Like I've said in the past, Zelda needs two separate teams, expecting Aunoma to be in charge of 3D Zelda, 2D Zelda, remakes and spinoffs is just too much. Let Aunoma be in charge of 3D Zelda with another team in charge of 2D Zelda and they split the remakes/spinoffs between them.

Exactly. I'm pretty sure he is at this point tired after overlooking so many projects this gen.

I wouldn't say it bombed.

For what it is, which is just a simple multiplayer spin-off, it did decent enough, and I'm pretty sure it's gonna hit 1m.

There is no fatigue going on here. Nintendo has been doing this with the Zelda series since 1998. Before then, we'd have to wait several years to get any Zelda game. In 1998, we got two. With the exception of 1999, we either got a Zelda game every year or several in a single year. However, the developers seem to know how to not make the series stale. For example, we got the GBA version of A Link to the Past in 2002, Wind Waker in 2003 outside of Japan, and Four Swords Adventures in 2004. These games provide very different experiences and are easily distinguishable from one another. You can't really say that about Call of Duty games or Asassins Creed games. This is why you never hear anyone say they're getting sick of Zelda.

There very much IS fatigue going on here.  I'll defend TFH to quite an extent, but the fact of the matter is they're producing at twice the rate they used to.  They have NOT been doing this until 2011.  Look at the releases:

2010: Nothing

2009: One release

2008: Nothing

2007: Two releases (I'm counting Link's Crossbow Training 10/10 best game)

2006: One (albeit cross-gen) release

2005: Nothing

2004: A landmark year at the time with four releases (two of which were straight remakes without any HD bells/whistles, but let's count them anyway)

2003: Three releases (if we count the Collector's Edition rerelease as a separate release, at least - it's normally bunched with Master Quest in this sort of discussion)

You have to go back at least seven years to match their output in the last five, and that's assuming we count every physical release as one entry (meaning Four Swords Anniversary gets snubbed here).  The key difference is a LOT more work is going into this series now than before.  This used to be one team split up into two subgroups effectively (Capcom notwithstanding with MC as the delayed outcome of the Oracle series contract); now it's six different studios, at least half of which are third party/unaffiliated companies.

I love a good chunk of SS, I loved WWHD, I loved MM3D, I'm sure I'd enjoy OoT3D if it weren't expensive as hell, I'd enjoy HW if I picked it up and had the time to play it, I like LBW and TFH.  I enjoy all of the games they're outputting right now, but that doesn't mean we're not in a bit of Zelda overload here.  It's good to see Nintendo embrace third party assistance, but you can't rightfully say all's fine and dandy when Grezzo is responsible for the best 3DS game of 2015, and it's a remake, or when Nintendo gives Tantalus of all studios the port job for TP, or when they think of a concept so shallow they need to make Link dress up for replayability.  I'm sorry, it's just not true.  They made a goddamn Musou game for Zelda - that's when you KNOW they're taking things too far.  Thank god it was one of the best Musous ever made, but that's besides the point; they're well on their way to whoring the franchise when they take that leap.  It's even more of a worry, logistically, when we've had three new Zelda games this gen thus far, one of which started as a remake, one of which is a spinoff OF that former-remake, and one of which is - again - a Musou game.  Three of NINE (Zelda U notwithstanding right now, although I am counting FS Anniversary) this gen are technically new ideas.  For a franchise entering it's 30th year, it's great that we have new ideas at all, you can argue that all you want and I won't disagree, but Zelda was always held to this higher standard compared to Mario, not something you throw together haphazardly because you need to pad your lineup.  Thankfully LBW was in GotY talks (mostly because nostalgia IMO but hey, it was in talks!), so we've had something to flaunt to show the gen wasn't a complete waste of time for new content.  For long-time Zelda fans like me, I'm glad we've had three and soon to be four definitive versions of classic games come this gen, don't get me wrong, but when I can buy more Zelda annually than most gamers buy CoD or Battlefield or whichever annual shooter you prefer, it's a damn problem whether we want to admit it or not.

When ever Nintendo uses the same engine twice the second game always sells worse. I've been zelda fatigued since TP. I skipped Tri force heroes just like I skipped majora's mask (64) and phantom tracks (DS).

But how is it a problem? So far the only reasons I've heard in here be some arbitrary high standard and a fear that it's holding up Zelda U even though it's still releasing in the same 4-5 year timeframe as the last few mainline Zeldas.

I think 1mil will be great anything after 1.5 mil a plus.

it didn't bomb - it just did do miracles!

Could be a sign of slight fatigue.

You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to title the thread "Why Tri Force Heroes Bombed" and come up with a bunch of stupid reasons as to why it did.