Read my comment critically:

"The series is still very strong but even my zelda loving friends hate spirit tracks."

Did I say it was weak? I am saying that some (no quantity specified) zelda fans stopped playing. That is all I am saying and until you read my comment more precisely you will never understand it.

Do I even need to mention spirit tracks? My friends who still love zelda hate that game. Still sells well but you can tell the same reception isn't there. It's a zelda without an overworld with trains.

This site can't separate their emotions from a claim I expressly limited. You're arguing that some people like myself and my friends are getting tired of zelda. How do you argue we don't exist? Do I need to find you some spirit tracks reviews or user responses?

I just wanted people to understand that this "ZeldaInformer" site loves Zelda so much, they only write Zelda articles..lol

But they admit to paying too much attention to every little detail about Zelda in their life.

I personally didn't even get into Zelda until 2005. I played Ocarina for the first time and it was my first Zelda game I even played. It's #1 on my all-time game list. Even though I had a NES in 1989, I never played a Zelda game until 2005..lol

But now I'm like the biggest Zelda fan. I just beat the original Legend Of Zelda on the virtual console and loved it. So I'm lucky in the sense that I have all these classic and new Zelda's to play for the first time. But to say that Zelda is in any way in decline is false in the industry sense of sales/reviews. Is that a personal opinion, maybe so. :)

bob has a point; a certain part of the LoZ fanbase definitely seems to think Zelda has calcified somewhat.

I think that's inevitable. If you have a successful franchise that gets sequels, it's impossible for each installment to reinvent the wheel every time.

Raupet makes a good point below -- Zelda is caught in a catch 22. Fanboys decried Windwaker as "Celda." So Nintendo gives them Twilight Princess, which in turn generates a chorus of "it's too much like Ocarina!"

Can't win.

On the whole, I don't see the overall Zelda series "declining" as a viable franchise, but I think you could apply that characterization to the console 3D installments being able to truly innovate (you can only make the jump to 3D once). Even though we've seen several different stylistic takes on the OoT blueprint...it's still a 12-year old blueprint.

However, it's kinda funny people apply this standard to Zelda, but don't mind playing FPS games that have had precious little innovation since the great late 90's PC shooters.

" You are ignoring a large number of people that includes myself and many older gamers who haven't enjoyed zelda since OOT. "

To be fair oobob, to many OOT was the first zelda game.
And to be honest, while it was great for its time, i think WW and TP beat the crap out of OOT.
Even Majora's mask is better in many aspect.

Even though i like LTTP over OOT.

And i like zelda spirit tracks =(.
Ah you cant win 'm all.

You may be right, but spirit tracks sold 2 mil and is evidence of further progression away from what zelda once was. The break happened at OOT.

I played old zelda and it had nothing to do with puzzles. It was about killing and exploring. No overworld and puzzle mania/story hurt this. In original zelda everyone tried to keep full life cause they loved *shooting the sword beam* The boomerang was integral to combat in that game. Now they're all tools to solve puzzles. You actually died to enemies sometimes in the old titles. After OOT it kept going away from the zelda I knew and I stopped.

People may like new zelda but this is why some say it's in decline. It's no longer zelda and it hasn't been for a long time. No overworld and puzzle fixation - what's that have in common with Zelda I, II, or link to the past? Nothing. There are "puzzles" there, but not really. Not like the water temple. It's more a trick to explore - blow the flute to find dungeon 4! Explore the walls with bombs to find new areas! The puzzles in new zelda are contrived and not about exploring, more get this to go here. Which is great for a puzzle game. But that's not the zelda I played when I was little.

So keep that in mind when we complain. We don't think it's bad now - it's just not Zelda, or at least the zelda we played. I still buy the games hoping they hit that sweet spot I once knew, but after OOT I haven't made it far. If you like it though, enjoy. But don't brush us off - there are a lot of people who started in old zelda and miss that. There are new people who like new zelda better. But spirit tracks shoudl scare you. No overworld? Just trains from one puzzle to another? Now that is unlike any zelda I ever heard of.

I'm still waiting for a 2D zelda game for the Wii.
Yes im that naive.

Although Oobob,
Im not sure what you are trying to say.
I played Zelda since the first iteration, but cant really put my mind on what you mean by " they hit that sweet spot I once knew".
It doesn't look like the Zelda games have huge differences, at their core they are still the same. If you look at Spirit tracks, sure no real overworld, but what about all those other games?

Spirit tracks: I must say the puzzles are harder in this game.
I enjoyed battling every boss and the last one was as fun as usual.
We can all have our opinion, but i can not say Zelda has changed.

" No overworld? Just trains from one puzzle to another?"
Not really you still travel from one point to another to connect and solve A to B to process to C.
You are not just going from temple to temple.
If you put it like that the walking mechanism in an overworld is no different.

They did say they will do more with the overworld this time around so who knows what they bring.

@Evil below,
I recently played OOT again, didn't die either.
I think its just the epicnes of then thats burned into our brain.

Ah, that's a good point, bob.

Zelda really DID go more puzzle-oriented with the 3D installments. There's never really any risk of dying in the temples until you reach a boss fight (and in TP, I didn't die once in any of them, they were just too easy).

I can definitely see how making the water temple into a stress test is kinda divisive.

Ocarina Of Time: 99 Metacritic... #1 Game Of All-Time still to this day on updated lists. It's "The Godfather" of 3D videogames. :)

Windwaker: 96 Metacritic...Destructoid just did a piece in 2009 with fans agreeing it's just as good as Ocarina or even the BEST.

Twilight: 95 metacritic. Some fans think it's THE best Zelda ever made while some fans think it's too much like Ocarina to best Ocarina.

the handheld Zelda's cater to the "new generation" more than the console versions. They score great, but not on the same level. No one disputes that Link's Awakening (Game Boy) is still the best handheld Zelda.

