I have no doubt that it will be technicaly better than Oot in almost every way, I know there is a huge chance that I will like it a lot better than Oot, it's just that so many people got started with Oot, and they can't just let go of their favorite game like that.
It's called "Nostalgia", my dear friend. Despite that, OoT is still one of the best games in the series.
What's really importaint in making anything is the process of making it. In works of culture (art/literature/movies/games/etc...), the final product will reflect this process. When you make a game, you shouldn't just get an idea and make the game exactly to that idea. What you will have to do is to analyze the idea, and figure out what will work well and eventually what will not work well. You will have to experiment with new ideas and how they will fit with existing ideas, perhaps do a little research on things related to the game in development and use some elements from them. When you have the game finished; the polishing can begin (basically the iceing on the cake).
In order for the process to go well, it has to be open, which raises some issues when it comes to large-scale productions like the games of the Zelda franchise. If the developers are given no limits; the development goes out of hand, but if too restricted; the process will be innefective. In any of these extreme cases the process may choke and break down.
In the case of Ocarina of Time, it was more or less a gamble during the development because the developers were given a signifficant amount of freedom. In the interviews, they state they weren't sure what kind of game it would end up being untill just befote it was released. They had some main guidelines, but their freedom allowed them to change things around and experiment a lot. I assume they were given this freedom because there were no expectations for how a 3D Zelda should be like at the time.
What I try to say is that the process worked for Ocarina of Time. As a result; the game greets the player with an amazing attitude, and it maintains this attitude for the entire game. This boosts the gameplay experience, which is what makes the game great (I agree that the fact that it is considered revolutionary alome doesn't make the game great). If you look at it on the technical side, OoT borrows so much from ALttP that it's just amazing, but that doesn't really matter. Simply put, OoT took what worked from ALttP and developed it further, with the developers full potential utilized.
I believe that expectations have killed the later games' chances of becoming as legendary as ALttP and OoT. Developers are given more restrictions, because 1: The scale of the projects have increased drastically over the past decade (thus more control is needed by the producers), 2: The director knows that we - the gamers - want something at least a little comparative to OoT, and 3: The "if it works, then don't fix it" mentality. Because of this lack of freedom, the developers can't nessecarely take out their full potential, and the games will end up having less consistent attitudes.
Twilight Princess suffered severially from more or less all three of the points from the previous pharagraph. As a result, the process broke completely down about halfway through development, and this left enormous scars in the game's attitude toward the player, which damages the overall gaming experiencence. Miyamoto managed to patch things up enough to make it an acceptable Zelda game, but despite this; the attitude is not on par compared to earlier games in the series.
---
One last note is the timing. No Zelda-related game had been released in about half a decade before Ocarina of Time, which meant that there was an enormous demand for a new Zelda game. They also delayed the game by a year
after the hype began (as of my understanding; I may be incorrect on this one). Nowdays you have more smaller Zelda games released on the hanhelds and some spinoffs on console, so the demand (and hype) just doesn't build up as much anymore.
