I corrected the typo. At least be decent enough to read it now.

Usually common knowledge, like FFVI and FFVII being the best Final Fantasies, not just myself and about 12 people I know prefer this game to that. 

Are you implying that Twilight Princess is as popular as OOT?

I can at least show you out of around 1200 people, OOT is rated higher critically (being one of the highest rated games by professional critics of all time).

http://www.metacritic.com/game/nintendo-64/the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time

http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/the-legend-of-zelda-twilight-princess

I'd add A Link To The Past, but there is no scores for that. 

EDIT: You'll also note Universal Acclaim (which I didn't even know they put until now lol) directly underneath where it says User Score.

Let's not bring Journey to Zelda... please... I hate that "interactive piece of entertainment".

Better.

The Hyrule field "infatuation" is nothing but a product of limited hardware. The N64, GCN, and Wii simply aren't powerful enough to make a game as vast and dense as the 2D games. It's not an act of self marturbation, it's a consession to limited hardware. It's why SS is linear, why TP is barren, and why WW got it right. Its the graphical equivilant to the loading screen cutscenes in Metroid Prime. There is simply no other way to do this on hardware that weak. Epona, the boat, and the bird weren't added to make traversing more fun, it was to make traveling quicker. The enemies, islands, and secrets where made to make the game more "fun." It's not something he "loves," rather a nessesity to make a game like Zelda possible on a console.

I think WW handles it fantastically because it lends to the feeling of a vast world when it's literally nothing more than an interactive loading screen. You know, like the ones in Assasin's Creed where you run around and do nothing for thirty seconds. Only this time, it's a core game mechanic where there are enemies, loot, and things to find. The biggest and most important thing is that the whole world was seamless. The only time anything faded to black was when you went inside something. Inside a house. Inside a building. Inside a volcano. But traveling from one side of the world to the other? Not one, and along the way, there where obstacles to halt your progression, islands to explore, and maps to fill. MM did it perfectly because it was frankly a much smaller game than OoT. Because it was a sequel, it got away with a map size that frankly wouldn't have flown had it been a modern day stand alone Zelda. Not that that's a problem; I'm praising MM for it.

This "hyrule field" worked in OoT because, quite frankly, there had never been a game world that large and connected before. It failed in TP because there had been plenty of game worlds that large by then, and the flaws of that kind of anchient game design became blaringly more apparent, especiallty when literally no serious changes where made to fix this. The field was still just a barren town hub, and because there wasn't much to do, it served to make the world feel small, rather than large. You felt like you were in a huge room, not a vast field. Skyward Sword screwed up because it misunderstood why WW's sea worked. The sky wasn't seamless, there were no obstacles while flying, and there was nothing to explore. It literally became nothing but a giant hub world, just like TP, only worse because there was nothing to do but fly. (Which was admitedly fun, but not enough on it's own) Skyward Sword's design was a reaction to Aonuma's displeasure with TP's emptiness. As much as the sky was barren and boring, once you landed, the three main areas were just as dense with content as any 2D Zelda game. More so than any 3D Zelda before it, including Wind Waker. (though the stamina bar for running can go die a firey death)

You mention that many of the games I mentioned starring Young Link happen to feature tightly integrated worlds where nary a metre is wasted. You also mention that every single game you're talking about are top-down 2D games. That's a huge point. It's not straining on the hardware to make a world like that on a game like that. It was impossible, however, to replicate the same design phylosophy in a 3D game, as a game of that same scale and density is vastly more damanding and frankly impossible to replicate on the hardware they were working with.

