I agree

Thats why im so dissapointed with this game....i dont care that the graphics arent that good but the game really does screams no ambition. The reason why im not purchasing the game is because it feels like a "throw back". This really was a missed opportunity to do something new and grand to revitalize the franchise! Instead we get motion cantrol gimmics....something ive never been to fond of.

Ugh...the controls are really putting me off. Need to recalibrate the crosshairs every 10 seconds. That's just stupid. Why the hell do they have to force this control scheme onto everyone. I don't know where to look, tv or gamepad. While aiming you crash into other stuff, while looking at tv, you'll miss the enemies.

Twilight Princes and Metroid Prime wasn't ambitious games!? Mario Galaxy was ambitious and innovative, same could could be said for Skyward Sword. Also games like Xenoblade, Xenoblade Chronicles X and Zelda U are very ambitious games.

You can't really compare any generation with N64 because that was first generation of 3D games, basically that was whole new world for games filled with entirely new possibilities for games.

I wouldn't say Xenoblade games are your typical Nintendo games. Never was. Star fox, Zelda,Mario are. Skyward Sword was the worst Zelda game I have ever played. Zelda U is still not out.

OK some Nintendo games have innovation, I was a bit harsh, but they clearly playing it safe, at least technically (and gameplay wise), and lack the big scale they had years ago. Even the first Zelda on NES and Zelda on Gameboy felt more open than Skyward Sword. I would have liked much bigger levels in Galaxy for instance instead of those mini hub-levels. Same with wind waker (the open sea trick doesn't work on me). Everything felt small, too small. 

Basically after Zelda 64 the Zelda games on Wii should have had the scale of Xenoblade. Technically on Wii we know it was possible because of Xenoblade, but Nintendo are playing it safe and there is no increase in the size of the levels, quite the contrary. 

Yes Metroid 3D games were great and ambitious but they were developed by an American studio, not in house in Japan.

But they know this (Aonuma have being playing Far Cry 4 to understand how big open worlds works, a bit late don't you think?) and want to correct it with with Zelda U, which is good. We'll see. 

Every game on the N64 was a pick up and try hard not to let the hatred of the uncomfortable controller get in your way.

In 64 I felt like almost every mission was well designed and fun to play. In Zero, there are some missions I really don't like (like the giant boss in Fishina).

On the other hand, it feels so great to slowly master the controls in this game.

Xenoblade are definitely not typical Nintendo game, but that is good, because they need more games that are not their typical games.

Skyward Sword is great game and good Zelda game even you dont like it, fact that is linear doesnt mean that Nintendo were playing safe with it, Twilight Princes (basically bigger OoT) that was more open world was actually way more safer than Skyward Sword.

Not every Zelda needs have huge and open world, Skyward Sword is proof of that, its big and ambitious game even if is linear. And we getting this year Zelda with huge and open world.

Why Metroid 3D game or any other game need to be developed by Japanese studio!? Metroid Prime is developed by 1st party Nintendo studio, thats whats important. We talking here about Nintendo games, not about Japanese only developed games.

Aonuma said he playing lotsa different games and that doesn't have nothing with big open Zelda game (dont expect nothing similar with Far Cry 4), he said he always wanted to make true open world Zelda (actually almost every 3D Zelda game is open world expect SS, but not true open like Zelda NES was) like Zelda NES was, but he couldnt done what he wanted because hardware limitations, but now he can do that with Wii U hardware.

No. That's not true. Look at what could be done on PS2 with GTA or Shadow of the colossus. Look at what they did with Xenoblade on Wii. Look at what they did with Zelda 64 on N64. The problem is not the hardware, never was.

It's the lack of ambition. They are playing it safe technically (also with the hand holding never ending tutorials). Small levels are much easier to do than big levels.

You forgetting TP was also done with GC hardware, but world was made from sections and its pretty barren. And like I wrote, TP is basically just bigger OoT (if talking about scope of world).

Idea they had with Zelda U never could be done with previous hardware (not only that world is huge, but it full of details and in same time looks gorgeous), Xenoblade for Wii have huge world but Skyward Sword is far more better looking game. Thing about 3D Zelda is not only to push limits of hardware but in same time to be one of best looking game on system, and Xenoblade Wii never was good looking game. Skyward Sword definitely was not product of lack of ambitions, it's pretty ambitious (being ambitious game doesn't mean just huge open world) and very innovative game.

Kid Icarus was so amazing though, I'll never understand why people hated it.