Yeah, past games almost always made actions your choices. The few times control was taken away, it was things you wanted to do anyway (like launch your ship out of the exploding crater/planet/station).

A good rebuttal, Khuutra!  But I still disagree with many of your assertions and conclusions.

1) Arcade-style gaming is at the heart of mass-market games like Wii Sports

The idea that arcade-style games are not as popular/enticing with people as Malstrom claims seems to be your primary contention with Malstrom’s thesis, although I will address the other points as well.  As Malstrom has defined, a pure arcade game is one that does three things: it attracts attention to people wandering around, it is very simple so anyone could pick up and play, and it is very addictive but difficult, i.e. skill-based.  An arcade-style console game does not have to be as difficult but should retain the player’s sense of control.  As you have defined it, a T.V.-style game is one in which there is no sense of pressure or even danger, save for what the player creates for himself.

Here, many of the biggest games this generation are arcade-types, and this includes the game most responsible for the Wii’s success, Wii Sports.  Wii Sports was designed to be attractive to passerby.  It is by design simple enough that anyone can pick up and play.  And, yes, according to the game's creators it is skill-based.  Listen to the game’s developers speak on the subject.

http://us.wii.com/iwata_asks/wii_sports/part_4/

Keizo Ota, developer of Wii Tennis:

“The player can enjoy trying out different strokes to see what happens, constantly learning in a sensory way. I think it will take a long time for the player to get the hang of all of the movements, and the process of feeling oneself improve at the game is really enjoyable for the player. Another, more "game-like" element is the fact that we have made around 60 computer-controlled characters for the players to take on. As some of those characters are formidable opponents, it is enjoyable to work on acquiring the skills you'll need to beat them. In addition, there is a "Skill Level" in the game which gives the player an easy-to-understand numerical indication of how they are progressing, which they can check at any time. By watching this "Skill Level" increase, you can feel yourself developing as a player, which is fun.  There is also a recent feature we added called the "Rocket Serve." If you time your swing of the remote just right and hit the ball when it is at its highest point, you will hit a really fast serve…It really adds to the excitement for both the server and the player receiving the serve.”

Zeniti Yamashita, developer of Wii Boxing:

“At first glance, you may think Boxing is simply a game where you have to land punches on your opponent, but the important thing is defense, or dodging. This is something I always tell people when they first give Boxing a go: you can dodge punches really well by just leaning your body to the sides in the normal fighting posture…Once you've grasped the skills such as how best to time your punches depending on the distance between you and your opponent, the game suddenly becomes a whole lot more enjoyable. Needless to say, as you progress further in the game, the Mii opponents you face become tougher. The sense that it's easy at the beginning, but gets gradually more challenging is something you can always expect from any Nintendo games. I mean that's classic Nintendo! (laughs)…For the really good players, there is that aspect to the game of "come and have a go if you think you're tough enough!"”

Iwata on Wii Boxing:

“At the same time, it has all that adrenaline-pumping excitement of a sports tournament, which is also typical of Nintendo.”

Takayuki Shinamura, developer of Wii Golf and Wii Bowling, on golf:

“This overlaps with what Ota-san said about what makes Tennis fun, but to ensure that even the slightest wobble in the swing, as well as its speed, will be reflected in the shot, we have done a lot of fine-tuning. This means that there really are a lot of elements to master.”

On Bowling:

“Of course in Bowling, like the other games, the player enjoys analogue-style responsiveness, but I think the easiest way to get you to grasp the depth of this game is by telling you one single fact: in all of the endless testing which Nintendo has done on this game, no one has ever achieved a perfect score.”

On Wii Sports as a whole:

“Shimamura:

There were lots of conversations with people asking: "What was your score?", or people sneaking a look at other people's scores and being surprised. There was an enjoyment that was a bit reminiscent of the NES days.”

The three criteria for a arcade-style game are all here.  Wii Sports is an arcade-style game; even the developers were remarking on how the game felt like a return to the days of the NES. 

Your claim that “there is no sense of pressure…save for where the player creates it for himself” in Wii Sports is not true.  Leaving aside how this statement is equally true of all sports, real or videogame, most of the Wii Sports games will end quickly if you do not have enough skill to continue. 

In Tennis, similar to Pong, you must swing your racket in time to return the ball, and you must do so in such a way that your return remains in bounds.  If you do not do this, the game ends.  In Boxing, similar to fighting games, you must dodge or block your enemies’ blows.  If you do not do this, the game ends.  In Baseball, you must remain within nine runs of your opponent.  If you do not, the game ends. 

