[steps into the middle of the room with hands held up]
I think most players would agree Nintendo (or any game developer) should not "rush" a game. By definition, "rushing" means ignoring details to reach the end faster. "Rushed" games have glaring flaws and often numerous technical bugs. I think what we need to be looking for are quick games, meaning developers leap in knowing what they're going to do from the start and do it without eating up too much time. If a game deserves one extra month, six months, or two years to work out kinks and flaws, it should get that extra time. Nobody likes to wait anxiously for a product, spend money on it, and then discover it is clearly an unfinished product. Like buying a candy bar somebody's already bitten into.
I think the issue is, as I've said or hinted at multiple times before, Nintendo's mindset. They don't need to be rushing games, but two years of Skyward Sword's five-year development period were said to be spent kicking around ideas rather than actually working on the game. On its own, that would be fine by me; if they need more time to solidify their new ideas, they should spend more time. Then Skyward Sword was released, and I loved it. Despite that, it once again split the fanbase apart, and it was clear Nintendo still overlooked so many areas even though they spent so much time in development.
My conclusion: If Nintendo is going to spend more time to work out all conceivable problems and iron out a universally-accepted awesome game, I'm fine with it. If Nintendo is going to spend more time just because they need it to squeeze in all their ideas, I have a problem.
Experimentation vs. improvement. I'm not just referring to Majora's Mask's different setting for the Zelda formula, I'm referring to changes to the formula itself. Nintendo can work on brand new ideas for Zelda all they like, but if they boil down to neat gimmicks that are used once and then tossed aside, those brand new ideas don't mean a whole lot (they're already talking about dropping Skyward Sword's deeply-developed motion controls!). Without slowing to build on what they've introduced, each of their games will bear inherent flaws and never be the "ideal" Zelda (again, "ideal" also meaning "universally-accepted"). It's a lot like baking, actually. In many recipes, you're supposed to slowly add new ingredients to the mix and stir them in, allowing them to blend together naturally. Or you could just dump in all the ingredients at once, stir them real good, put them in the oven, and see what happens. Some will love the unusual approach, but most will probably just tolerate it or even hate it. That's what throwing a bunch of new ideas into a Zelda game without bothering to elaborate on them is like. It's almost assuredly going to be better to add a few new ideas, perfect them, add in a few more new ideas, perfect those, and keep the process running that way.
All this is to say Nintendo shouldn't need to spend two years just kicking around huge new ideas. The wheel does not have to be reinvented to make the next Zelda game shine. I know a lot of people will misinterpret my statements as saying Zelda should just add more stuff and churn out meaningless sequels, but that's not what I'm saying. Remember my baking analogy. All the ingredients at once, or gradual mixing? A drastic experiment that you'll either love or hate, or a slow, smart build-up tailored to greatly please everyone at large?