get wwdh, its worth every penny...

the graphics and the art style are pretty fine to me, the reason i didnt like wind waker as much as other zeldas was due that i had to navigate and there was must of the time just water and it took a lot of time to reach a destination with almost nothing out there in the sea to entertain you

Well I'm not exactly comparing them 1:1, but the overworld in Zelda U is the antithesis of the ones presented in OoT, MM, and TP. Those overworlds were seqmented. It wasn't one large map, but a bunch of smaller ones. WW, by comparison, was completely and seamlessly connected. Yes, they were islands, but what is the difference from a game design POV. I genuinely don't understand how you can compare the worlds of those games with that of Zelda U when they were so physically segmented. Skyward Swords overworld is also nothing like WW's overworld. It funtionally exactly the same as Hyrule/termina feild on the three games you mention. You go to a point of the hub world, and it loads you into a new area. SS is honestly as bad as OoT in that reguard. At least the other two hide it better.

You fast travel on your vehicle until you reach your destination seamlessly. You dismount when your vehicle is no longer useful in the upcoming turain, where you uncover the next dungeon/town you'll be accessing. The difference between land and sea is mostly superfluous from a game design POV. If you won't be walking, who cares what the ground is made of and what the mount looks like? Both serve the same function. Any difference in almost entirely aesthetic. Would you rather look at grass or water? That's all that really makes a difference there. I don't care either way, as I see them both as mechanics, and since they are both presented beautifully in their respective games. As for one being more boring though, that's kind of disingenious, unless you just literally think that the sight of an ocean is boring as opposed to the view of landscape, which is at least more fair.

But if you think that just the fact that Zelda U is on land means that the overworld will have more to do, that's not true at all. Think about it this way; every time you get off of Epona to explore a hidden dungeon, Link would have gotten off his boat to explore a submarine. Everytime you get off Epona to explore an interesting landmark, Link would have gotten off his boat to explore a random island. Link gets off his horse to explore a hidden cave with a fairy = Link gets off his boat to explore a fairy isle. Link encounters a giant beemos on his horse = Link encounters a giant Octos on his boat. Link can fight enemies like bokoblins by firing arrows while on his horse = Link can fight enemies like Bokoblins on rafts by firing arrows while on his boat.

Lastly, I don't think that the big spaces are wasted. It simply isn't realistic for the world to have content at every corner. It's too big and realistically, there's no reason for there to be something of interest in every square inch of the map. Like seriously, who in the lore of that world would put that much stuff in every nook and crevice. But there's something Zelda U and WW do have; there's always something to do within seeing distance. If you're not doing anything at that second, one quick look around will show you something to do close by.

Like I said, I actually like the sailing in WW, but I also like Zelda for the exploration and combat as opposed to what newer Zelda's focus on, which is definitely not exploration. WW has been the only 3D Zelda where that was the core part of the game. Everything else focused more on dungeons and puzzles and kind of story, which isn't what Zelda is to me, especially not puzzles. That's why I've always hated Epona and the loftwing. I felt that she took away from that feeling of exploring every nook of your world. The only one I've ever liked was the boat, because all of his mechanic functions where made to expand exploration. Epona and the bird where just there to make the over worlds in there games less tedious to go through. That's why I'd been known to say that the only way I'd accept the return of Epona is if she functioned like the boat in WW. When Aonuma explained how she controls, I knew I'd spot more similarities if I looked, and sure enough, I found plenty.

No 3D Zelda game has ever been like those games. If they were, Epona wouldn't be a thing, because the world would be too compact with enemies and obstacles for a mount like that to not be a nuisance. The closest thing to what you're describing were the on foot sections of SS. If they had been one seamlessly connected world instead of all connected by a giant loading screen in a sky costume, that would have neen ALttP in 3D. This is something incomparable to the 2D games. Or at least, less comparable than to WW.

That gameplay at least showed variation in terrain instead of an endless expanse of white and a single flat shade of blue. 

There's more to see in Wind Waker than just water, just like there's more to see in Zelda U than just grass.

Obviously in a bigger scale.

SS is a bigger scale, and a more accurate representation of the density and exploration presented in that line of games.

I disagree with this.
The new Zelda will be the most like the first Zelda for NES.

There's the islands, but I personally found them spaced waaaaay too far apart. In Zelda U we can see forests, mountains, rivers, and rolling grasslands all in the same area.