Wii Sports is not Animal Crossing; or Wii Fit, or Brain Age, or Nintendogs.  The player must exhibit a minimum amount of skill to continue.  And as your opponent, living or artificial, improves in difficulty, your level of skill must increase accordingly, or else the game ends.  This is arcade-style gameplay, and it created the biggest game of all time.*

*You alluded to an interview where Nintendo compared playing Wii games to watching TV.  I believe you mistakenly misremembered the context: it was referring to how Nintendo wants people to use the Wii as naturally as they use the television, i.e. to make the console something that’s part of the household rather than just something that one or two members play with in solitude.

**A final note: the developer of Wii Baseball probably agrees to, but his portion of the interview is, oddly, missing.

2) The Mainstream plays games now

The mainstream now play videogames.  Sixty-seven percent of American households play computer and console games.  These statistics exclude non-console or computer gaming, such as the iPhone.

You stated that “the masses are people who don’t care about video games at all.”  That may have been true once upon a time, but it is demonstrably not the case today.  Even the amount of women and seniors playing video games is increasing.  And they’re playing games more than they have before.  Demonstrably, lots of them are playing arcade-style games like Mario Kart, New Super Mario Bros., and mini-game collections.

You made an interesting point when you stated that “an increase in market size should in theory produce an equivalent increase in a game’s popularity if its appeal remains constant.”  I concede the internal logic of that statement, but it misses the forest for the trees.  While none of Nintendo’s old IPs may ever reach the relative heights that they did at their peaks, a return to their arcade-style roots has demonstrably helped them to reach and surpass the absolute heights of their respective series.  That is unquestionably a better position to be in than keeping the course and hoping that a bigger Wii userbase translates into somewhat-better-than-Gamecube sales.

3) Malstrom did not state that sales must approach the relative amounts achieved on the NES to be considered a "phenomenon"

Malstrom has never stated that returning to arcade-style gameplay would lead to double the original’s sales.  His words were, and I quote, “If a Zelda game was made with the values of the old school Zeldas, it is not unreasonable to predict that such a Zelda game could break out into a big social phenomenon.”  By Malstrom’s own terms, this does not even require that it have the highest sales in the series: note the response to Point #5 in the Malstrom post I referred to.*

It is true that “the logical extreme of Malstrom’s thesis” would mean that a return to Zelda’s roots should “[translate] absolutely into sales.”  It is also true that the logical extreme of a doctor’s advice to take two pills to dull the pain is to take the whole bottle and exterminate the pain completely.  Extremes rarely work in logic.

*This is something of a cop-out on Malstrom’s part.  However, it should be noted that in that post he also refers to Ocarina of Time as “the biggest Zelda phenomenon.”  It is the declining impact that he’s trying to remedy.  The same goes for his attitude towards New Super Mario Bros. Wii: it may not match its predecessors in relative terms (although it does in absolute terms), but after seeing such a dramatic decline having a noticeable reversal in fortune is something to celebrate.

4) Zelda is no longer a social phenonemon

Let us now relate all of this to the topic at hand, i.e. what direction should Nintendo take Zelda. 

The current formula, according to Miyamoto and Anouma, has hit its point of diminishing returns.   Returning to the series’ roots boosted Mario’s sales to greater heights than he has reached since the first game, and much greater heights than anything dreamed of by Modern Mario.  Arcade-style games are huge hits, as shown by games like Mario, Wii Play, Wii Sports, the countless FPS games, and the mini-games. 

You correctly state that it is not the only genre doing well, as “TV-style” games* like Animal Crossing, Nintendogs, and Farmville show.  You correctly stated that we could not “apply TV game values to Zelda” because then “it wouldn’t be Zelda anymore.”  And you correctly stated that “the mainstream doesn’t actually like (modern) Zelda.”

5) But it can be!

If the two biggest types of games right now are arcade-style and TV-style, and TV-style can not work with Zelda, it is logical for Nintendo to increase Zelda’s appeal by making it more arcade-style.  

We know the mainstream is playing more games than ever.   We know they love arcade-style games like Wii Sports.  We know that they haven’t taken to Zelda as much as they did in the past; where the games once sold out to the point that the shortages were covered on 20/20, they are now readily available on launch and afterwards and have been since after Ocarina of Time.

 They weren’t readily available for Mario Kart Wii.  They weren’t readily available for New Super Mario Bros. Wii.  Nintendo should apply that same formula to Zelda, and see if lightning strikes three times.**  And if it doesn’t succeed, Malstrom was wrong, and Nintendo will try a different tack next time.  The alternative is to maintain the current direction, which Miyamoto, Anouma, and Nintendo have implicitly conceded is not sustainable. 

