I think the magic of Zelda has grown stale for me.....I mean how many times must link save Hyrule from Ganon?

I like Ganon as a boss but its time to get a new story with a new boss!!

I'm not saying the OP is completely without merit - the discussion regarding the creative leadership of the franchise is doubtlessly interesting - but before any such speculation might take place, we must get to the basics of the matter. I will be blunt here; I've yet to come across a sound and cogent argumentation as to why the Zelda series (in particular) needs to change.

Therefore, my first question is thus; Why only this franchise? Why not Mario? (Note that I am not accusing Mario of being stagnant - quite the opposite, in fact!)

But suppose I accept the notion that Zelda is in need of change; just what, then, needs changing? Is it a reliance on traditional Zelda tropes, structures, or plots? None of these complaints are trivially motivated, as a brief overview of the series' recent history shows.

Only ignorant plebians accuse Zelda of reutilizing anything but the most basic archetypal elements for its plot, and so it is, too, with dissidents lamenting the continued existence of block puzzles. Is the traditional arch of two sets of dungeons and a final confrontation in itself flawed? No, not any more than the dramatic three act structure itself. Why not, indeed, as some misguided souls have done, attack the very foundations (setting, characters, motif) of the series? No. The lesson here is that not everything needs to change. Take away certain things and, even if you are not robbing the series of its essence, you remove its central components - and for what? Nothing, as far as I know.

See, the series is doing fine on the creative front. Truly, the franchise is far from stagnant, the two great 'side movements' of recent times, Four Sword and the DS Zeldas, both ushered in new design paradigms for the series. Four Swords disposed with the traditional Zelda adventure world/structure and placed focus on arcade-style multiplayer action, and the DS Zeldas introduced a 2D/3D hybrid design placing focus on new interfaces, novel uses of items, and a central dungeon. Both movements, I might add, changed the 'experience' of their respective games in significant ways, and both directly involved Hidemaro Fujibayashi.

I cannot comment in-depth on the creative ails of the franchise directors/producers. I admire Aonuma, and think of him as a man with a sense of how to communicate drama through design, and on a conceptual plane, I've yet to find any flaw with his direction. If he wishes to move on, he should, but I see no reason to forcibly replace him. Still, both he and Miyamoto are difficult to separate from what "Zelda" is - simply because of the limited number of games which didn't involve their creative input.

What I can say is that I am very excited about the prospect of Fujibayashi directing a new Zelda. As I mentioned, the man has been an inovative force during recent years. I would personally trust no one else to perform better. He has a way of integrating new and exciting game mechanics with the game's mythos that I particularly enjoy, and his talent as a world-builder and writer are impressive (and markedly different from Koizumi's, though I suppose everyone is). I admit this is all coming from am a huge fan of The Minish Cap and Phantom Hourglass, but when Skyward Sword appears to incorporate some of the best aspects of those respective games along with new ideas, I think I have the right to be exited.

As for Zelda Wii U, the possibilities with that one are truly astounding, but it is too early to comment on specific hopes or fears, in my mind.

Might as well take the sword out too while you are at it. But in all seriousness, that was a nice joke post of yours. It has to be, because otherwise the following sentence is the most blatant selfcontradiction I have seen since I logged in the last time.

"hold onto the core elements while delivering a brand new experience."

Granted, this is the first thread I have read since then, but... bah, let's just move on to serious business for real.

Taking out series staples like bombs, boomerang and bow and arrow won't do Zelda any good. These are essential items for a game like Zelda. For example, you need to be able to blow up rocks and walls to discover secrets. The problem nowadays isn't what items you get, but rather how they are used. In the past they were valuable weapons, nowadays they are not much more than tools to make an enemy's weak point vulnerable or something along those lines. Enemies in general are pushovers and bosses follow set patterns that make it easy to defeat with them without ever getting hit.

What needs to happen is a shift back to combat and away from puzzles. Tougher enemies, more weapons and more upgrades. How about at least five different swords or rather ten? With enemies that actually take skill to defeat, items like the boomerang to stun them become useful again. Arrows could take out enemies with one or two hits again while with the sword it takes six to eight. That's the kind of stuff that gives items an actually valuable purpose, not this overabundance of puzzles that was put into the newer games.

Zelda needs to become an actual video game again. The definition of a game is something that can be won or lost. If it's almost impossible to die, in other words lose, then a game is less of a game and more like an experience. This is the main problem of Zelda: It can't be the epic adventure it's supposed to be, if it's a walk in the park for the player.

first off, zelda isn't the only stale game out there.  ratchet and clank is also at the top of my list of franchises that need change.  luckily all4one at least appears to be attempting it although i'm still wary.

second, i played twillight princess and more-or-less hated it.  and the reason isn't that the game was "bad" but rather a feeling of staleness embodied by this story:  after getting through the early training portions of the game i finally got out into hyrule field, i saw a heart container in the distance and said to myself, "i'll come back to that once i get a hookshot".

puzzle games have some of the worst replayability of any genre.  the problem is that the fun is in the joy of the discovery not in the act of completion.  zelda has been very puzzle driven over the last few games with the real issue being that from one game to the next they are using the same puzzles.

you may not particularily agree but the fact that soo many fans of the series are clamoring for change should be a clear sign to nintendo it is time to try something different like what they did with the metroid prime series.  hold onto the core elements while delivering a brand new experience.

So basically you are saying they need to change the name of the town and the big boss. Because each and every game has had a different twist on the final boss. But then how many times can you have the same zombies in a Resident Evil game. Are there that many zombies?