I honestly think it's better that it isn't any quicker than 4 years. Main Zelda games should be rare treats - something to be vastly anticipated. Each one should be its own individual gem, unique from any other in the series. Should they ideally speed up the development a little bit? Perhaps, but I'd rather they delay and release another gem than rush it out.

In reality we've had 1 new Zelda game, 2 remakes and a spin-off since Skyward Sword so its not like we've been starved of Zelda in the meantime.

Every Zelda becomes ''the most hated'' no one is ever happy. It's the ''Zelda Cycle'' just like Sonic has.

A Zelda game is announced, people are excited and then it releases and people hate it and say its the worst ever. Then they wait for the next one and the next one is annoucned and they get excited. Then its released and they say it sucks and its the worst ever and the PREVIOUS one they played(which they originaly hated) is now a good game and is ''underrated''

we'll just use recent examples of Wind Waker/Twilight Princess being these games. 

Then when Zelda U is released,people will complain about it and then say Skyward Sword is better, its just the pattern 

I dont get the point of this post.

Its not like Nintendo plans to launch 2 or more main-line Zelda games on a console. 

They have stated that they will, for the most part, launch one main-line game per console,

whether that is Zelda, Mario, or whatever.  

So you might as well ask the same question for Mario Kart, Smash Bros, etc.

I'd argue that it's "hated" because it's simply not good. What it does have is a lot of fan-service, a unique art-style, and superficially interesting combat mechanics. 

You can't really compare the "Zelda Cycle" and the "Sonic Cycle." Even if we acknowledge both of them, the way they purport to work is completely different.

Because Nintendo has this strange desire to release games that aren't broken at launch and require numerous patches.

My opinion is that Skyward Sword isn't good (on its own merits, much less judged as part of the series), but that opinion is not based on taste. The story is, by virtually any standard, shallow, badly paced, and internally inconsistent. The mechanics are, by virtually any standard, lacking strategic depth or challenge. And while elements of Ocarina of Time have not aged well, many of those elements are present in Skyward Sword, and to an even greater degree.

I don't like Skyward Sword. You may enjoy it, but I can't think of a reasonable standard by which it can be considered a "good" game.

Yes I can. They're both cycles in which people judge the franchise. Its perfect valid and its completely based off real events that commonly keep occuring

The "Sonic Cycle" is based on the idea that, after a game is announced, fans get excited for it and begin to think it's good. After it comes out, they realize their expectations were too high after critics and popular opinion tear it to pieces. The game is thrown on the pile of bad Sonic games, and the cycle repeats with the announcement of a enw game.

The Zelda Cycle is based on the idea that, after a game is released, it gets near-universal praise from critics and the community. After a time, the community and a portion of critics turn on the game, comparing it negatively to the last game in the series, which in turn gets a boost in status. This continues until the next game releases, at which point the cycle repeats.

As someone who is familiar with both franchises, neither of these things really hold true, and they have few similarities between them.

And with that, it's done.

No thanks.