Yeah, it doesn't really elaborate on why openworld might be more fun than standard tracks/cups. Sure, I can drive around in it and look at it, but what makes than fun? This article basically tells us large scale level design takes a lot of effort, but no more.

Zelda makes sense to a degree, but IMO they lost the plot on what made Zelda games interesting. Old Zelda games were kinda open, but had (mostly) fixed sequence. The games were basically lock and key puzzles with a lot of back tracking. As you went you unlocked more items (keys), but having to key wasn't enough. You had to figure out how/where to use it. The way everything layered was elegant. You were excited to get to a dungeon, they always need a new gimmick(s)/mechanic(s), you got a new toy, and two boss fights. Once you were done, you got to see how this new thing unlocked more of world.

New Zelda games have puddle deep dungeons and shrines to quickly get you back into the overworld, and you've already unlocked all the mechanics before the tutorial is over. So all that's left is exploring the overworld for the sake of exploration, which has a thousand seeds and a hundred shallow shrines to encourage you overturn every stone in it.

I get I might not be the target demographic, open world games aren't inherently bad, and the new Zeldas enjoyed great commercial success. However I do feel this shift to open world misses and loses what made Mario Kart and Zelda beloved series to begin with.