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.

I don't believe that to be the case.  Arcadey Zelda did not sell as well as OoT, even though the NES was in more households.

I also question whether the first Zelda really pushed the NES.  Mario, Duck Hunt, and Mario 3 all out sold Zelda at least 3 times over.  Those games are what really pushed the console.

I don't believe that to be the case.  Arcadey Zelda did not sell as well as OoT, even though the NES was in more households.

I also question whether the first Zelda really pushed the NES.  Mario, Duck Hunt, and Mario 3 all out sold Zelda at least 3 times over.  Those games are what really pushed the console.

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.

OK. Nintendo should do an experiment on the 3DS, like NSMB DS, to see whether it works or not.

OK. Nintendo should do an experiment on the 3DS, like NSMB DS, to see whether it works or not.

I believe it would have been a better investment than, say, Spirit Tracks, which wouldn't have persuaded anyone new to buy a DS that hadn't already got Phantom Hourglass.

Anecdotal:

I do know that I have bought many Zelda games (Z1, LttP, OoT, MM, WW, TP) and the only ones I was interested enough to get past the first dungeon were the first two. The rest were so boring between the action segments, and took far too long to get a sword and start slicing enemies from the moment I made the save file (WW was especially guilty - you had to get to Dragon Roost to get into swordfights seriously). The puzzles did not interest me.

I fit into Malstrom's old-school gamer category on this, and would welcome the return of the arcadey Zelda, though in truth I don't know how many people agree with me like they did for NSMB v Galaxy.

I question whether any Zelda has really been a system seller.  I never went over to anyone's house to play Zelda.  It was always Mario and Duck Hunt.

You ask why nothing has beaten OoT, but OoT was not an arcadey game.  OoT has much more in common with Twilight Princess than the older Zelda titles.  I have not played the DS Zeldas so I can't comment on those.  We can't just say that moving the series in an arcade direction would bring higher sales, when that is not historically true for this franchise.  I will also point out that OoT also had the disadvantage of being on a console that was in less households than the arcadey Zeldas.

I know the industry is in a bad state.  Where did I say otherwise?  I just think that if you use the term flop the way axt113 does, then the word loses all its meaning.  Flop is a strong word, and there should be many shades of grey between calling something a flop and wild success.  The way axt113 used the word flop though, those two extremes were basically being used as black and white with no in-between.

I question whether any Zelda has really been a system seller.  I never went over to anyone's house to play Zelda.  It was always Mario and Duck Hunt.

You ask why nothing has beaten OoT, but OoT was not an arcadey game.  OoT has much more in common with Twilight Princess than the older Zelda titles.  I have not played the DS Zeldas so I can't comment on those.  We can't just say that moving the series in an arcade direction would bring higher sales, when that is not historically true for this franchise.  I will also point out that OoT also had the disadvantage of being on a console that was in less households than the arcadey Zeldas.

I know the industry is in a bad state.  Where did I say otherwise?  I just think that if you use the term flop the way axt113 does, then the word loses all its meaning.  Flop is a strong word, and there should be many shades of grey between calling something a flop and wild success.  The way axt113 used the word flop though, those two extremes were basically being used as black and white with no in-between.

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.

I disagree, its because gaming is in such a bad state that NSMB Wii, Wii sports, Wii fit, etc are considered a wild success, Wii games is how all good games should perform, its just that most games are garbage, so a game like NSMB Wii looks like a runaway success, but really that just supports the idea that not only is gaming in a bad state, but that people have come to see the bad state as how it should be, and so games that should be the norm, are considered amazing, that is an incorrect way of looking at things, Wii is nothing special, its a technologically modern NES, how sad that in 25 years, we've only just come back to the level of NES, just with better graphics, even Nintendo is to blame, I mean they were partly responsible for the path gaming has gone down.

Yes OoT was a fine game, but why is it that OoT hasn't been surpassed, its over a decade old, but instead, Zelda has been stagnant and decaying, with flop after flop, Skyward sword looks to keep that trend going, instead of trying to replicate OoT, Nintendo should have been trying to create something better.