Zelda twlight Princess was horrible, Skyward Sword was even more terrible. How I dislike those aful controls...

Imo they will never make games like Majoras Mask or Windwaker.

What I want to see and what we're going to get are two very different things. I voted for a Zelda Wii U but we'll see a new Zelda for the 3DS this year probably before that happens.

For me, classic Zelda is based on much more than the colors.  Zelda 2 doesn't have nearly the same feel as 1 or 3.  It feels very different to me. 

I can't for the life of me find that interview with Miyamoto that I'm referring to (like I said, it was back in '97 or early '98) but what I took away from it was that he was admitting that the gameplay was going to be different from the original, which it was.  Initially, Miyamoto actually wanted Ocarina to be from a first-person perspective because he wanted the land of Hyrule to be experienced that way.  So the idea of change was intentional.

There is just a fundamental difference between z-axis gameplay and x & y-axis gameplay.  Think about COD in 2D.  The gameplay would feel more like Contra than the COD experience.  One of the whole points of changing a 2D game formula into 3D is to make it different; otherwise you'd just implement 3D effects and backgrounds into the x & y-axis.  Games like Ocarina and Metroid Prime are perfect examples of how a series can maintain excellence while undergoing this change into the z-axis, while games like Contra and Castlevania are not.

@bold. On what level? In terms of twitch-style difficulty, general vibe, visual appeal? You can make a game different on certain aspects without changing its foundation. But for some reason this far that was barely achieved (bar Metroid to Prime imho).

The added issue with the translation of some of these games to 3D is the emphasis on realism. When did that become a necessity? That's the kind of thing I'm thinking, thinking outside the box. For example, in SMB, Mario jumped really high for his size. Why does that suddenly have to change when moving to the 3rd dimension (which it didn't for Mario, but did for castlevania). Why is Ninja gaiden not as fun to control as the first one?

@miyamoto. Whether he wanted to make the experience different from the original or not was a design choice of his. I don't find 3D dictates that vision. We judge 3D based on what we've seen devs do with it so far, but I think intrinsically 3D goes beyond what we've seen so far and is not bound by the implementation people have made of it. That's what I mean by thinking outside the box.

@Zelda II. Tough call. I know what you mean, it does have a very different vibe, but some of the core elements of Zelda which were subsequently lost still existed in Zelda II, despite the very big differences in other areas.

Try the gamecube version of TP, I prefer it!

Yeah let´s hope not Windwaker was crap. But Majoras Mask was a masterpiece

On the level of the gameplay itself, plain and simple.  It has nothing to do with the visuals having to assume realism; look at Wind Waker.  And again, Metroid Prime is an excellent example of how you can keep the formula as true as possible, so it's not specifically the twitch-style difficulty, theme or visuals that I'm referring to.

The simple fact remains that Metroid Prime still plays differently than Super Metroid.  You are no longer moving left and right, up and down anymore.  You're moving in and out of the screen in a full 360 degrees in order to progress.  And I'm not talking about simply adding depth into a 2D game, such as going from, say, Kung Fu and Bad Dudes to Final Fight and Streets of Rage.  I'm talking about the gameplay itself going from an x & y-axis to a z-axis.  The concept of depth perspective itself changes the possibilities of movement of the characters of the game.  You can imagine any 2D game you like in a 3D world, but I don't see anyway of retaining what made the gameplay strickly 2D, unless, as I said, you just add 3D elements to the x & y-axis gameplay.

See, you're limiting it again. Nothing says it needs to be a 1st person transition. That's how it was for metroid so certainly that'll change the way you control your character there is no doubt about that.

We're talking about the idea of remaining true to the original feel (visuals and play) while moving over to the next dimension. Assuming link doesn't jump (which he doesn't for all practical purposes in OoT), I don't see how, bar the Z-triggering system, how the character placement and movement for instance differ so much from Zelda 1. Link moves in an x-y plane either way, so what is the big difference?

I'll pitch some ideas for WiiU Zelda.

A new evil force is threatening to destroy the barriers between parallel worlds for his own personal gain. It comes to your attention that an ancient contraption from legends has been activated in a long lost civilization. A strange orb, a relic of ancient times, starts to show strange activity. According to the legend this will be an integral piece to reach the forbidden city deep underground to repair or shut off the device.

The orb shows location specific clues and scenes from parallel universes delivered to the player on the WiiU remote. If you opt to allow online play, these scenes will be views of other player's efforts.
The further you travel to the forbidden city the more frequent and solid the connection starts to become to the parallel worlds. Ghost images from what happens on the wiiU remote start to appear in your real world. At certain points you will have to coordinate your efforts with someone from a parallel universe to overcome obstacles.
From simple standing on floor plates, to block puzzles where the blocks have physical properties in both worlds or platforms that you can only stand on in your universe when parallel links stands on it in his and vice versa.

There will be clues / information you can only find in your world (randomized) which you can share / teach to a parallel you by use of the wiiU remote. For example songs. Deeper in the forbidden city you can also exchange physical items. Materials for upgrades for example, some maybe be rare in your world and abundant in another.

At some points you can solidify the connection to opt to tackle boss fights together. At one point it all goes haywire and you end up in a massive battle with 50 links battling multiple copies of a difficult boss.

All of this should work offline too with decent AI coop. The same way fat princess handles also works offline.
There should be plenty of alone time play as well of course, but exploring some co-op and WiiU remote visions into other players world could be fun.

No, I'm not limiting it at all.  You're confusing a 1st person perspective design choice with what I'm saying about z-axis gameplay.  Super Mario 64 is not 1st person, it's 3rd person.  But it doesn't change the fact that the way the player guides Mario through the game is now done differently because of the z-axis gameplay.

I've already addressed remaining true to the original.  Games like Prime, Ocarina and Mario maintain many of their gameplay staples in the transition from 2D to 3D, and they do so admirably.  But again, the inclusion of depth that the 3rd dimension brings changes the gameplay.  Link does not simply move according to an x & y-axis at all in Ocarina.  I really don't know how you can say that he does.  He moves in and out of the screen and the gameplay must be adapted to that.  In other words, gameplay is no longer limited to flat planes of movement anymore and therefore follows different principles. 

Unless you're just talking about polygonal characters on a 2D plane with a fixed camera, then I stand by my assessment.