As a huge Zelda fan, it bothers me how much this article gets wrong. But I suppose that's because it's pretty much a copy+pasta of Anita Sarkeesian's videos.
To tackle it bit by bit:
Because games’ technological capabilities have increased so rapidly since “Ocarina” was released, I suspect the title’s reputation is somewhat inflated due to nostalgia of critics of a certain age.
A bit, but that's unrelated to the topic at hand. Most fans are able to look at it objectively. And the majority would agree that it's by far not the best game in the series. Still an excellent title though.
The game’s perspective on class issues can best be seen in its portrayal of the Kakariko carpenters and the wealthy family in the House of Skulltulla.
This is going to be interesting. The Kakariko carpenters are recurring characters.
The relationship between the self-described “boss” of the carpenters and those he calls “my workers,” appears to be one of a guild member and apprentices or journeymen. The boss refers to himself as a master craftsman, and says the workers were hired by the royal family to improve the village.
This is correct and incorrect. The workers are merely like any other construction workers. The boss employs them, they take on jobs and complete them. The royal family doesn't have much to do with it. And yes, the boss is the one in charge.
Karl Marx described this relationship as one of “oppressor and oppressed,” comparing it to that of “freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, (and) lord and serf.”
Where the hell did this come from? People who work for a fee are now oppressed? I suppose I'm oppressed because I choose to code for money? This makes no sense. If the carpenters were forced to work under the boss, I suppose that'd be the case. But they willingly work. They are just a bit lazy and need motivation.
Some may interpret the fate of the wealthy family, who are transformed into spiderlike creatures, in the House of Skulltulla as a condemnation of an exploitive class system, but that would be a mistake.
The article then goes on to talk about reasons completely unrelated to what we just saw. Yes, the family is wealthy. And yes, they were cursed (I forget by who) because of their greed.
By focusing on the greed of individuals, the game ignores how private property incentivizes and even mandates such behavior. And with this moralizing focus comes a belief that society’s economic ills are intractable because of humanity’s flawed nature.
The game isn't ignoring or focusing on anything. It paints a world that we then see. This has become no longer an article on Zelda, but rather on "how private property incentivizes and even mandates such behavior". That's not a problem with Zelda.
The racial, ethnic and religious traits of the “good characters” and the “bad characters” within the game also demonstrate a certain xenophobia. All of the good characters, such as the Hylians and Kokiri, are white. In contrast, all of the bad characters, such as the thieving Gerudo and their king, Ganondorf, have brown skin. The Gerudo live in the desert, and in case it wasn’t clear what real-life group of people they are based on, the original Gerudo symbol is strongly reminiscent of the Islamic star and crescent.
"Good" and "Bad" are never clearly defined in Zelda. There certainly isn't any more xenophobia than is present in regular Japanese culture. The author is just aligning themselves with what they define as the "good" side. Which, in their opinion is the Hylians and Kokiri, two unaligned forces. They also aren't "white". They are Hylian/Kokiri respectively. Saying based on color is racist in itself. That's like saying italians and russians are both "white". The author also refers to the original version of the game, rather than the revised version (due to complaints like this). The gerudo are pretty much the opposite of islamic people, besides their skin color (which is what the author decides to focus on). Yes, there is a few similarities, but in terms of culture, they are vastly different. As are all cultures in the series.
The title’s perspective on sex is arguably summarized in an advertisement for “Ocarina,” which asks, “Willst thou get the girl? Or play like one?” The game utilizes a damsel-in-distress trope that suggests women are weak and in need of male protection.
This is the commercial from when the game first came out. Also due to complaints like these, the newer version is revised to remove the "offending phrases". If this is the best they can latch onto (not even part of the game), then that's pretty sad. Also, it merely suggests women aren't good at games (which to some extent is scientifically accurate). Nintendo has been doing a decent job at fixing their past mistakes, even changing Ganondorf's blood to green (instead of red).
Just like in every other game in the series, Princess Zelda is incapacitated and in need of rescue from the central character, Link.
Not true. Most games in the series don't involve Zelda at all. Look at Link's Awakening, Majora's Mask, etc. Also, the "need of rescue" isn't the point. The point is that Zelda is in a leader position. In that sense, you could say that presidential assassinations were "sexist". If you note, Ganondorf is also a lead and gets defeated in every game that he appears. You could say that this is sexist towards men. Again, not true.
For a portion of the game’s plot, Zelda is represented as an imposing warrior. But, as Sarkeesian points out, she is only able to achieve this disguised as a man and she’s kidnapped within minutes of revealing her true identity.
Relating to what I just said. It's because she is a leader, not a female. Shiek was a disguise. So it's obvious that she'd be found out once she revealed herself. Note that in Wind Waker, she was "disguised" as Tetra, another female. And was only found out once she came in close contact with Ganondorf. This is because of Zelda's Wisdom. Not her gender.
Link also rescues other female characters who arguably fall into damsel trope, such as Saria, a friend from his Kokiri childhood, and Ruto, princess of the aquatic Zoras.
He also rescues males throughout the series. Like Darunia. And pretty much all of Hyrule. He saves everyone, not just females.
The game’s representation of animals is best displayed in the idyllic Lon Lon Ranch, a small farm operated by a human father-daughter duo.
The game has plenty of more animals than just in lon lon ranch, and actually punishes the player for animal cruelty.
But for non-humans the pre-industrial farm, as symbolized by Lon Lon Ranch, was still a place of exploitation and violence, where their lives, in general, would be significantly shorter and more circumscribed than those of their nearest, wild cousins.
As with other markets in Hyrule, the Lon Lon Ranch deals with mutually agreed transactions. Cows provide milk, milk is turned into alchohol and is then sold in the Market. I fail to see the violence here. Perhaps the author is confused about Hylian culture?
But in the game, domestication is portrayed as a mutually beneficial, voluntary arrangement.
That's because it is.
The anthropomorphized cows of Hyrule speak to Link, literally saying, “Have some of my refreshing and nutritious milk!” Of course depicting a relationship as anything like symbiotic when one party kills and eats the other, as well as the latter’s children, would be laughable if it weren’t so appalling.
The author has made yet another blatantly false statement about the series. In no section of the game do they mention that cows are a food source. We are only introduced to (AFAIK) two food sources in the game: rocks (for gorons) and potions. Potions are made from harvesting chu jelly (from a so-called enemy in the game).
So basically the author has no points and is misrepresenting the series.
Since there was no mention of the punishments for animal cruelty, I'll mention it now: In the series, a common trope (as well as becoming a staple of the series) is that when you harm cuccoos (basically the chickens of hyrule), they swarm up and attack you. they become invulnerable and cannot be killed. You either die a slow painful death by a cuccoo swarm, or you run away and never attack a cuccoo again.
Really, all the author is showing is that Hyrule has a rich and deep culture and structure, and that they fail to understand it. And instead force our culture and lives into it; and then state that it is clearly wrong and needs to be fixed.