This is such a weirdly loaded comment and overly passive aggressive. I'm not calling you retarded or using a fallacy that states as such, I'm simply stating that I felt it was pretty obvious what I meant when I wrote that comment. Maybe to you it wasn't, that's fine, but honestly bickering back and forth over whether my comment was obvious enough isn't productive in the first place. It's a silly thing for both of us to get caught up on, I mean really, what does it change whether or not the comment was too abstract now that you know what I meant? At the end of the day the message stays the same: A mainline 2D Zelda under a third party company would be preferable to no new mainline 2D Zelda. I'm not even sure how you can qualify it as goal post shifting when you are replying to a comment I made about my own personal wishes, like do you think I didn't know what I meant when I was writing my original comment? The original comment wasn't in the form of an argument, it was in the form of a preference I stated, so this doesn't even make sense.
I'm also not sure why you are so upset over using qualifiers. Yes ... I am talking about a non-spin off title. Yes, that by definition is using a qualifier. So what? What is the harm in that? Qualifiers exist for reason, because they qualify things. It's not like it's an arbitrary one, either. It literally changes everything from how the game is made, to how it's marketed, to how it fits in terms of significance in the franchise.
"It's a good thing 2D Metroid is seen as small enough to warrant Nintendo giving to a third party dev, otherwise we wouldn't have Samus Returns. It's a good thing the Mario IP is seen as flexible enough to warrant Nintendo giving to Ubisoft, otherwise we wouldn't have Mario + Rabbids. It's a good thing the Hyrule Warriors is considered a spinoff to warrant Nintendo giving it to Tecmo Koei, otherwise we wouldn't have Age of Calamity."
Reminder of the original comment being replied to:
"I don't think something like a brand new 2D Zelda would be seen as small enough for Nintendo to give it to a third party company nowadays sadly, despite how cool another Capcom 2D Zelda would be.
Seriously though, if Nintendo isn't going to make new entries in a lot of their franchises, I think letting prolific third parties make new entries in them rather than just pumping out more remakes would be a much cooler solution. If we get a remade 2D Metroid or another remade Zelda on the Switch instead of a new game ... my god ... "
At this point you are just arguing in bad faith and being overly aggressive. Like come on man, my original comment even addresses most of these criteria. The only thing it doesn't address is mainline, non-spin-off entries ... but we've already discussed that to death, which invalidates your other examples. Honestly you're hung up on the lack of one word: mainline.