good

Maybe he's secretly hoping to one day work on the next Professor Layton?

Narrative? Mandatory activities that get in the way? The former confuses me in the context of this discussion (especially listed separately from cutscenes), and I need examples of the latter, here.

And I'm not talking to Malstrom. I'm talking to you.

The puzzles are the best part of the game, and they are what makes the game unique. I think he understands the series better than you do. Ask yourself this. Was the combat in Zelda 1 great? How were the puzzles? Which made the game unique and famous?

You asked me to expand upon what I meant by fluff.

Not all narrative is cutscenes, not all cutscenes are narrative. If Link ends up forced to do something because of a story decision, that is narrative, while a cutscene panning over an area or a boss intro isn't so much narrative. I actually think both can be done away with.

And I don't think you are really arguing with me. Why did you even mention that Aonuma is not anathema to my tastes, I never said he was! All I said was that I hope Miyamoto makes sure the puzzle element of the game is toned down (ie. a lesser element), as you said yourself he's a puzzle kind of guy. Hence I think you're really looking to argue with Malstrom because he's the one who talks about 'Aonuma Zelda' etc.

What do you consider "puzzles"?

Not arguing. Asking questions.

So you thin that the introduction of these elements in Adventures of Link and their capitalization in Link to the Past were where the series began to go astray, as it were?

You did tow Malstrom's line coming into this conversation, including the erroneous assumption concrning there not being a sword in the original vision of SkyWard Sword and how this game is according to Aonuma's vision.

It isn't.

Aonuma isn't directing the game. He's producing, with Miyamoto supervising. The director is Hidemaro Fujibayashi, who previously directed the Capcom Zeldas.

I don't think the "puzzles" are what made the first Zelda famous.

I mean, those could hardly even be called puzzles. Bombimg a random wall or torching a random bush? Deafeating every enemy in a room and pushing a single, mostly random, block? Maybe using the whistle a couple of times?

To me what made it impressive was the scale and it's open nature. It was the exploration and the feel of it. Combat was actually an important part of it, what made it hard rather than just time consuming, and some enemys took some time mastering.

It was later on that puzzles became so important in my opinion, and I do think they're an important element to Zelda. If you look at Ocarina of Time, for example, even the combat is mostly based on pattern recognition. That being said, I do think combat could get a little more time than it has had.

Whoa, you've taken a lot of things out of my posts that I never said. Please point to where I said a) how this game is according to Aonuma's vision b) how the the lack of a sword implies anything further than a change in direction having taken place.

You're the one who brought up Malstrom, I just gave my opinion, agreeing with your post, which you decided to identify as "the Malstrom line". There's a running theme of Malstrom's opinions being what you are objecting to in this discussion, without me even saying anything of the sort.

Ok, I realize my first post may have appeared more argumentative than I intended it since I started the post by disagreeing with the 'have faith' perspective, though I was agreeing with your post in general.