I think that much is obvious. The only reasons past 3D Zelda games didn't so it was because of hardware limitations.

For all console releases: yes.

For the console games, yeah. Important advances such as this are typically kept and used in future entries. An open world isn't a one-time gimmick, or at least it shouldn't be.

Nope. The games will go back to the linear format after this one.

The size doesn't matter. Only thing important for Nintendo is if the game is fun or not.

7-8 times bigger than Twilight Princess? Like, the entirety of the TP overworld or just Hyrule Field? Cause you're dreaming if you meant the former.

Depends on what they can do with the console. The Wii was kind of limited in that regard and now they can push for these giant worlds. Imagine what they could come up with next.

I voted "yes" because that's what I hope. But also I don't care too much about it, and it could be both good or bad in the end.

I loved Skyrim because it was really big, but the travel distance could be too long sometimes and the stuff to do along the way bored me out after a while and I just stuck to the main quest. I am a "main quest" type of player so I don't do many side quests in total. In Zelda however I usually do the main quest and try to collect all the hearts the first time I play. Then after I have finished the game and play it again I usually try to collect everything.

So, if the next Zelda will be a pain in the butt like WW to travel then I will easily lose interest in the side quests. But in any way I am sure I will have a nice experience. I loved WW more than I disliked it in the end.

It doesn't really matter to me if the world size is big. If the dungeons are great then I'm content.