I don't really think bigger always equals better. Large worlds make sense for Zelda, but in Mario I think you lose design focus and it kinda becomes Mario aimlessly running around too much with platforming elements/enemy interfacing pushed back to a minimum.

Mario should not be overly about exploration IMO. That's what Zelda and Metroid are for.

I would be very surprised if it doesn't. Mario has always been a lot bigger than Zelda.

Sell beter yes, every Mario platformer outsold it's Zelda counterpart, because Mario has a much wider audience.

Having more critical acclaim or being "more ambitious" (if one could objectively claim such a thing), I highly doubt it. Zelda broke new grounds, while Mario treads familiar paths.

Personally, while I have been waiting for a Mario 64 2 since, well, Mario 64, so I should be thrilled, I remain a bit reserved on Odyssey. I like the hat mechanic a lot, but the premise and locations (the realistic looking ones at least) seem off to me. Realistic looking humans and realistic looking forests with realistic looking dinosaurs just don't really fit alongside "Mario". I get what they are going for, with having Mario travel to different worlds/dimensions so in that way each world actually should logically look very different, but still, I'm not sure if this was the right way to go. Also I don't think it looks that good, most places seem kind of, plain, or something, to me. Meanwhile Breath of the Wild had ticked every box from the get-go and I knew it would be awesome from the moment it was revealed.

They both as ambitious as each other in giving the player interactive worlds but in different aspects and designs due to being different types of games.

I don't get why people care so much, ambition =/= quality. I just see both of them as games like any other. Besides it's not fair to judge right now with Odyssey still to release.

I am not baiting you or anything.We are in a sales and discussion forum about videogames and everything related to it.If someone makes a claim that goes against what the OP is saying, I am expecting such user to be open to discuss about it, not simply brush off others opinions as inferior or as a "hype boner" effect.That kind of attitude will get you nowhere.

I could say that the first 30 seconds of Odyssey trailer has nothing to do with Mario(Im using the E3 trailer since thats the one that reveals the full scope of the game, or closer to it), since you start with a damn realistic dinosaur and Mario appear from inside him, but I see there is no convincing you with the atitude you got.As I said, the same you say about Mario could be said about Zelda.That dosent mean that they are not ambitious and masterpieces in their own right.

And for the record, I think that BOTW is as ambitious as Mario.The point Im trying to make is that is ridiculous to call other people, lets say delusional, just because you have the opinion that just because Mario feels like a natural evolution of Mario 64, it dosent deserve such a title.Discussion is not about changing minds, its about learning what others think, reaching some sort of concenssus if possible even if someone dosent personally like, and having fun.

I wouldn't say it's more ambitious than Breath of the Wild, but it will likely sell better. Mario platformers tend to sell better than Zelda games, because they are more accessible to all types of players.

So water doesnt count as part of the world now? You know the planet is 70% water. So what if WW was mostly water, that's exactly what our planet is like. It's as open world as BOTW

I'll let the series producer answer that one with his own words;

https://youtu.be/XZmxvig1dXE?t=40s

Eh, kind of a weird convo IMO. Seems like a battle between Nintendo fans about something...that doesn't really matter. Odyssey is still 3 months to release and we're already debating "ambition"? I mean why does that matter? At the end of the day, both games will proudly sit at the top of the Metacritic charts and Nintendo fans will be happy