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.

1. Wind Waker was able have a smoother development process since the Oracle games were outsourced. This meant that Nintendo was able to jump straight from Majora's Mask to Wind Waker. Also, Twilight Princess used the same engine as WInd Waker. This could have easily cut back on development time. Again, Skyward Sword didn't take 5 years to make. It took 2 years before they could start making it.

2. Do you know who else does that? Shigeru Miyamoto. Satoru Iwata also did it during the development of Earthbound. I'm sure you've heard of Shigeru Miyamoto's 'upending the tea table'?

http://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Upending_the_Tea_Table

Given that Eiji Aonuma worked under him for many years, it would be no surprise if his methods are similar. Shinji Mikami used to take similar approaches with the Resident Evil series. Wether it's Iwata, Miyamoto, Mikami, or Aonuma, they cared more about making a good game than getting a game out on time. Besides, we still got plenty of Zleda games. Sure they weren't all 3D console Zelda games, but what would you rather have, one or two really good 3D Zelda games, or three or four medicore ones?

3. Actually, PS2 couldn't handle open world games. Ever play Shadows of the Colossus? Remember the framerate that game was running at? The PS2 almost couldn't handle it. Imagine playing an entire Zleda game at that same frame rate. Then, try to imagine what combat with multiple enemies would have been like. There's a reason why Shadow of the Colossus was almost devoid of life. It's true that GameCube could have handled such a game a little better, but not to the point where we could have gotten a decent Zelda game out of it. As for Wind Waker, most of that game was empty. Most of it was an ocean. It's not very hard to make a game like that using GameCube hardware.

But to create a huge open world game that's seamless and doesn't cut off at any point with multple terrain and many moving enemies and objects on the screen at once? PS2 or GameCube couldn't do anything like that. The Wii was basically an overclocked GameCube so that system couldn't do anything like that. Besides, if you look at the evolution of the Zelda series, it would seem like Zelda U is the direction the devleopers had been trying to take the series in since Ocarina of TIme. With OOT, the developers challenged thmeselves to have a huge 3D world instead of relying on a Super Mario 64-style hubworld. Wind Waker attempted to create a huge open world game by focusing on the ocean as the main setting. Twilight Princess tried to created a more expanded version of OOT's overworld. Skyward Sword attempted something similar to Wind Waker but with the sky instead of the Ocean. Now they have the hardware to do something they've been attempting to do for nearly 20 years. It's not anyone's fault. They just had to wait for the right hardware to come along.

Also, the reason I asked about playing the NES Zelda is because you didn't seem to get what he was saying.

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.

1. Wind Waker was able have a smoother development process since the Oracle games were outsourced. This meant that Nintendo was able to jump straight from Majora's Mask to Wind Waker. Also, Twilight Princess used the same engine as WInd Waker. This could have easily cut back on development time. Again, Skyward Sword didn't take 5 years to make. It took 2 years before they could start making it.

2. Do you know who else does that? Shigeru Miyamoto. Satoru Iwata also did it during the development of Earthbound. I'm sure you've heard of Shigeru Miyamoto's 'upending the tea table'?

http://www.zeldadungeon.net/wiki/Upending_the_Tea_Table

Given that Eiji Aonuma worked under him for many years, it would be no surprise if his methods are similar. Shinji Mikami used to take similar approaches with the Resident Evil series. Wether it's Iwata, Miyamoto, Mikami, or Aonuma, they cared more about making a good game than getting a game out on time. Besides, we still got plenty of Zleda games. Sure they weren't all 3D console Zelda games, but what would you rather have, one or two really good 3D Zelda games, or three or four medicore ones?

3. Actually, PS2 couldn't handle open world games. Ever play Shadows of the Colossus? Remember the framerate that game was running at? The PS2 almost couldn't handle it. Imagine playing an entire Zleda game at that same frame rate. Then, try to imagine what combat with multiple enemies would have been like. There's a reason why Shadow of the Colossus was almost devoid of life. It's true that GameCube could have handled such a game a little better, but not to the point where we could have gotten a decent Zelda game out of it. As for Wind Waker, most of that game was empty. Most of it was an ocean. It's not very hard to make a game like that using GameCube hardware.

But to create a huge open world game that's seamless and doesn't cut off at any point with multple terrain and many moving enemies and objects on the screen at once? PS2 or GameCube couldn't do anything like that. The Wii was basically an overclocked GameCube so that system couldn't do anything like that. Besides, if you look at the evolution of the Zelda series, it would seem like Zelda U is the direction the devleopers had been trying to take the series in since Ocarina of TIme. With OOT, the developers challenged thmeselves to have a huge 3D world instead of relying on a Super Mario 64-style hubworld. Wind Waker attempted to create a huge open world game by focusing on the ocean as the main setting. Twilight Princess tried to created a more expanded version of OOT's overworld. Skyward Sword attempted something similar to Wind Waker but with the sky instead of the Ocean. Now they have the hardware to do something they've been attempting to do for nearly 20 years. It's not anyone's fault. They just had to wait for the right hardware to come along.

Also, the reason I asked about playing the NES Zelda is because you didn't seem to get what he was saying.