It's crippled Zelda by and large up to this point.
Personally I feel that what did the Zelda series in was too much innovation and wacky ideas rather then sticking with what worked. In terms of Neo Contra, it's no different then Shattered soldier except that Neo contra employes an isometric view rather then Shattered soldier's side-scrolling like with traditional Contra games. Shattered soldier is a full 3D game. It is evident throughout the play and I was certainly not disappointed when Konami brought us that game. I was a little disappointed with Neo Contra because they didn't stick with the side-scroller shoot'm up style. Contra 4 was a blast and I still play that game to death. Contra ReBirth was alright. The game play was solid, however I felt the graphical representations were mediocre at best. They weren't nearly in the same league as Contra 4 which again, disappointed me somewhat. Hardcore Uprising was also a sweet game to play though I have issues with the story that it represents since it seems to conflict with the rest of the series established by Shattered soldier backstory.
-X
Well, strangely, that flaming C was all the Contra at E3 apparently.

I hear what you're saying about Shattered Soldier, but a lot of the same could be said for Neo Contra, and I just find isometric view, as well as the novel idea of up and down depth for aerial enemies that was added in, to be more 3D in my mind. I liked both games, though. I skipped Uprising. Um, as for Zelda, you're right on your point, as well. But, if that's the case, we need to be talking about Zelda 1, 2, and Link's Awakening. Every other game had a gimmick of its design--some better than others. The problem is not letting the gimmick get in the way on regular on-land exploration and openness of progression. Also, though, I still think Zelda has a problem with getting stuck in the ruts of Fire Level, Water Level, etc. It needs to be more creative than that and less obvious, which it was earlier on prior to OOT.