I'll try to look for the source.

Edit: It's already in the post below.

I'm ashamed to admit but I was wrong. It wasn't only Phantom Hourglass, but also Minish Cap.

Here you have:

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/13085/eiji-aonumas-gdc-2007-presentation

Some interesting parts:

"I heard from my staff that the DS was hardware was capable of supporting toon-shading. I immediately asked my staff to implement cel-shading on the DS because I was disappointed that the cel-shaded Zelda was not received as well as I had hoped. In a short amount of time, they were able to show me 2-D Link moving in a 3-D world on the top screen, and on the lower screen, a Link shown on a map that was controlled entirely by touch.

At the same time that we were working on taking Zelda DS in a new direction, we had to make a decision about the direction of the realistic Zelda game. We knew what a challenge it would be to innovative gameplay on the GameCube, so we had to come up with something new from another direction.

The idea of Link’s transformation into a wolf came from The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, in which Link transformed into a rabbit in the Dark World.

I left the realistic Zelda team to work details and began work as director of The Minish Cap for the Game Boy Advance, which Capcom developed.

I felt certain that the way the gameplay changed as the environment changed in Minish Cap would have a positive effect on the development of the realistic Zelda. In hindsight, by immersing myself in the Minish Cap project, I gave myself a way to escape from not being able to find a breakthrough on the realistic Zelda project.

I regret that I might have been too selfish, thinking that I could just leave my staff to come up with the solution, but my mistake in thinking caught up with me.

Having released Minish Cap without a hitch, I started to think about what content to include on the E3 2005 playable version of the realistic Zelda. However, development on the project that I hadn’t been able to support was struggling. Although there were various small sections of gameplay that would create the framework for the game, there wasn’t one single distinctive model of play or a timeline that would connect each of the events. I really didn’t think that at that rate, we would create that would generate positive buzz on the E3 show floor. What concerned me most was at this stage of development, as a result of having put priority on the idea of the two worlds and the wolf, there was still nothing special about the most important aspect of the game; there was nothing special about the movement of the realistic Link."

I recommend you to read the entire article.

I was mistaken. I'll check it out.

Though it should be noted that this situation is different. He didn't just oversee Minish Cap, he full on directed it.

Not exclusive to this forum, but the obsession with scores (such as meta critic) matching one's own subjective view of a title. This leads to phrases like "over rated" being thrown around. I saw a post recently where someone said "Metal Gear Solid V got a 95, when it should be an 85" paraphrasing here.

I gave up on scores over a decade ago and use reviews mainly to see what a game is and if it interests me. I really don't care that many games I've enjoyed have been panned critically. A game has qualities, some like them, some don't, and that's fine. Getting caught up on some numerical measure of quality seems silly to me.

Now you can understand my fear for "delays". It's not because the game will be released next year, but why are they doing it it's my real concern.

I don't. I still don't think it has anything to do with spin offs and remakes. The game wasn't ready and was announced too early. As far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't have even teased in in 2013. Since it's probably coming holiday 2016, they should have waited until E3 next year to announce it.

"...But since it's Nintendo..."

-Insert 'good' idea here- would be awesome, "but since its Nintendo," I'm gonna say no.

Implying that something is unlikely solely on the basis that it's a good idea and "Nintendo doesn't do good ideas" is brain melting.

It seems like Aunoma simply has too much on his plate to handle, not that he's incompetent or anything, but being in charge of 2D & 3D Zelda in addition to spinoffs and some of the remakes is hard on one person, they should probably have a 2nd producer and team to work on Zelda as well so they can split the load between them. Perhaps Aunoma is in charge of 3D Zelda and overseeing spinoffs while the other person is in charge of 2D Zelda and overseeing remakes.

So, there's a lot of things being posted here that don't actually get said or done often.Unless your references some other forum, as I took "the forums" to mean these forums.

Only things I get tired of are nation and metacritic score threads.

That's actually a nice idea. I'm pretty sure it could help and the franchise could be healthier than now.