To summarize:  Arcade-style gaming is responsible for many of the biggest game this generation, including the all-time leading Wii Sports.  The mainstream games nowadays, but they have not taken to Zelda like they have to arcade-style games like Mario Kart or New Super Mario Bros. Wii.  Zelda’s creators have implicitly shown dissatisfaction with the projected path of Zelda’s impact.  Zelda can not successfully integrate TV-gaming values, but it can and has integrated arcade-style values.  Therefore, reintegrating that style of gameplay into Zelda is likely to cause it to become a social phenomenon once again, and should at the very least be tried.

*I like that term.  I’ll probably steal it, if’n you don’t mind, although I might change the title.

**Possibly four times, with Donkey Kong Country Returns coming out soon.

Forgive me for adhering to brevity, I don't think I can mount that kind of post again.

Well, noname, it seems that I did misremember the TV games distinction as made by Nintendo, and that was the entire hinge on which my argument swung. More, I need to function within the terminology set down by Malstrom if I hope to do this right, as it were.

I will point out, however, that arcade-style gamees are still distinct from Wii Sports and its ilk according to Malstrom himself. Observe his chart:

Malstrom calls them non-fiction games. I'll list the games in the bottom three categories for you:

Mini-Games / Arcade Style- Wii Play, Centipede, Galaga, Pac-Man
Puzzle- Tetris, Dr. Mario
Non-Fiction Game- Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Brain Age, Nintendogs, cookbook software, how to learn English, etc. Flight Simulator, Sims

To quote further:

What I call TV-style he calls non-fiction, so I will adhere to his nomenclature. Malstrom hismelf admits that (by virtue of being further down-market), non-fiction games have wider appeal than arcade-style games. Arcade-style games are necessarily upstream of non-fiction games, so non-fiction gamers absolutely outnumber arcade gamers.

67% of households notably does not translate into 67% of consumers, and America is arguably the biggest video game-consuming country in the world per capita. You can only argue that the mainstream plays games by narrowing the criteria for that statement by a huge degree; you'll note that the EU has over 3 times as many people as the States, but a roughly equal absolute number of players. Clearly, the mainstream when taken in a broader context does not play video games.

And I'll point out that reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly good logical proposition; "two pills will reduce pain" cannot logically be carried out into a certain number of pills reducing pain altogether, so your rejection of that logic does not hold. More, your proposition concerning the series's roots translating absolutely into sales only works if the roots restore absolute appeal. The point of that whole diatribe I wrote was in reference to the fact that the absolute appeal of 2D Mario has either declined or has to be viewed from a specific and narrowed perspective in order to be stagnant, much less on the rise.

The topic at hand is not what direction Nintendo should take Zelda; it is whether or not Zelda as a social phenomenon is in decline in a way that Mario is not. The absolute sales of Zelda have gone up over timee: in another year or two, Twilight Princess will surpass Ocarina of Time as the best-selling game in the series, making it an at least comparable social phenomenon by the only valid metric for measuring that - in fact, it may do so sooner than I think, since VGChartz stopped tracking sales of the Cube version long ago.

Obviously arcade values (like those presented - presumably - in Skyward Sword) could make Zelda more popular. I still hold that they cannot possibly make it mainstream.

But there are many styles besides arcade and TV.

... Uhm, aren't we taking this whole not able to use missiles thing a little too seriously?

Madden is not non-fiction: you play the part of the players in the game. It's a fiction, even if it's starring depictions of real people.

If we accept that arcade values are necessarily downstream, then Microsoft Flight Sim couldn't be downstream of arcade games, yet Malstrom holds that it is. The chart means quite a lot, because values have more or less everything to do with being downstream or upstream, and that determines potential appeal on a wide scale.

Given this, we have to accept that even if Malstrom fails to outlin them, there are values in non-fiction games that are not values from arcade games, or rather not "arcade values", as it were. A hole in his nomenclature is not the same as a hole in my argument.

Look, we all know that like Galaxy 2, Other M and Skyward sword  will be mediocre sellers, so the arguing over the semantics of Malstrom's posts are pointless.

How can you be so sure?

I by the term "mediocre sellers", axt intends that SMG2 and others will sell millions, whereas NSMB and others sell tens of millions, i agree.

I would add that those 3 won't probably generate any momentum. I say that even it is clear ATM that i will buy those 3 (SMG2 already at house).

Thanks for alerting me to this awesome blog. BUMP!

No; it's indicative of an attitude on the developer's part (taking control away from the player; reducing the amount of exploration; having secondary characters too much control over Samus) that gives us a clue as to the rest of the game's structure.