Quite a few 3D Zeldas have been flops, if a game fails to expand the fanbase, and even causes it to stagnate or shrink, and fails to move hardware, then how can you call it a success, just because it outsells other flops?  No, success is when it moves hardware and expands the franchise to new people.

Well Malstrom himself was actually impressed by the E3 presentation of the game, where the focus is on raw combat, which is what he says made the first games so awesome.

If anything, the lower sales of Spirit Tracks might encourage another true 2D Zelda.

So 99.9% of all games are flops?  I think your definition of flop seriously devalues the word.

I have high hopes for skyward sword, precisely because to me, it doesn't look like just another 3D Zelda. It has motion , it's going to play radically different.

No, gaming is simply in such a bad state.

No it's not.  Calling multi-million selling games flops is just ridiculous.  Unless  your goal is to actively remove all meaning from the word.

It's a flop compared to what Zelda could sell for the same development resources invested if they made it closer to the original games with an arcade-style focus on action rather than puzzles.

At least, I think that's what Malstrom means.

Except that would be wrong because OoT is the highest selling Zelda ever, and if you include GC sales, Twilight Princess is the second highest selling Zelda ever.

Not really. He thinks sales would be still higher and console momentum would be driven.

It's like if you saw Mario Galaxy or SM64 sales before NSMB DS and NSMB Wii. You'd say 3D Mario was selling great. But the existence of 2D Mario showed what Mario could be selling if more titles had that gameplay.

Zelda I was the fifth highest selling game on the platform behind three Mario games and Duck Hunt. Zelda TP for the Wii (plus Gamecube sales) was only eleventh on its console, behind two Mario games. A true arcadey Zelda ought to be fifth as well: behind the 2D Mario, Wii Sports, Wii Play and Wii Fit, which are the momentum-driving games this gen.

Even if, for example, the DS Zeldas appear to sell well, they don't sell hardware to new customers; expand the market.

On Zelda: Nintendo, as a first party developer, makes games that will push hardware sales. Zelda games are losing their strength at doing this. Spirit Tracks is a sign. It did horrible for a Nintendo developed Zelda game, and it really didn't move DSs. Twilight Princess may be a mask, as it was also a launch title for one of the biggest console releases ever. Even games like Excite Track and Red Steel did well where their sequels did not. Also, with population growhts, expansion into other regions, and a general increase in income of gamers, why has a Zelda not beated OoT?

Also, the industry is not in a good state, and you can see it all around you. Sony and Microsoft have lost millions, if not billions. Most third party companies are stagnent and their beloved series are becoming more and more irrelevant.