People say that it was turned into a AAA shooter like COD or something, but just because the shooting is better now doesn’t make it a shooter. People say it’s not an RPG anymore: 1: if Zelda is an rpg this is, 2: it has the RPG elements: they are just different and updated. The dialogue system could be better, but I still think that it is good. All they needed was to use the d-pad or have a “More” button. Sure, there are less options, less negotiations, but I think that is because they made the shooting decent, and they wanted you to shoot. Also, in 3 and New Vegas, there was not much negotiating. I really don’t get it. I much prefer the Commonwealth to the Capital Wasteland and the Mojave, and Diamond City is better than anywhere I’ve been in 3, and only The Strip is better (that I’ve seen) in NV. It has great lore with Valentine, and the companions are great. I get that you don’t like that you have a spouse and child, but you completely can ignore that fact. People say that the dialogue choices are fake and always get to the same place: same as in 3 and NV. You have basically multiple ways to get to the end of the talk. You can still do the same thing, it’s just a bit more obvious. Do you have any ideas on this? Sorry for this long block of text.
Zelda isn't an RPG, for there is nothing for you to roleplay as other than Link, who is an established character with a background and lore. The only thing "RPG like" in Zelda is a thing that every good game, movie and story should have which is character development. It's as much of an RPG as Metroid is... which is not at all, it's Action/Adventure. It's also not entirely open to choice, only one ending so the story is linear and the world is only "open" when you have all the corresponding equipment and requirements.
Also, @MightBot, while I might agree with the faction moral placement, I disagree with them being only that. I do see them with a perspective similar to how you classified them, BUT depending on the "lens" you're using to look at each faction will change their moral standing. Initially, I sided with the Institute in my very first playthrough and ended up destroying the Brotherhood and I did both optional tasks for the Railroad and Minutemen when first entering the Institute. While not seen in-game, my character was morally good, so being head of the Institute made it to where I could lead them in that direction. Because I was good with both Railroad and Minutemen, I gave each settlement I had Institute-like technology to thrive, and treated synths with more humanity than the rest of the Institute did. So... in conclusion to this long ass comment, it's subjective, the Minutemen are the only ones with a true established morality, which is Lawful Good, the rest are more of a netrual and are dependent on what you, the player, take into account for them.
If the only thing you can roleplay as is the thing the game has established, then yes, it shouldn't be deemed an RPG, it should be Action/Adventure.
Also, I will kinda argue for MightBot here, if by the 48th hour of a playthrough you're not enjoying a game, why continue to play it? In hopes that you'll somehow change your mind? The main difference between 50 hours and 1000 hours is you wasted more of your time, yeah you have the *potential* to experience more, but in an open-world RPG, that'll be different for everybodies first playthrough.
If you're not enjoying a game while playing it, don't force yourself to continue to play it, the point of a game is to enjoy playing it not go "This game is shite, but hopefully it'll be better once I beat it."