They have the technology in Wii U to really return to what made the original Zelda so revolutionary; a huge, open world that you can explore at will. I'm never going to advocate Zelda should become like Elder Scrolls, because to be more open, they only need take the series starting point as the next Zelda's starting point. Dump us in an over-world, alone, not even with a sword, and let us see what we can find from there. Continue the focus on RPG elements, and emphasise dungeons and tough enemies. Dungeons are the best parts of Zelda's design, and the more we get of them, the better. Have quest-centric dungeons and optional dungeons, but make sure the optional dungeons have real rewards and are every bit as challenging and sophisticated as those in the main quest.

What I'd really like to see married to that open ended design are strong side quests, character driven affairs like Majora's Mask quests. Give us a few 'hub' locations, towns, forests, Zora's Domain, whatever. Make the side quests stories in their own right. For me, the sidequests of Skyward Sword attempted this but failed. I loved Skyward Sword, but I wouldn't play another Zelda like it. I do however think that the field design (more challenging to traverse rather than empty space) should be implemented into the next Zelda in a continuous, open-ended world.

For me, Zelda is about playing a story, and not being told a story. Sure, they've done great work with Zelda's narratives over the last decade or so, but I for one want to see that direction reversed. Yes, let there be a strong story, but let it be told more through the environment, the enemies you face, the dungeons you explore, whatever mystical forest/lake/volcano/desert/ocean we are adventuring through, rather than cutscenes. Skyward Sword's music was stunning over-all, it really filled out the game for me; use stunning orchestral music to flesh out the story rather than cut scenes and dialogue. Zelda's story should be an epic poem, not a novel, if that makes sense.

^Great post, and it makes you wonder if we're hoping for the impossible. Nintendo is barely a company that listens to its fans, so are we all lost in a twilight zone (no pun intended) where our needs will never be satisfied?

That's what I was trying to bring out in the controversial NSMB2 thread.

I know if they make it like the others with puzzles dungeons semi open world and some the gadgets it would be great. And a new approach to the franchise, and I don´t think that it would damage the brand if they do it good. Windwaker didn´t damage either and the style of WW was like no other Zelda game.

As much as I love Skyward Sword and is maybe my fav Zelda now, I completly agree with this. Zelda NES is basically what Zelda should be, at least from now on.

Exploring and discovering was the key to obtain valuable upgrades. Getting a heart container in Zelda 1 feels even better than finishing any modern Zelda. One of the things I like from SS and hate from TP is the economy. It feels again like Zelda 1, there are things to spend your money, but everything is meaningless tools or upgrades because there's no challenge.

I'd love the next entry to be more of an open world than this linear thing they have going right now. But that doesn't mean it should be like skyrim! Go back to the roots of the first Zelda! An open world to explore, but where every part of the world has it's purpose!

But I have to say that I love what they have done with SS where every region you visited was a build up for the up coming temple! It challanged you to get there! It wasn't as straight forward that way.

But I've always felt that the first Zelda was very empty; just an old man and an old woman hiding in the mountains, in the caves and behind a bush... The world of Zelda needs it ppl!

These are great ideas. Especially the long journeys between multiple towns - I'd also like to see a different species of inhabitant for each town.

For a new Wii U Zelda I would like all this and more...

Nintendo, for the new Zelda I would like: A return to the darker graphical style, the return of Epona (perhaps an upgradable Epona which can increase speed, eventually bounding through the landscape at warp speed), more varied dialogue, the return of the Zoras, a Goron area and at least one Deku Tree area for us thirty year-old nostalgia-heads.

To move the series on I would like to see different outcomes according to what decisions you make in the game, you would still have a set number of core dungeons to get through but other factors would be affected by choices/allegiances you make in dialogue/side quests. For example a side quest you choose to do could give you an item which helps a great deal in one of the dungeons - but the item is not essential to complete the dungeon. I think it could be interesting if you could either gain the allegiance of a town's population, or offend them by being rude/unhelpful/not doing the side quests/rifling through people's houses without permission.

It would be nice to see a few different endings according to how you've decided to play the game. Perhaps you could level up Link's abilities according to whether you want him more agile or a stronger fighter - I know that sounds like a big departure but reckon Nintendo could make such a system very user-friendly.

Basically, bust the world wide open again, have a good few towns with strange inhabitants which are just for levelling up purposes and side quests rather than an essential part of the story. These places would be discovered by accident making your way through the game and make it feel rich and alive.

I know Zelda is supposed to be quite linear but hope they can find a way to open it up and make it feel more open-ended without losing the Nintendo flair or comprimising a great story.

Another thing I've always wanted in a Zelda is to be able to explore the world after you've completed it, instead of reverting to just before you beat the last boss you get to explore the world now you've liberated it; being heralded as a hero everywhere you go and being treated to a few unlockable items/mini games etc. If people want to play through the last boss again there would be an option for that, obviously.

Less dialog, more open world to explore, more intense combat, less story linearity...

Majora's Mask did it really well, but I want a Zelda that's even more like the original two.

Anyone who says "Combat isn't the main part of Zelda" or "Combat wasn't the main part of Zelda until TP/SS" needs to go play the original and Link's Adventure. You guys are high if you think those games don't rely 99% around combat.

To provide a non-joke answer: put Skyward Sword's dungeons and regions with Majora's Mask's hub world, and then we'd have something that really clicked.

One thing that was lost is the fast-paced twitch gameplay from Zelda 1 and 3.  The lock-on feature introduced in Ocarina was quite genius; it was perhaps the best solution of making combat feel 2D in a 3D space, but it still makes the gameplay into something different from the original.

Another difference is simply the vantage point for the gameplay.  In 3D Zelda you can't see all of a room at once like you can in Zelda 1 and 3.  It makes the game feel different, although it works well for a series like Zelda, which is still based around exploration; in 3D Mario games like Sunshine where half of the gameplay is playing cameraman, it completely changes the game into something else (which is why I love Galaxy's camera system).

Puzzles are also handled differently in the 3D Zeldas.  The original had its own puzzles too, but revolved more around which block to push or how the rooms linked together, with the combat still a big focus of the game.  The puzzles themselves weren't as elaborate as they are in Ocarina.  I love both of these approaches, however, which is another reason I feel both types of games should live on, but these are some of the things that I believe Miyamoto was referring to with his statement.

That thing that makes Zelda what it is (the interview you took from) is not linked to the gameplay or puzzles, but to the general feel of the game. I felt like Zelda II was still Zelda, despite being very different gameplay-wise to Zelda I. The baddies, the colors, the intensity, it was all there.

The fact that 3D Zelda introduced the Z  trigger doesn't bind the 3D Zelda branch to a Z-triggering system, despite its excellence. I'm trying to think outside the box a bit. 3D Zelda could easily get back to twitch-reaction gameplay, it would just require a different battle system, because the Z-trigger limits movement (and freedom) to a degree. Also, basic puzzles are not made obsolete by a 3rd dimension. It all depends on how far the makers want to take the freedom offered by the 3rd dimension, and if they want to complexify. The question being, if they do take the 3D's full potential and complexify (even if they don't have to), does this remove from the Zeldaness of it all? Try to see what I'm trying to say, it's a little fuzzy because we assume 3D means something it may not have had to be.

And I agree that both should live on.