It's a good discussion point, really. What makes a better "gamey" game, and what makes a more immersive, "realistic" game? I think the type of game dictates what's right. Zelda benefits heavily from being more "gamey," I feel.
Take the original Assassin's Creed: At one point, Altair drops in on a shop owner. The player has to stand there, walking in a small square space, while a long {long} dialog sequence plays out. Immersive, sure, but I was literally dozing off.
That's how much fun your modern games are, Ubishaft. (Unpopular Opinion?)
I think A Link to the Past resonates because there's not a lot of "realistic" empty space. Every area has some curiosity, whether it's the lumberjack guys, the village itself, that water-draining station, Zora's waterfall, the Ocarina Boy, etc. etc. It's not all super close, but it's not so spaced out to feel tedious. Great balance, there. Maybe Ocarina of Time's field just needed a dense layer of curiosities/polish?
Xeogred wrote:If the sunken Hyrule in Wind Waker was to be the second playable half of the game, or eventually emerge from the ocean and suddenly there's a massive legit country to explore then Wind Waker may have very well been the best.
That, and the design potential it would have opened, would have propelled Wind Waker to earned greatness.