Nintendo is better off retaining the status quo. Why change the formula which works well? SEGA stuffed up Sonic by revolutionising and changing the character and series so much that it is a mess.

What next, PacMan to evolve, it's best to keep things simple, believe me.

Nintendo doesn't have good scriptwriters. The story in their games is usually very simple.

On the other hand, everything else in their games is close to flawless.

 I wouldn't say that. Nintendo stories are usually very easy on the outside, but deep and complex on the inside. Especially the backstories of Zelda(timeline theorising, for example, is an aspect of Zelda fandom thanks to the fans trying to get a picture of Hyrule's history) and Metroid(getting to know the history of entire alien civilisations through scanning), are examples of how good game stories can be without resembling Hollywood-material.

@the ''Link is an emotionless puppet''-comment: I think he's supposed to be just that. The player has to completely fill in Link's feelings, so if you want to know if Link feels happy or angry, just check out your own feelings. The other reason might be that Link is supposed to be a mysterious hero, someone the people of Hyrule don't know that much about, even if he's like the one who saves their asses all the time.

Bottomline: not every character has to be like Cloud from FFVII and be a big time emo.

Part of the problem with a returning character talking, is that if it isn't the same voice with every game, people get upset because it doesn't sound right.

anyways, I prefer my video game characters silent, as then I can imagine their voices however I want. Also, I don't have to wait for the game to speak everything out, I can read it at my own pace.

Pikachu would become Riachu...

On topic: I don't think it's necessary, I really liked the fact that Samus was a mute in MP3. So long as the world around these characters has voice acting and they don't, I'm okay with it.