797/arcade_archives_mario_bros_mario_luigi_960.0.jpg)