Now, will this impossibiliy continue to be an issue on the Wii U? Who knows. The more demanding the graphics are on the hardware, the more consessions will have to be made to supplement them. Having the last two games that Aonuma worked on being Wind Waker HD and ALBW make me far more confident, however. Aonuma has gone on record stating the effects that the open worlds found in those games (he specifically mentions ALBW, which is great) will have on the openess of Zelda U. He's also said other things that point to good signs, such as an interview with IGN's Jose Otero where he made it a point to mention that while he want's the game to be open world, "open world" doesn't nessesarily mean wide, open, empty areas. This game is likely shooting for a mix between the world density of Skyward Sword with the open,  vast seamlessness found in Wind Waker to make an end product that ends up being the 3D representation of ALBW.

As for your last point about the hours of exposition before the game starts, that's only really an issue in the Wii games. It's a little bit of a wait in OoT, but you get started in like 30 minutes. In MM, again, you start almost immediately. Maybe 10-20 minutes. Again, this is mostly because if it's status as a direct sequel to the first truely open world 3D console game of all time. It didn't need the exposition. Wind Waker, again, gets you started in 15-25 minutes.

Then comes the Wii twins. At least two hours for both, because "mature, hardcore" fans wanted a "deeper" story. Also because the control scheme was completely new and they needed to dedicate time to teaching them. Aonuma has made it a point to say that he wanted make ALBW quick to start so that fans could start the playing the game right away. 10-20 minutes.

And they all have cutscenes. I don't mind cutscenes that expand a deeper plot, as long as it isn't front loaded. Let me play the game for a bit before bombarding me with exposition. That's something Aonuma has stated would be worked into the design of Zelda U. That's why he added the Hint Glasses. He wanted hints and tutorials to be an optional thing, so it doesn't unessesarily clog the gameplay up for seasoned veterans who don't need it.

Link appearing older in the Wii games signifies a change in direction that I don't like. He was trying to appeal to an audience that quite frankly knows nothing about what makes a great Zelda game. He didn't make Link older because "it fit the game," he made Link older because the fans liked that in OoT. I loved OoT's older Link because it was novel. That's why I never compare OoT's older Link to TP's or SS's. They have completely different reasons for existing. The whole Link and Zelda love plot was nothing but fanservice. Adult Link in TP and SS is nothing but fanservice. Adult Link in OoT was a game mechanic. It's the same way Link turning flat in ALBW is or Link shrinking in Minish Cap is.

That's why, even more than people wanting another purposeless "adult Link," it makes me want to swallow blades when someone is moronic enough to say they want another game with both Links. Because it's those people who don't understand why that was special when it first happened in OoT and why it's a cop out that they keep falling back on this new idea of an older Link now. They want older Link because it's "cool," and Zelda is not "cool." ALttP is not "cool." Link isn't supposed to be "badass," he's supposed to be brave and at odds, which is why being a child fits him so perfectly. A muscular, fit young man in his prime doesn't need to be brave. A young and inexperienced boy, with more obstacles than he has goals, does. That's why Link is better off as a young boy and that's why the most modern games have, not gone to shit but, fallen from grace. Their greatness has become marred by mediocrity, and worse, by a lack of originality.

Journey is a game.

But that doesn't matter, because I only want it's art style to be incorperated into the next Zelda, because it's beautiful and more importantly, not demanding on the hardware.

It's an "Interactive piece of entertaiment". And it sucks.

It looks really beautiful but it plays like shit. As long it's just the artstyle I agree though.

Dude, in Zelda II Link is several years older than the first game, and while ALTTP makes no direct reference to his age, he certainly doesn't appear any younger. Young Link is featured in half of TOOT and all of MM, though it's painfully obvious that older Link features much better gameplay, and he's sorely missed in MM.

And don't even get me started on that Powerpuff Girl reject known as "Toon Link."

He's only 16 in Zelda 2. ALttP Link is younger than that. Older Links gameplay is no different from younger Link other than his weapons, and isn't "sorely missed" anywhere.

"And don't even get me started on that Powerpuff Girl reject known as 'Toon Link.'"

It's a video game. It's a masterpiece.

Journey has some of the most flawless game design in the industry today. It is just the art style though, so we're on the same page there.

You know it's true...