This is not only completely false, it's also completely impossible. I'd advise you to get your facts right before you just say things. Let me attempt to say this in a way a layman would understand: What you have said is akin to claiming that Windows 95 and Windows 10 run on the same engine, and all the variations of windows in-between have just been improving the visuals and changing the unique hook. The architecture is different. The possibilities are different. The challenges are different. The design philosophy is different. For you to even think its possible for the same engine to have been used from the N64 days till now reeks of pure ignorance. Think about car engines or whatever field you have more expertise in, and try to think about your statement again.

Incompetence!?

And yet they make one of the bests games in the world. I say, take all time you need and deliver great game, not fast developed mediocre game.

The way they development Zelda game is reason why Zelda franchise maintenance high quality around 30 years.

For me one of the best parts of Zelda games is different artstyle for every new game. That is one of reasons why Zelda is so special, last thing I want is Zelda to be more like GTA or any other game.

Of course it's Zelda, they making Zelda game. ;)

Best Zelda ever game is very subjective, some people think about SS like best Zelda ever.

Perfection? Idk

This post is a hilarous collection of misinformation.  I'll attept to explain why in laymans terms.

A close family member of mine worked on Windows for decades.  And yes, each version simply builds of the previous iteration.  they salvage as much as they can, to build a Windows level OS from scratch would be a massive undertaking, and also stupid.  They salvage as much as they can.  Of course Windows 95 and Windows 10 are vastly different due to the many additions in that time, but each version of Windows did evolve and reuse much of the previous iteration.   Windows 8, for example, was such a mess in large part because they used the bones of Windows 7 but attempted to plaster the tile interface over it.

Whe it comes to games, Rockstar North started with this great product:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnocQS1maqg

which, crazy enough, had all the basic elements of GTA.  The character animation, the camera, the gun fights, the stealing of vehicles.  All designed for Body Harvest.  They took that game, expanded on it, created a new graphical skin, etc, and made GTA III.  All subsequent GTA's have used the same ever-evolving bones, expanding, adding polygons, content, features, etc.;  but GTA V was by no means a "from scratch" game.

Zelda is the same.  The fundamental gameplay engine was created for N64's OoT along with Mario 64.  OoT, of course, would use nothing from the previous title, ALttP, but every title since has built off the OoT engine and gameplay.  Other than diversions into motion control, they all play exactly the same.

Where Anouma and crew get into sensless delays, is in their contstant re-skinning of the graphical assets for new "artstyles".  Or in their creation of new gameplay hooks like changing into a wolf - something that I think most would agree added little.

So true.  Rather than always reworking titles, they should just finish them and make another title after.

Games, especially massive open world fantasy games, take a long time to develop nowadays. Witcher 2 came out 2011, and the new one came out in 2015, that's 4 years right there. If you look at other developers who create some what similar games you'll find a turn around of 4-5 years. 

This is speculation on my part, but I could see them delaying it because they want the release to coincide with the release of their new system, so they'll release it on the wii u and possibly whatever new console or handheld they have.

Incompetence in project management, not in developer skill.  Ferrari's are beautiful and exceptional cars.  However, if the factory started taking twice as long to make each vehicle while having constitently poorer quality - even if it was still a fabulous car, one would start to question the leadership there.

In the case of Zelda, the Metacritic scores starting with OoT for each successive new home console release are:

99, 95, 96, 95, 93.  That's including MM in the second slot, which is a side story and built in short order.  So ignoring that, we have a very consitent and steady decline in opinion of the last four main titles.  The games are getting worse, with SS being the first title which really falls short of "masterpiece" of any main Zelda title ever made.  This is an issue.  It's more of an issue when you consider that it had the longest development cycle ever.  Previous titles were consistent 3-year games.  SS was 5-year.

If you're Iwata, and you see one of your main products go from 3-year to 5-year development cycles while dropping from 95-99 level quality to 93 level quality, you should be cracking heads.  There is a significant problem the division.

Every new Zelda is becoming bigger and more complex, so its needed more time, especially if it is first HD, most open and with biggest world in any Zelda game.

OoT is considered for best game ever, not just best Zelda, so it's really hard that new Zelda (or every other game) will top OoT and 99 MetaScore. So we have fall of MetaScore from 95>93, evan from 99>93, is that relly big big problem!? Is that really for wake up call!? Because Zelda U looks very promising, it's too early but I can see it like best Zelda game after OoT.

Biggest problem with Skyward Sword where motion controls, I liked them, but some people didn't, also game required Motion Plus addon, that had huge impact on sale of game.

Like I said, 99 quality game probably will never happen again, all other Zelda scores are around 95 and SS is 93, thats not relly reason for Iwata to cracking heads. :)

Also, A Link Between Worlds is better Zelda game than few previous handheld Zelda's.

Going from SD to HD and to new hardware was big problem for whole Nintendo, not just Zelda team, not just Zelda team, but they overcome those problems.

As a fan of Zelda since its inception, SS had issues beyond the motion controls (though that was one problem).  Generally speaking, it had make-work missions that extended the game artificially, had a less than excellent art style (the bird designs were more Muppet than epic), and the whole prequel-origin aspect to me was dealt with only moderately well.  The world could have really been a primevil undesturbed wilderness, ancient and mysterious, but that only partially well executed.  This in contrast to the brilliantly executed OoT story or even the very clever MM theme.  SS is even fairly superior in theme and execution to SS.  Not a bad game, but for a 5 year development with a supposedly large and talented team, it's a minor let down.

I have high hopes for Zelda U, but the track record of the Anouma Zelda team since Yoshiaki Koizumi (and his creative plot writing and game mechanics) left to lead EAD Tokyo is not promising.  Double the time with measurably inferior results.

Glad to see many people understanding the problems with the management of the franchise. All those remakes this gen is something to worry, too.

As much as I love Skyward Sword, the games just shows perfectly the problems behind the curtain. That game should have been released at leatest on holiday 2009 without the Wii Motion Plus at launch, and a later game implemeting it.

Edited.