Next thing you know, they are going to claim 3D mario is the same as 2D mario games.

I disagree with the sentiment that Zelda would benefit from a more open world akin to Skyrim. I love both franchises deeply, but I felt that Oblivion's world, while more beautiful and expansive than Morrowind, was less exciting. I never felt a pressing desire to go through every single dungeon, because, for the most part, the rewards were never that exciting. Maybe a decent axe or sword, though I was usually a stealth player, so it didn't make sense for me to explore as much. In addition, any really useful treasure were usually parts of quests, so all you had to do was follow the little arrow on your map and kill anything in your way until you found your treasure. In Zelda, no matter what secret you discover, it is always pertinent to your character, be it a new wallet, heart piece, or bottle. Every time you went searching for a secret you were rewarded, which is something I can't say about the Elder Scrolls games. In addition, the puzzle aspect of Zelda makes the ultimate prize much more satisfying than just following an arrow and killing everything in your path. I preferred Morrowind's system of vague journal entries that really forced you to search this dangerous landscape if you wanted to find your prize, and that gave me a much greater sense of satisfaction than Oblivion. I would love a larger Hyrule world, but not at the expense of those feelings. I don't have Skyrim or Skyward sword yet, as I'm still in Africa for a couple more days, but I plan on buying both and playing them both to death. Just my two cents.

I'm really enjoying Skyrim, but I have to say that the fights, specially melee looks and feels very dated and it's not very appealing to me. But Skyrim has so much to offer, it's still a great game.

I think Zelda on Wii U will benefit from being a more open, non-linear experience. But I don't see what else Skyrim would bring to Zelda that would benefit the series as a whole--I'll have more of a clue when I've played Skyward Sword, but I can't think of anything Elder Scrolls contains that would seriously benefit Zelda. Do they get compared because they're two high profile fantasy games?? They're different on so many levels it's not even funny.

But yes, I do agree in future Zelda needs to become less linear and more open--but for that, they can look back to the first Zelda, as well as looking at the Elder Scrolls games. With the power of Wii U, a non-linear Zelda makes sense to me.

Makes too much sense! Fans of Zelda don't really want Zelda, they actually want another game

I guess that was Malstrom and his readers' point, Skyrim offering a particular feature they liked a lot in older Zelda titles and theat they'd want back. Skyrim isn't a Zelda replacement for them, but it gives them a sensation they think Nintendo devs are currently overlooking.

Let me play Zelda SS first and we'll see. But no I just think the appeal for each game is totally different than the other. People complained about the open world of WW for instance and I can see their point (although something about sailing in the open sea appeals to me).

Anyways from what I've read, the "open world" in Skyward Sword seems to change the old Zelda formula, so I'll have to wait to play that before I can really tell.

As a Zelda fan, no, I don't want an old combat system and Bethesda's trademark glitches.

Skyrim is a completly different game, I bought Skyward Sword yesterday and its amazing, the only reason for comparing the 2 is because of the "Sky" in the title...

Is Malstrom so desperate for controversy that he's faking emails now?