To make a 30-50 hour Zelda game of the fidelity of the E3 demo would almost certainly be the most expensive Nintendo game budget in their history, for what looks to be like their worst selling console ever, which could very well be on its deathbed by 2015.

Switching development to a cheaper top-down Link Between Worlds engine probably makes sense to Nintendo, even if its not what some fans want.

The fact is, the game will still probably be very good in top down if they opt to do that, and most Zelda fans will buy it even if they grumble about it, and Nintendo saves a lot of money and risks far less by doing this. Personally I'd be dissapointed, but making a giant budget game for a userbase of 15 million tops is kinda insane too. 

Which is why having such an expensive game simultaneously debut on WiiU's successor would make perfect sense (see TP).

Depends on what you define as a "Wii U successor". I don't think Nintendo really has much interest in succeeding the Wii U because really what's going to be so different with a new conosle? It will have the same audience problems the Wii U has unless it has a miracle controller. Nintendo's gotten their nose bloodied with both the GameCube and Wii U I don't think they're in any hurry to get smacked in the face for the 3rd time in 4 tries. 

Hybrid handheld with some TV functionality (or Vita TV like companion) I can see by 2015, but I think such a product would be heavily aimed at the portable market first and foremost. Being able to play games on the TV will be like a secondary bonus. 

For the most part I'm not buying what I've seen you predict regarding Ninty's next system, but frankly, if something like that were to happen it wouldn't change anything.  It still comes down to Nintendo getting the most out of their development time (ala Twilight Princess) by having the game also available for the next system.  And I don't believe that they aren't interested in making games for the TV experience anymore.

yeah, NO!

Yeah, I've been calling for the same thing lately. I think it would be pretty wise of them to release something not unlike the gamepad that would have the ability to connect to a TV via bluetooth or HDMI. They could kill two birds with one one stone, and won't have to worry about developing for two systems which would speed everything up and probably mean better games.

Generally speaking Nintendo fans probably would've attacked someone 2 years ago if they said Mario 3D for the Wii U would be Mario 3D World, basically a direct sequel to 3D Land, not the "epic" Mario that they were going on about per se.

Or that Retro's new game would be another Donkey Kong Country.

Point is, Nintendo makes decisions based on their own internal design quirks and sales data not necessarily what their online community is clamouring for.

At the same time, in terms of finances, Zelda in recent years has done its best as a somewhat realistic game. Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess being neck and neck for the top sales slot isn't really an accident. Neither did Link Between Worlds get a very good reception sales-wise, even as the critics loved it.

2D Zelda is less "risk", but a 3D Zelda has a certain degree of return, especially since you can apparently get a pretty epic game on a budget if you do it right (Xenoblade got a sequel, at its sales level, and that game had an excellent soundtrack and voice acting and larger worlds than any Zelda to date, and recall that Zelda *still* likely won't have voice acting going forward).

Money isn't really the issue in terms of scope, just as long as they can keep the development time down. Unfortunately the game could be another 4-year-cycle from Skyward Sword. That's where the money comes down, and changing it midway through would really just make it worse in that regard.

Plus, 3D World was plenty epic. DKCTF was definitely the one that was "low ambition" and a safe bet, but it was a game that needed to be made (not talking business here). Returns was more proof of concept, Tropical Freeze is the formula of a modern Donkey Kong game perfected. Much like 3D World itself was a game that needed to be made, to iron out the significant problems that held back 3D Land from being a truly superlative experience. 3D Land, again, was proof of concept, while 3D World was the grand adventure.

I think it's a fantastic idea. But if they do that, what I think, is that the classic styled top down Zelda games will replace the "Toon Link" games from the DS generation as what the Zelda series will be on portable consoles. Meanwhile, the home console HD Zelda games will remain third person 3D games.

That isn't to say I wouldn't love to see, say, an HD color remake of Link's Awakening as a digital title. That would be a dream come true, along with an HD color remake of Metroid 2 (this NEEDS to happen).

interesting, why did those two games needed to be made? What was wrong with their predecessors? IMHO DKC Returns was fine, the only thing i hated was the shoehorned terrible motion controls and that was fixed in the 3ds rerelease. 3dland was great it was just a bit on the easy side and even then once you unlock the extra campaign difficulty raised...BUT to be fair i have yet to play either, there was nothing in those games that screamed, lets do another becasue we didnt get the first ones right. Or at least they didnt need to make them now. IMHO Ninty needed games that was going to wow a move consoles. None of those really did it.