They are very similar games, just have to look beyond what's in your face. And no the series died with Ocarina, the latest games are awful, people just cling way too tightly to a beloved series to let it die.
On the contrary, I dont think
you've actually looked very deeply at your comparison at all.
They're not similar on the surface, nor when you dive deeper.
Narrative? Nope. Zelda games have a shallow, but very up front sort of plot structure, with clearly defined goals at any one point. Nothing like Souls games.
Aesthetic/art style? Obviously not, I hope I dont have to explain this one.
Level design? This is the ONLY one where I think you could possibly ever argue it's even close, but it's still really nothing alike. Zelda typically has a traversable overworld and separate dungeons that you find in them. The existence of these dungeons and their tendency to have bosses is basically the only similarity I can find. Except that Souls games do the level design completely differently, where dungeons are not distinguished from the 'overworld', they are all one in the same.
And then there's the fact that Zelda's dungeons are almost always very puzzle-based, which Souls games have almost none of.
Combat? I mean, no. Not remotely close other than the fact that they both have swords.
Challenge? Nope.
Progression? Nope.
I'd love to hear your in-depth analysis on how they're very much cut from the same cloth, cuz I dont think it could be clearer they're not.
I also disagree very much with you on modern Zelda's being 'dead'. The games are still highly rated and loved by many. A Link Between Worlds is one of the best ones I've played.
