Goodness knows how we got so off topic but before I answer the thread I wanted to address something...
Ok this isn't my inner fan boy coming out but that is a heavily biased statement.
Ok, most modern 3D Zelda games are relatively easy and frankly I'd only label 2 or 3 games in the series as being remotely difficult and they were the earlier franchise - the series has advanced and has succumbed to a more casual experience to suit the nature of the wide audience that Nintendo has built. Sure more games should he challenging but I'm afraid this is the route that the series has took, singling out Twilight Princess is naive.
Exploration is just a part of what Zelda is about, when the series first began it was young, it wasn't going to be that way in the future, gaming series' adapt as has Zelda, while the first aim for Miyamoto was to bring the aspect of adventure into a game that wasn't going to be the whole picture. Frankly the Zelda series isn't even exploration based anymore, gameplay seems to be a large focus, puzzles are another main focus (despite diminishing) as well as combat and controls (check Skyward Sword). You simply can't label this series down to being about "exploration" because that's bit the case.
Now my favourite thing about Zelda would be the adventuring aspect as that's what I generally look for in a game, but frankly Zelda doesn't emphasise that. Now you seem to label Twilight Princess as it lacked in exploration - implying that most games had exploration in the first place. This is unjustified in my opinion.
I think you're hinting at linearity being the sole reason, well Zelda is a linear series, yet again this isn't just TP, but linearity doesn't halt exploration, in fact linearity is important for a series like Zelda. Linearity allows for a more structured progression, which can mean a more story focused game - that is what Nintendo aimed for with Twilight Princess . However, where is the lack of exploration in this game because I really font see it... The overworld was sparse, yes, it was empty in parts, yes but all for good reason. This made for an overworld with a realistic spatial differentiation. You had compact areas, hallways and large expansive areas. The large expansive areas were needed in order to "add" to exploration.
You can't just have one overworld that is compact as that puts less emphasis on escaping the main structure and exploring, the overworld in TP allowed you room to breath. It wasn't perfect by any means but it certainly had exploration that if which I feel games should follow suit. One could go off in search of Golden Bugs, these were quite difficult to find when tackling the game blind, they were small and only a flickering light would alert attention, in such a vast overworld it allowed for much searching. Then we have Poes that appeared at night, and given the sheer multitude, it was a task in exploring Hyrule and finding them all. Not to mention the overworld had a large amount of treasure chests to find, hidden caverns as well as many enemies to keep occupied.
To be honest it really feels like you want Skyrim mashed in with Zelda, which isn't bad by any means but it's not right to pit up two completely different games. Skyrim does allow free exploration, but Zedla shouldn't in my opinion. Skyrim is a fill fledged RPG and Zelda is not, Zedla can adopt certain elements that's for sure but at its core it's an action/adventure but more importantly it forces other aspects together to create a diverse experience. Having an openly free RPG Zelda would greatly affect its charm, the formula that us fans seem to want change but are somewhat wary if it does.
Now don't get me wrong Skyrim is a great game and I feel Zelda could benefit from its grandeur and scale but I don't want Zelda to just switch up its core. Zedla should first and foremost focus on what makes it great; puzzles, stylistic graphics, charm, music, combat combined with a top notch control scheme, a progressive narrative and exploration. However, exploration can be achieved without taking a U-Turn, nonlinearity could become more present but in moderation and that's the key word "moderation". We should have these sections where the plot is linear but then allow for certain periods were we get a certain sense of freedom. Over with think Zelda is series that can learn from Skyrim but not "be" Skyrim.
Like I said, Zelda has the more hand crafted and more involved puzzles, as I said, before keep the things that are good in both types of games, at their core the games aim for the same kind of focus.
Calling me naive for singling out TP? Excuse me but I didn't single it out. I mentioned other Wind Waker along with it, but explained the difference in 2 of the easiest games in the series, in how one still offered a more complete experience to the player despite still being easy.
Saying TP sucks for certain reasons is perhaps biased but not unfounded biased. I've stated many times before the core issues with the game's over all flow. Its a beautiful game, with a great art style and sound track, but that doesn't let it get away with 0 challenge and 0 freedom. And you're right about the bugs, but again, those alone didn't really give some one not going for 100% completion a reason to want to go explore, when they've been taught the entire game that exploration just waste there time because.
1 you wont' be allowed some where
2 there wont' be anything there anyways.
3 the game insults you for doing it via Midna
Its seriously negative re-enforcement for exploration, until the game decides, ok now you can go explore at the end of the game.
Wind Waker, rewarded you by a mini dungeon, or random mini game out on the ocean, or rupees, or heart pieces, or all the treasure charts, and even the triforce. It gave you the freedom to explore almost the entire map very early on in the game, even if you found an island you couldn't do anything at, you could still go there and be like "I should remember this place where I think need bombs or something".
TP, huge chunks of the map were literally missing because of Twilight, or bridge gone (seriously whats with TP and bridges?)
If you like TP thats your prerogative, I on the other hand can't look past the over all not fun i'm having when I play the game. I can still admire the artwork of the game, but I can't enjoy the way it leads you thru the game, thats not an adventure, thats doggy slavery.
======================
And at darklink, empowerment is anything to make the player feel better about themselves, like shooting lightning, slashing thru enemies. (though some games manage to make stealth an empowering feeling as you just vanish and insta kill some one) At the end of the journey you've over come, you feel stronger for it as you defeat the king of evil and what not.
Things like true stealth are more about dis empowerment, like in Metal Gear Solid games. Where the player is supposed to be weaker or feel weaker then the enemies and resort to turning what would normally be combat in an action game into a puzzle of avoiding the combat.
Looking at the what makes a person want to play a certain type of game. And you'll see how close they are at their base.
And I don't care if you aren't a fan of donkey kong country games, or other reference games, the points are still valid.
==========================================
And just because thats the direction the series has chosen to take, doesn't mean it needs to keep down a certain path.
I mean if you remove challenge, and freedom, what is left in the game?
I'm not saying Zelda should be skyrim, though skyrim is a very good model to consider what an fantasy adventure with a heavy focus of exploration could be. And has many core elements that one can't help but be reminded of early zelda in its design.
Maybe when the franchise was young, but Zelda being about exploration isn't really the case anymore. Most newer Zelda games are quite linear, with relatively instances of true exploration.
Agreed. However, if Nintendo does that, they'd be directly competing with the Elder Scrolls. If they did that, I doubt they would be able to emerge on top. Why do something which has already been done and done well?
It wouldn't be a direct competition. It could still very much be Zelda. Zelda offers those unique dungeons. Skyrim really had 3 dungeons model sets with copy pasted room parts for the entirety of it. Again if you wanted to go straight down the middle and do the main quest only, you could easily do that, but you'd be missing out on all the heart pieces and other upgrades. And yes I know the direction the series is going, I can just only hope it changes it, to take the best of the old and the new.
We'll see what Between Worlds and Zelda U end up doing eventually.
========================================
On topic of the ps4? Frankly it offers almost everything the X1 does except cheaper, less DRM and less Kinect, plays almost all the same games. And if what you've seen and read in recent news, can't convince you not to buy it, not sure what would.
And the ps4 will have more available memory and faster memory too. The CPU of the X1 is better, but that memory is going mean the difference in how many particle effects/ meshes on screen can be rendered at once, which means ultimately the X1 will probably end up under performing the ps4 at their maximum capabilities. Which lets face it, games won't be reaching until the consoles' later life cycle.