That's exactly my point, isn't it? In early development, they realised that adding a different control method would require to much work - slowing of the gameplay, changing bossfights, etc.  -, so they chose the easiest.

Ninja theory wanted the nunchuck, but sakamoto knew they had to chose, or take a chance to fail at both.

You didn't click the link, did you.

No, it has nothing to do with it. Two control styles was never an option. It was never on the table. This wasn't some big realization. The reasons you outlined are verifiably false.

Quoth Team Ninja:

The reasons you posted had nothing to do with it.

You say that, not taking different nieches, company image and developer interests into account? That's quite a simple image of the world you have, there.

Why don't you go ahead and explain why these things make it good advice.

I can't. There are far too many contingent factors for any of us to make an accurate assessment - which was my original point.

As for my 'explanation'; you may dissagree, but I feel that simply equating the lesser sales of a particular title with a lessened userbase in total is irresponsible if not incongruous for a number of reasons.

For one, 'niche' titles such as the Wind Waker and 3D Mario have their own appeal. By catering to people that enjoy such titles, Nintendo is not just profiting of the games themselves, but in effect expanding their userbase.

Furthermore, 'original', 'experimental' or 'artistic' titles might bring good will for the entire company. Sony's Team ICO comes to mind, here.

There is also the fact that game developers are more apt to create good games when they are passionate about the games they make.

So what was the problem with my post then if you can't argue against it not being good advice? Is it not true, as I said initially that in general a series should aim to grow and not to decline. And the direction of Wind Waker is a way that Zelda has declined.

None of your three statements are wrong, but they do not impact on what I was saying. It's absolutely true that there is an audience for games like 3D Mario and Celda that can and should be catered to. However these titles do not happen in a vacuum. It was not the case that Mario 64 was made along with 2D Mario 5. To Nintendo, Mario 64 was Mario 5, 3D (and the change in game values that went with it) was a direction the series went in, not a divergence. Similarly, Wind Waker was the Gamecube Zelda, not a spin-off. Both of these were taking the consumer expectations associated with a franchise but giving a different kind of game (or the same kind with different values).

In order to make these titles expand the userbase, they have to be done as spin-offs or as a new franchise in addition to continuing the series in the direction of customer expectations, otherwise the effect is less customers not more.

A value has to be put on good will. If games like Wind Waker or 3D Mario created good will within Nintendo, was it worth the cost of a series decline?

Your third point is also true, but it can only go so far. If it gets to the point where developers are only passionate about making games that are going to decline the series, then that also may not be worthwhile.

My problem was with your absolutist tone. Since you are not arguing from that perspective any more, I don't see any point in prolonging that debate.

Point 1 depends almost entirely on perspective. I agree with you in principle, but I fail to see where this was ever a problem. Remember that the debate originated with darth wanting more games in the vein of The Wind Waker - not necessarily at the exclusion of other Zelda titles.

To that end, if we were to judge the Zelda series by the developments through the last decade, The Wind Waker does emerge as the progenitor of a 'spinoff' sub-series, with it's own line of games, and the relative poor market penetration of the original Celda does not appear to have adversely affected the sales performance of the subsequent 'main title', Twilight Princess.

You could of course argue that this development was ad-hoc, but the point of experimentation is to learn and see what works.

Point 2 and 3 we are in agreement about, as even your rebuttal illustrates the uncertainties I originally wished to lay bare.

So, why is more Celda a poor idea, again?

No,  i didn't read the link. Because.... I didn't need to. You see, i remembered this: Sakamoto un-live blog on GDC.

• 11:04 — One non-negotiable for Other M was that the game had to be played with the Wiimote in NES style. Team Ninja pushed back and wanted to add the nunchuk, but he didn't budge.
• 11:17 — Instead, they went back to the drawing board and came back with what they called the "Famicom Game PLUS" control style. Sakamoto said it was absolutely perfect, and surprised nobody had done it before.

http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=116935

Facts that, Baby!!

Asian culture 1/1:

When the paying boss of your supervisor asks you on a big 'PR' interview, then don't mention previous disagreements. Even the most unpolite corporate-man in the west knows that principle. Then you lie! Even my dog knows that.

I can't say for sure, what all the reasons for the nunchuck-rejection were. No one can since PR and fact are mixing. My previous point is still rather valid.

"Ninja theory wanted the nunchuck, but sakamoto knew they had to chose, or take a chance to fail at both."

part 1: fact, right?

part 2: I can't read minds of had a spy on them. But, i offer ogic for this point. Adding the nunchuck wasn't really possible in the first place.

The action would have to been altered on a lot of levels, which would have been more expensive and timely. And time and money was already short. The polish on the game isn't of the higest Nintendo-degree.  It was a bit rushed, it seems. Look at the annoying waldo-segments - a week extra could have solved those. And another two/three weeks for making the schoulder views better of funner. It seems they ran out of time to finish 'one' control scheme, let alone one with the nunchuck. 

Didn't some people complain about the control scheme... like they weren't completed or well implemented.

THere's still nothing to suggest that they were ever developing the control schemes in parallel, certainly not at a point where the game was playable.

And no, the problem with those segments was not lack of polish or completeness. It was a fundamental design flaw.

The waldo -segments should have been like 30 seconds, and they would have added a nice perspectif change. A quick polish should have solved that.

Obviously the schoulder-segments where suppossed to break up the pace, which wasn't a bad design choice at all. With a week of two those would have served their real purpose.

A mere three week push could have done wonders on both. Sadly they ran out of time.

They were not fundamental design faults, but somewhat ill-implemented segments. Time constraint is the most logical reason for those. Other M just didn't get the 'Mario' polish, because the franchise doesn't sell that much. And sadly, it shows a bit.