I don't think I'd go that far- Odyssey looks ambitious and expanded in new gameplay but it is following a similar formula to Sunshine (hub world, very varied individual 'levels' to explore), etc.

Breath of the Wild was literally from the ground up a totally different type of game than its predecessors, for better or worse. Zelda traditionally is more a dungeon crawler game and the new edition is an open world exploration sort of thing. Obvs thats oversimplifying both, but its a drastic difference 

Forget about it.  Mario fans never want to believe their favorite can be outdone.

Ir rather that you dont have arguments to write back and so you just pull "cant argue with blind fans" ridiculous argument?

I could argue with you, sure.  But it'd go in circles.  We're clearly on opposite ends and if you look at this thread, most who don't have a hype boner realize this is just the next Mario game and not a series makeover like Breath of the Wild. 

Think of a 30 second first look of these two games.   In 30 seconds, Odyssey looks like a Mario game.  In that same time, BotW had most people asking "this is Zelda?"  

I could make the argument that using the possession ability to solve puzzles and the world being "ginormous with endless goodies and exploration" by saying the words "Banjo Tooie."  While you don't possess enemies, you use Banjo and Kazooie's abilities and transform into other forms to solve the puzzles of the world and collect jiggies.  And the worlds are so big that the N64 couldn't handle them, even with an expansion pack.

So I'll take your bait this time, but it's just to let you know there's no point in going on arguing - we're not going to change each others minds.  Odyssey is creative and sure to be content rich, but it's not a genre defining, series REdefining that BotW is.  

Perception is the point here.You could argue that Zelda simply entered in the "modern age" and finally realized what the first game set out to do:Be an open world game with endless possibilities.You could also argue that Zelda simply perfected what other open world games do today.If you were to be trully nitpick about things, Zelda dosent do anything really new, outside of being able to climb most things(and thus makes the game be something different althogeter).It just perfected a concept.Its not like Splatoon that has basically created a whole new concept to third person shooters, or even shooters in general.Yeah, its very different from past Zelda games, but still not "groundbreaking", if I were to apply the same view you have for Oddyssey.

Oddyssey does the same here.Yes, you could say that it is Mario 64 version 2, and it really seems to be, but does that really stop the game from being ambitious or groundbreaking?In the same sense as Zelda, it really isnt "creating" something completely original, something that I believe that Splatoon gets close to, but it seems(and I say so because the game hasnt released yet) to be pushing every single concept of platformer games, games focused on exploration, or even open ended puzzles in games.And who knows, it might even influence things even further, just like Mario 64 did.And what do I base this off of?Each Kingdom seems expansive and each seems to be shockful of secrets, but they are not simply "go there and grab that collectible that you see".Sometimes you need to think outside the box to reach it, or you have a specific costume that you need to wear to reach it, or you have to search for clues to understand how that locked door can be opened, or you need to first understand what each enemy ability does, so that you combine them to reach your objective.Or even then, its a combination of all those before to be able to do that.Its would be the true definition of "complete it the way that you think it works", something that is present in BOTW, and to be quite frank, almost nowhere to be seen elsewhere, and even is hard to find it on Nintendo games.

Then you have the possesing mechanic.Instead of having a couple of powerups, now you will have a myriad of them, each of them offering a new perspective and a new way to see the level.See that moon over the cliff?You could climb there, but would take 5 minutes to do it normaly.But now, if you possess that enemy, it becomes 30 seconds.Or rather, see that Moon that you think its impossible to reach?You could do a complicated set of moves to reach it, or you could just possess a Bullet Bill to reach it.Or all those enemies you need to defeat, just poisses one of them and use their area based atack to finish them off quickly.You finished the whole kingdom but then you find an enemy that has an ability to cross the map in a really cool way, and that simply changes how you perceive that kingdom.And those possibilites are just scratching off the surface.And you still can mix and match evry single one of them.There is also the fact that we havent had a Mario like that in decades, and no one else has anything close to that.You may not find it impressive, but how can you not say its not ambitious?

I do think that Zelda is ambitious, and thats lowballing it, but Mario is too.You may not find it nearly on the same level as Zelda, but saying that the game is not ambitious by design is simply wrong in my opinion.