I too feel that Zelda games as of late have been experiments... and by "as of late," I mean PH and SS. WW felt expirimental, but it came out some time ago. TP was a continuation of OoT and ST was one of PH. The art style, I don't mind so much as it's fine to experiment with it depending on the game, but I don't think it's necessary. Just improve on what you have and stop trying to please everybody (and no, I don't mean stop trying to appeal to a wider audience). As far as gimicky controls, I don't mind that either so long as it's accompanied by rupee game play. SS didn't have bad gameplay but some people out there (LIKE DAT DARE RANDOM PERSON FELLOW) believe that it wasn't as fantastic as the Zelda series is known to be. Nintendo is known for being gimicky, but they generally don't use them to sell games, they use them to sell systems. Games like Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess came out with the mechanics of their system (3D and Motion Controls). While these games did have gimmicky things, they didn't feel too much so. OoT was simply the next Zelda and TP had a traditional version of itself on the gamecube, not to mention its Wii version didn't have that drastic of difference as far as improving in the next phase of Zelda. PH felt gimcky but I forgive it (thus far, still playing) for its rupee gameplay and puzzle. SS is the only game I'd call unforgivingly gimicky as it demands you have WM+ and imo it's gameplay nor story lived up to it.
So while I do want Nintendo to spend a majority of their time on gameplay and story, working on gimcky items isn't too bad for me as long as the other two departments don't suffer for it. A game can be gimicky all it wants so long as it's still a good game.