Interesting ideas, I dont agree with the get rid of the bloat thing, I like that each Zelda adds something new to the lore, if it didnt what would be the point of getting excited?? I would just stick to one of the older Zeldas or Metroids and save the money. Like Conegamer you want Zelda 1 and Super Metroid, play those games. Minish Cap might have been produced by Capcom but its closer to LttP than either of the DS games, same goes for Metroid.
Another interesting point is that Ninty most likely wont make these games for 3DS as that system is geared more towards 3D games and I agree. But has anyone stopped to think that if Ninty gets there crap together with online that we can see games like this on a WiiU type store. Something akin to PSNStore and XBLA, I know I know "online is bad because, it wont be worth as much." But if they are not going to make it for 3DS then they sure as hell wont make it for WiiU an online store might be the way to go.

Nintendo should just build a new team (with 50 employees at most) to deveop exclusively simple and storyless 2D games (Mario, Zelda, Metoid Kirby, KD, new IPs, etc) focusing on content and not detail (graphics or anti-game elements like long cutscenes). It would be cheap, it would sell hardware and more important those games would be very fun to oldchool gamers like me!

if Nintendo makes a top down Zelda like a link to the past for the 3ds they can make it with little money, they can make it at least in 12 months, and they can sell at least 10 millions copys... thats what I call a good business.

This is exactly what i think they will do and it seems to be that you think so too?  Would we rather have NO classic style Zelda or Metriod or would we rather have it on a DL store, im going with the latter.

But it's not an issue of either or. Nintendo seems not to have the capacity to be making both old school and new school Metroids and Zeldas (whether or not they actually lack the capacity is a different debate), and if you're going to be spending your resources on making a game, why sell a version that maybe not all your consumers can buy (due to potential lack of high speed internet or them being too apathetic to set up internet on the console) for $10 a pop when you can sell a version you know all your consumers can buy for $50 a go.

You might as well go whole hog at that point, which brings it up into either-or territory, though Nintendo seems to be splitting the burden among their teams well, they still need more of them.

I agree with pretty much everything this guy says. The stories should be told like in the first metroid prime where you had to find and scan objects to get the back story of what's actually happening and little to no guidance from a Fairy or computer telling exactly what to do every second.

I believe this will only a pipe dream though as Nintendo will try to cater to the casuals by dumbing down both games into shells of their former selves.

I agree with the story thing. They're Nintendo games after all.

For Zelda, whether it's top-down or 3D, I won't mind. Edit: I would prefer it to be top-down now that I think about it.

For Metroid, whether it's 2D or 3D, I won't mind. Edit: You know what, for handheld Metroid, 2D would be the better
choice.

Some parts of this sound bugshit awful.

Top down Zelda? will not buy! side-scrolling Metroid like Other M? sure why not, but i would like to see a FPA Metroid in 3D

I don't see the point in focusing on difficulty in combat in particular when, in theory, it should come about as a natural result of the design of the 2-D games. If you shoot specifically for difficult combat you run the risk of overshooting in terms of what you're presenting the player. Metroid and Zelda (the original games) have just as much of their difficulty drawn from overcoming the environment as they do from combat - I never completed the first Metroid, but I am absolutely certain of my convinction when it comes to the original Zelda. You have to find a balance. Lengthening the game by focusing on combat changes the difficulty balance of the original games as much as focusing too much on the environment would (or did). It's one thing to say, "All right, they should be about somewhere between LttP and LoZ, and then Metroid and Super Metroid, respectively," but combat-focus as a sticking point is just as misguided as puzzle-focus in terms of capturing the spirit of the original games.

And yes, I realize you're presenting it as a contrast to the DS games, and it doesn't matter, because you failed to properly contextualize your point.

Christ, Super Metroid and Link to the Past had perfect difficulty balance, why would you want to change those?

More, I think you're being willingly obtuse - or, worse, obfuscating - when it comes to the question of the role of "puzzles" in the body of Zelda games, both of the traditional and the 3D design schools. This isn't some BioWare-style Tower of Hanoi ridiculousness, nor is it a reliance on the sort of environmental trickery that the DS games were so fond of. Most puzzles in Zelda games are about exploring your environment and activating triggers of various sorts - I've only beaten three dungeons in Skyward Sword, but the "puzzles" located therein have more to do with seeking a way through the environment than they do going "Okay now how can I move all of these pancakes from one plate to another".

