He raises some good points, but I'm left scratching my head. In a way he's right and Zelda games are sort of falling in to a rut, but the games kind of... can't really change all that much.
If it changes too much, why even call it a Zelda game at all?
Is that the point, then? Just stop making Zelda games entirely, and try something new? While on one side that might be interesting, the market wouldn't ever handle that and Nintendo would never allow it. That's kind of like Square-Enix saying they're going to stop making Final Fantasy, when the simple reality is they could slap "Final Fantasy" in before any console RPG they damn well please and they're instantly millions of dollars richer regardless of quality or content.
Nintendo will never let The Legend of Zelda die, I don't think. It's a top-tier franchise for them. It's all so messy and so weird and kind of frustrating at times.
You know a series that's got it worse than Zelda, though? Castlevania. Every game has been trying to fight it's way out of Symphony of the Night's shadow (or rest comfortably in it, where easy money is made on a proven formula) and it's just starting to feel really tired, now. They're trying to mix it up a bit, granted, but even though the wallpaper changes it's still trying to squeeze blood from the Symphony of the Night stone and it does it with a much greater frequency than Zelda does. At least there's a 2-4 year pause between Zelda titles; there was a while there when we'd get a new Castlevania annually.