Ocarina of Time = Breath of the Wild
Skyward Sword

1) Breathe of the Wild - The everything game
2) Wind Waker - set a new standard in exploration and charm for the series
3) Zelda II - Hardcore as all hell and the most thoroughly satisfying game to complete.

Personally I reckon both Botw and TP look(ed) fine for when they released; clearly far from cutting edge, but nice enough.

And yeah, while it wouldn't matter to me as I already have one, I do think Nintendo should do a super-cheap non-portable model. Without a screen, battery, etc they should be able to get it down to like $200 USD, maybe less if it launches once the main model has dropped in price. I think they'd be a niche for that.

Gamecube was a beast at the time too. I remember very few games that gen that wowed me as much as GCN games like Rogue Squadron 2 & 3 or Resident Evil 4. Even N64, though limited by carts, was still robust hardware for its gen.

Yeah the Cube was pretty potent.
I remember when Luigi's Mansion first came out and I gave that game a good play... I was amazed by the Bump mapping and lighting in that game... And how the lighting would accentuate the bump maps.

Shame the Wii, Wii U and Switch are a step down from their competitors home consoles in terms of hardware capabilities, makes you wonder what "could have been" if the Zelda games on those platforms had modern powerful hardware backing them.

Starfox Adventures, F-Zero GX, and Metroid Prime 2 gave me a good wow back then as well. I'd go so far as to say that the best looking 'Cube games hold up very well today.

While it would've been nice to play TP/SS in 360 graphics and Botw in PS4 graphics, I think that going with weaker hardware was unfortunately necessary for Nintendo; their attempts to be competitive power-wise just weren't working out. 

Going with weaker hardware doesn't change their competitiveness in the slightest or reduce their innovation, you can still have class-leading powerful hardware and still be different from your competitors.
The WiiU had weaker hardware than it's competitors and is also probably one of the largest failures in Nintendo history, power or lack thereof doesn't equate to success.

What it does do is reduce the financial risk upon Nintendo as it's component costs are more easily absorbed by Nintendo and it also allows for larger profit margins.
Even the Switch used older, cheaper and more conservative chips to trend along that line, whilst Maxwell is still pretty competitive, Pascal with higher clocked ULV LPDDR4 could have provided a substantual boost.

With that, there is no point crying over spilt milk, Nintendo has listened to the criticism over power for generations now and has ignored that sentiment and done their own thing anyway. And that's fine.

Breath of the Wild, A Link to the Past and Wind Waker.

Going with weaker hardware with the Wii allowed them to be more affordable than their competitors, plus with motion controls being such a gamble, cheap parts allowed them to avoid massive losses should their main party trick not have paid off.

Switch on the other hand was locked out of being as powerful as PS4 by its form factor.

In both cases, I'd say that going with less powerful hardware paid off. I mean, if they'd made a power-competitive device it would have to be a traditional console, and there's really no room for a third one of those on the market.

When  the Wii launched it wasn't that much cheaper than the Xbox 360 here.
But you are just reaffirming my point that it removes financial risk by using cheaper components.

Which isn't the consumers problem either way.

The Switch could still have been faster than what it was though by adopting Pascal and using ULV LPDDR4 1866/2133 DRAM.

Well. We just won't know now will we? :P

It's not like it's THAT old. Basically the initial architecture is from 2014, and the updated Switch version is from 2016. Both of which are quite a bit newer, relatively speaking, than the XBOne and PS4. So it's not behind those in that regard.