^ I would really see it as the Bethesda style, not the Ubisoft style. And I would agree with those "many people" anyway.
Why do so many people insist in being a pain in the butt with technicalities?? In modern gaming, you know what open world means. You just do. It means a large, sprawling overworld which does not just have a fixed set of exit points that lead to a short list of destinations that you have to visit, roughly in order (like OoT), but rather lots of events, sub-objectives, places you didn't know were there before you explored. You can look to the distance and then visit that place, it's not just walled off by a tree-wall or whatever.
Whilst Zelda 1 may have fit this archetype, it was built long ago under technical limitations that made said map ultimately very small and obviously two dimensional. It was a relatively "free roaming" approach to gameplay but it didn't meet the modern representation of a "world", never mind an open one.
If anything, I would say the closest we came to an open world Zelda was Wind Waker.