Ultima VII is definitely a significant game, besides the fact that I've never in my life met somebody who played it. (Which is generally true of PC games that came out before I was born that aren't called "Doom")
However, all the games that ARE listed on 1992 are significant as well - just in a different way. A more important way. They're the games that the "average gamer" is more likely to care about. I think pretty much everybody has some connection to Zelda, or Sonic, or Mario Kart, etc. (Wolfenstein is actually probably the least worthy one there, despite being one of the codifiers of FPS or whatever.)
Everybody has their own games they care about, obviously. But not everybody's interests can be represented simultaneously when you only have room for like six games.
As for OoT, I'd say that it's not a bad game, but it's a "basic" game. All the later 3D Zeldas built on it in some way, so it feels lacking in comparison. Also, whenever I play it I just think "I should play Majora's Mask again" because it's way better and 2000 should have won
Skyward sword and tp are much worse than OoT even now. Basic game argument doesn't work when they didn't build on it enough. Botw is what Zelda should have been going for 10 years ago. That's is the true successor to oots groundbreaking design and vision.
TP had less sidequests than OoT with shitty dark worlds and skyward sword had one of the worst over worlds in a zelda game.
See, I would argue BotW is a huge setback for Zelda. They basically took the Ubisoft open world boilerplate, tacked on a moronic inventory system and an even more insane durability mechanic and slapped the name Zelda on it. I haven't played TP or Skyward Sword, but at least they had dungeons and good game mechanics.
BotW would have been an okay game without the durability stupidity, but as it is, I was extremely disappointed and stopped playing after the first 'dungeon'. ---
DpObliVion, my hat is off to you. Welcome to the Guru Champions Club lol xstats