A Link To The Past still scores top 5 on all-time lists. No true Zelda fan says anything bad about that game.

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG ZELDA FANS? It's the fans that buy the games and it's the fans who discuss the game. Outsiders who never even played a Zelda will look at this with a "maybe I should just skip Zelda" and that is the biggest mistake on gaming earth. Zelda games are among the best games you need to play before you die. :)

Basically my point is old zelda focused on combat and exploring. The puzzles there revolved entirely around these objectives. Kill gandolf with the silver arrow. Got a raft - now you can explore more places! Got a bomb or torch? You can explore and find new stuff! Some of it (master sword) makes you better at combat!

New zelda has puzzles for puzzles' sake. The water temple is the best example. You solve puzzles to progress in the same area, not explore new ones. The items are made to solve puzzles, not expand your combat. To some extent that's cause the boomerang and stuff are hard to control in 3d. But even when you aim the bow you stop and pick them off. In old zelda you fought, shot the bow, kept fighting, etcetc.

Basically they looked at the puzzle elements and said "this is zelda." When it wasn't - we solved the puzzles to explore more of the world or expand the combat options. Now we solve puzzles to beat the water temple. There's nothing new in that temple and most times you can see what you need to get to. The puzzle is there to progress, not find another area of the world and kill everything in it.

Remember how you could push rocks with the strength items in the first zelda and go to entirely new places? Now you push a rock to go a little futher in the dungeon. In the early zelda it promised another part of the world you could explore, like the raft or flute or bomb or torch. Now it just promises more puzzles at every step in a strict order you can't deviate from.

It's puzzles for their own sake, not to explore. That's what zelda was - a huge world you could run around in. Some guy said here's your sword, kid, go make something of it. I tried twilight princess and quit a couple hours in cause I still couldn't go explore (I was getting the sword and shield). I was solving puzzles to progress, not for the promise of adventure!

That's what zelda was. You're a mythic elf like kid in a fantasy world. Go forth and conquer. Now it's go save this kid, get turned into a wolf, sing to get a hawk to help you get your sword, get the sword to save the village, etcetc. I want to be an adventurer, not lead by the hand by the game designer. Remember in old zelda where you could do stuff out of order somewhat? Or find items in many orders depending on where you wanted to go? Now you can't. You need the item to go to the next area. There is no adventure or exploration, just hand holding and puzzles. Spirit tracks is the best example - no overworld, just a train to more puzzles.

" Now you can't. You need the item to go to the next area."

Actually, there was little freedom in that. All zelda games have temples or parts where a certain item was needed.

I seriously do remember that much freedom in zelda games.

But hey sure, I cant really get the feeling back for ya =P

In NES zelda the first couple dungeons didn't even require items from other dungeons and were just further away. You could actually beat them out of order. The torch opened up dungeon 7 (?) by burning a bush and it was one of the first items out there. I found dungeon 7 early in the game and it shocked me. I haven't felt that thrill of discovery in zelda for years. Now I know that the game designers basically hold my hand to the next temple.

In new zelda it is linear to a fault. NES zelda gave you some choices. There are dungeons you can just walk into out of order and beat.

The magic is still there, I just play Link to the Past when I want it. You can't even compare the puzzles or hampered progress in that game to OOT or later. It feels like a completely different title.

If you enjoy zelda great, I'm just saying this is why I don't anymore. Puzzle games are fun but I want old zelda. It's like saying 3d mario just lost the magic. It didn't - 3d mario is a totally different game (however I do like SMG much much better than 3d zelda).

"In new zelda it is linear to a fault. NES zelda gave you some choices. There are dungeons you can just walk into out of order and beat."

In all fairness, one can beat dungeons in new Zeldas out of order as well, provided one is skillful enough. The games just don't actively encourage sequence breaking, so if you're holding the developer's hand, then yes, you're only going go where he wants you to. Tell that hand to buzz off, however, and... oh the places you will go.

Ocarina of Time, for instance, can actually be conquered without beating *any* dungeons if one is so inclined. Lateral thinking FTW!

It's kinda funny with how demanding the Zelda fanbase is (I certainly know, I'm a part of it).

There was a little division when LoZ:tAoL went sidescrolling, which made it the black sheep of the series.

There was a schism when Zelda went 3D, and more puzzle-focused instead of action-oriented.

Same thing happened with Windwaker's art style, with fans saying it went too far from the Zelda blueprint.

Then the same thing happened again with Twilight Princess adhering too CLOSELY to the OoT blueprint.

The Zelda standard is impossibly high. And if it wasn't, we would get the quality games that we enjoy.

I love the 3D as well as 2D Zelda's. I'm a veteran Nintendo fan (born in the 80's), but a relatively new Zelda fan (about 5 years now). The games have all held up beautifully. Every time I beat a Zelda (whether 3D or 2D) it replaces a game in my top 10 all-time list..lol

Nintendo will deliver with Zelda Wii. I can feel it. :)

Zelda Wii will deliver. There was an Iwata asks in which the creators of Zelda showed Aounuma the original Zelda overworld maps and dungeons drawn by hand by Miyamoto and the other original creator. Aounuma has been taking liberties with the series as of late and I think Iwata was trying to get Aonuma to make sure he doesn't stray with this Wii iteration.

I've loved all 3-d Zelda's, but that doesn't mean I haven't been disappointed with the later bit, specifically WW. As for me TP is the superior game..and has the better art style ; )

But the NES Zelda is so classic as is ALttP and OoT is the only 3-d Zelda that has that timeless feel for me. But I'm optimistic that this Wii one will be special as well. Also TP has become like wine to me in that it gets better after each playthrough.