Zelda does not need to be "open-world" like Elder Scrolls
It should be more like Deus Ex, a semi-linear action RPG, except instead of FPS being the action, it's swordfighting. I realized this while playing the new DX game recently. The game is structured basically the same as a Zelda game. You have your overworld, you have side missions strewn about the overworld, and you have your main mission where you go into semi-linear "dungeons".
Something that Zelda could really benefit from, though, is how Deus Ex gives you several different approaches to any given situation. That could be cool in Zelda you know?... like if you had to cross a river of lava, you could either shoot the target with an arrow that brings up a bridge, or you could go over to some big rock and use bombs to blast it down for a makeshift bridge, etc.
It all goes back to the main flaw of bad overall game design. Twilight Princess theoretically should have been awesome. It had all the elements, all the mechanics. It was just badly designed... items were worthless outside of their respective dungeon, overworld was empty. It's painful how many Zelda-like games have pulled this off magnificently while Zelda has still yet to "catch up".
Imagine if DX:HR had just one wall you could punch through, or just vents in one mission of the game. Or if Okami only had one tree to bloom, one wall to bomb open, etc.
--
_foolmo_
'but that statement is something only an Aspergers patient would say' - UltimaterializerX