The description of 'it's like BotW but with the combat removed' seems to me a brokerage of the funds that we seem to take as an objective, inset currency in gaming without considering their confluence unnatural with the more intrinsically simulating mechanics broadly seen in games generally but open-world games specifically; why, with this understood by a mere moment's consideration, do we not call BotW Sable with combat added? Or Sable an open world exploration game and BotW an open world arcade game? The purity that is so often ascribed to Shigeru Miyamoto's transliteration of his adventuring as a child into the Zelda ethos is not critically understood as an impure alchemy when mixed with the necessary element of a combat loop to insure larger audience appeal by creating further petits win-states (or petits états de mort for the satisfaction angle if you prefer) to firmly emburden a tight gameplay loop. Now, BotW is probably a better game in my opinion than Sable, but I dislike the comparison of Sable as one of those '_______ but _______' games because it disengages with the critical element the community of critics and creators of other mediums have established as forms of representation and innervation in the engagement context we create with our art forms: that each climatological shift in a form is because of a new viewpoint observed by a style - so Sable being a combatless BotW is kind of frusturating, I guess.