Zelda U should be top down

[oniyide]

Korppi said:

oniyide said:

Korppi said:

Excluding the Super Nintendo, every Nintendo home console has had two mainline Zelda games. As Little Taco Commercial Girl once said in her infinite wisdom, "why don't we have both?"

And even though I was, like, thirteen back then, I remember people all over the Internet going all "oh, a game like New Super Mario Bros. Wii will never sell on a home console", and "this looks like a lazy DS port, the home consoles should be reserved for proper 3D Mario games". I'm just throwing that out there.

Just in case I wasn't clear enough, I fully endorse the OP's suggestion. I mean, christ, so far there have been two traditional top-down Zeldas on the home consoles. The last on was in 1992. That ain't right.

1. Zelda is not Mario not even close, it wouldnt have the same effect two

2. 3d Zelda is actually MORE popular than 2d Zelda despite what some might want to believe, the best selling Zelda is a 3d one OOT

3.Why do we NEED a 2d Zelda on a home console? What will it being on the home console add to the experience that couldnt be done on the portable, its not like their is a Multiplayer mode where people could gather around the TV to better ultilize, serious question not trying to be a dick

 

I dont see Ninty doing this, they still need to sell people on the gamepad and i dont think a 2d Zelda would really utilize it, but i like the idea that someone said before have it 3d but use the gamepad as map and it will be in 2d. Dont think Ninty can pull that off though, hell i dont think anyone can pull that off.

1 & 2: No, a 2D Zelda wouldn't be the same bombshell that NSMBW was, and yes, no matter how you look at it, the best-selling Zelda game is either Ocarina or Twilight Princess. I don't think I implied otherwise. The NSMBW comparison was directed at some of the earlier posts that said that it would never happen or be successful.

3: It just makes sense to me that one 2D Zelda and one 3D Zelda would attract more people to buy the system than two 3D Zeldas would. It's hard to say by how much since, like I said before, the 2D Zeldas are criminally underrepresented on the home consoles, but I think the figure would be at least noticeable, since A Link to the Past was... well, a while ago.

@ the bolded: I don't see why it would need to have some cheap, shoehorned novelty that couldn't be emulated on a handheld or any other system to justify its existence. Most of the best-selling Zelda games could be and have been ported over to handhelds without detriment to the experience.

But I'm agreeing with the OP because I really prefer 2D Zelda to 3D Zelda, not because I think it's necessarily the best decision for Nintendo financially. Again, I don't think I implied otherwise.

@AlphaCielago

Four Swords Adventures was a multiplayer spin-off that was designed around GC/GBA connectivity, and had linear, stage-based progression without an explorable overworld of any sort. That's why I said traditional.

And people considering 3D World and TF a "waste" is just a part of the circle of life on Nintendo forums. I like to call it "the inverted Sonic cycle".

1&2 thats fair but that happened so long ago that it has little barren right now, especially when it comes to Zelda IMHO. Ninty isnt in the same place now that they are in then.

3 how does it make sense because YOU want it on a home console. I get that and thats fine, but numbers say otherwise. I dont think a 2d Zelda would do much for Wii U, hell the 3d Zeldas for the most part dont even move that much hardware.

Well youve already stated that money wise it wouldnt really do ninty much and you are just speaking form personal want. thats fine however the Wii U isnt in a good place. Had in been in a better position I could see Ninty taking a chance but they need to move HW and Zelda is going to do a better job of that in 3d.