I understand your point of view, but one game is not the indicative of quality in a series. I've known lots of people who don't appreciate Ocarina of Time but enjoy the rest of the series. Well to be fair, this can be said for any of the series listed here too, probably I wasn't being fair as well when I voted for GTA just because of GTA4. 

Halo isn't really overrated anymore. It used to be, but its looked down on pretty hard these days. GTA wasn't overrated until GTA4.

 Zelda also isn't really overrated. Ocarina was a master piece Zelda for its time (perhaps slightly overrated, but you really had to look hard for reasons. Keep in mind I'm talking about for its time), but these days the series keeps trying to be Ocarina over and over again. Expectations have risen, and it needs to go beyond that now. People have realized this. Zelda Wii will hopefully evolve the franchise into an acceptable modern-day game experience. (Please be action-orientated!)

Final Fantasy is a little overrated, mostly because of Japan.

Its a tough choice, honestly..

Care to elaborate?

This isn't the start of an argument, promise, I'm just asking for clarification:

Do you mean that being action-oriented is more modern, or is that something you want in addition to being a more modern game?

A lot of hate for Mario- granted on the GC where he only appeared in countless boring sports games (with the exception of Super Mario Sunshine) but for the Wii, the Mario games have been as good as the N64. Kart Wii, Galaxy, and ''New'' Super Mario Bros. Wii are all great games. And Galaxy 2 is coming out this year.

Mega Man is extremely overrated, no arguments with that. Talk about jumping the shark. 

You failed Halo :(

I wouldn't say it has to be. I say this because Zelda Wii's main selling point, other than being Zelda, is fighting with the sword. Reading around the internet, that's what people seem to be the most interested in from what I can tell, and its clear a lot expect the combat to evolve from its previous simple state. What's the point of motion+ if the main attribute to use with it is neglected more than it should be? I don't know how they're intending to implement it exactly, but I wouldn't want them to hold back on its potential. You can use motion+ for a thousand different things, but the one that attracts the most attention to people looking for a video game will always be the sword. I wouldn't want them to start thinking "Hey, its been a long time since I've had to fight anything..I feel like playing something else now" <----- The thoughts of a non-Zelda fan who was interested in it for the sake of motion+.

Sure. We, as fans of the series, will keep playing for our interest, but how does it keep newcomers wanting to play? You can tell how much a person likes a game when they don't want to stop playing. The most typical thing a person who doesn't like Zelda will say is: "I just found it kind of boring", and the easiest way to keep it very non-boring for most people is with action, especially with motion+ which shows what they were buying it for to start with. I'm sure most fans of the series wouldn't mind a little more combat-focus. Although, taking a page from you, I won't pretend to know anything for certain - this is all just what I think.

Edit: This isn't to say I think Zelda games lack action, especially the 2D ones which thrive off it more. All 3D Zelda's have a good balance between adventure and action, but this is Zelda Wii. With motion+. I think this should be the first 3D Zelda to go back to the action-involved roots of its 2D family.

Halo is the most overated game I have ever seen. Second goes to Final Fantasy.

Even money says that if Halo was on the Playstation brand, and had the following it had, you wouldn't be considering it overrated.  You would likely believe that, while it isn't your own thing, it has a reason why it is well liked.

Overrated or not, they're still laughing all the way to the bank so who gives a fuck. Games that sell >>>> quality, niche games. That is all that matters, no money no games.