There's absolutely no need to move more than eight directions in a 2-D game, and if we give Link the ability to swing/face in more than eight (or even four) then it presents the problem of overcomplicating the combat again by adding too many possible dimensions by which an enemy can be attacked. The rule of 2-D combat is to keep it simple, which is part of what made LttP's combat great: 8 directions to move but only 4 facings allowed for a more focused enemy design, especially in terms of defenses.

And why would I want more item upgrades than in LttP? If you mean dungeoneering items - like some kind of upgraded Ice Rod, I guess? - then I'd rather have more unique items to use, and each of them be potent enough to use on their own. If you mean thigns like your sword and your armor, that degree of power creep is not that essential to Zelda. Yes it makes sense to get stronger weapons so you can defeat difficult enemies more easily, yes it makes sense to increase one's survivability with armor, but once you increase it past the (divine) level of LttP or LoZ you start to lose focus on the narrow band in which meaningful combat can take place. This is Zelda, not Monster Hunter.

If you have any focus whatsoever on the story in Metroid, you need to get your head out of that mode of thinking altogether. People need to say "Where can this fit on the timeline," and one need to get the impression that the designers have no idea what that even means. Fuck the Metroid timeline, it can roll into a pit and die, and any focus is too much focus. Fusion Suit, Power Suit, whatever: they're just aesthetic niceties which embody the shit I actually care about.

And how many areas in a Metroid game??? When you say "areas" do you mean areas the size of Norfair and Crateria? You want a game three times bigger than Super Metroid? Why would you want that? The complexity of exploring (and building) an environment in the Metroid style doesn't scale linearly, you realize - the bigger it gets the more complex exploring it becomes, which is part of what necessitates the dreaded hint system. No! Metroid needs to be between small and medium-sized in terms of game maps, allowing the natural complexity of maneuvering through the environment, the density of ways one can move from place to place, to expand the experience of traveling through the world. More is better up to a point, but a game three times Super Metroid's size is ridiculous.

And you want how many collectible items? Boring! Boring boring boring boring boring! We need density of content, and one doesn't accomplish that by making each individual upgrade less substantial.

The map thing is the last of it, I guess. My first reaction is to say "Why bother including the feature?" Just make people draw their own maps. Much more fun that way and lets me have more save files.

The other part of the problem with your map idea - specifically the square-block-filling-in thing - is that it necessitates that the game be divided into neat square chunks. That works all right for Zelda (sometimes - again, it's a question of density), but Metroid is at its best with expansive and potentially seamless organically-shaped environments. Limiting it to a collection of squares makes it more tedious to maneuver, harder to design meaningful shortcuts into, too easy to draw out - on and on.

Here is what both of these games need:

1. Simplicity of design. When in doubt, simplify, and then simplify further to be sure. Simplicity and elegance go hand-in-hand, and if we want to recapture the spirit of NES games then we need to get into that same design spirit, where creativity is a consequence of working around constraints rather than breaking free of them. The first Legend of Zelda, the first Mario Bros. - those games are more perfect than any of their sequels because they are simple in concept, with complexity arising as a sum of their parts.

2. Simplicity of playstyles. This explains itself. LttP and Super Metroid are about as complex as it needs to get.

3. Non-polygonal graphics. This goes for if they make 2D Zelda, Metroid, or Mario on the Wii U, too. Everything needs to be hand-drawn. Every animation, every environment, every character, every spell. The 3DS's screen is perfect for this, and polygonal environments are a waste in that context. More, hand-drawn environments and assets, while time-consuming and resource-intensive for the processor, are absolutely gorgeous and would lend themselves easily to conveying the artstyles of the games in a way polygonal graphics wouldn't (especially on a handheld).

4. Gigantic. Motherchristing. Bosses.

5. When in doubt, look to Super Metroid and Link to the Past (or LoZ) for inspiration.

That's it.

I'm not against the idea of traditionalist games in these series - quite the opposite, I would revel in them - but a lot of your ideas betray a focus that is off-center.