Yup. In fact, when I first played LttP I thought that it had a smaller[//I] overworld than LA, while in fact it has a larger one, until proven wrong with pictures of the overworlds... I then realized that what I was seeing was the difference in design -- LttP's grid of nine squares compared to LA's complex patchwork of zones -- and the dramatic difference in wasted space. LA doesn't waste any, while LttP wastes a lot of it. One symbol of this I noticed is tree size. LttP trees are four times larger, in tiles, than LA trees. Why? Just to make LttP's zones feel larger, pretty much, which is hardly a good reason...
LA also has a better design with the map that lets you look at each individual tile, no scrolling areas so the map actually shows precisely the game world on a grid, etc. It just works better. Even the Oracles games, which expanded the size of dungeon screens to have scrolling, kept the "one screen equals one screen" overworlds... it forced them to actually pay attention to design, like LA, which definitely helped the games.
Yeah, MM does have it worse, though you spend so much time in the central town in that game that at times you don't notice. But when you have to keep going back to those same zones to re-collect items or beat bosses or do quests or whatever... yeah, it is noticable and kind of annoying (great game, but flawed...). As for OoT though, it's even easier to cross Hyrule Field than it was the central square in LttP, and the areas themselves are larger and more interconnected, so they definitely reduced the feeling of the "ring of zones" in comparison to LttP. While in that game if often just feels like you go to one square, do the dungeon there, then go to the next, in OoT it just doesn't feel that way at all...
Still though, as I said, I noticed a huge, huge difference in how difficult it was to actually navigate and explore the overworld between LA and OoT. They have very different concepts of overworld design... I really, really love OoT and its amazing dungeons, sidequests, and graphical design, but when I think of the overworld and how you can just run around it, forcing the focus onto questing and dungeons instead of world exploration, it gives me a renewed appreciation for Link's Awakening's style of Zelda game design. Why is it that none of the 3d Zelda games really use that model? The closest thing I can think of is WW and its islands, each of which is a unique, specifically designed area, and even that isn't quite the same... MM maybe tried a bit of that with the four zones, but the timing elements sabotaged much of that by forcing you to repeat things or hurry in order to not run out of time, and as a result not have the time to truly enjoy playing the game. I love 3d Zelda as it is (I'd better, to call OoT my favorite console game ever), but it might be interesting to see one where they do a truly interesting, segmented overworld in the LA style which truly forces you to TRY to explore it and puts world exploration back into the focus it was in in that game. LA's dungeons are amazing too, but you spend a lot of time exploring that world...
One little four square area in Link's Awakening has at least as much or more character and play quality (and, probably, content) as an entire SQUARE of that nine-square grid in LttP. Now that's great design.
