HoloDust said:
This is from Aonuma's GDC 2007 presentation: "As some of you know, at E3 2004, we unveiled the game that would become Twilight Princess, the realistic Zelda game, and we announced that it was developed by the team that had been developing Wind Waker 2. Actually, there was a reason that that decision was made at the time. At one point, I had heard that even Wind Waker, which had reached the million mark in sales, had become sluggish in North America, where the market was much healthier than in Japan. I asked NOA why this was. What I was told was that the toon-shading technique was, in fact, giving the impression that this Zelda was for a younger audience and that, for this reason, it alienated the upper teen audience that had represented the typical Zelda player. Having heard that, I began to worry about whether Wind Waker 2, which used a similar presentation, was something that would actually sell." Personally, I don't mind that art-style (well, at least not that much), so I'll have no problem enjoying the game (along with my kids, specially now that they've seen it is 'big' Link instead of 'small'). But teens these days, very audience that Nintendo wants to sell their game to, are not into that. Whether tech demo style is better art style or not is up to personal preference...but looking at the past, it seems that it would help the sales.
P.S. I'm breaking my rule here in hope you can maintain at least semi-argumented debate ;) |
Wind waker sold a lot, regardless of criticism. now read the question again: Why do people keep saying that zelda sells or not because of the artstyle?
A bunch of people are saying that THE factor for people to buy a zelda is the artstyle. that's without any base and makes no sense. and my question was pretty rethorical.
