I have to agree with you, like always. Reasoning is absolutely right.

Zelda used to be for men, now it is for men and Australians. So it has declined in both quality and manliness.

I disagree with that.  Zelda has never much appealled to the expanded audience.  It has always been core, first and foremost.

Why? Where does it say only people who play games heavily liked the first couple games? Just because it takes long sessions to beat doesn't mean the first games were only liked by heavy gamers.

You did not qualify "the expanded audience" in the context of this conversation, so it has to be taken within the context of the Zelda series itself.

Zelda by definition could no previously appeal to an expanded audience; they were core titles at the time and appealed to the core.

You mean that they appeal to gamers to whom companies no longer cater - I forget what Maelstrom called them and cannot be bothered to check.

"People who play games heavily" isn't what core means. You are confusing core vs. expanded with "hardcore", which isn't something I expected.

Old Zelda games did primarily appeal to hardcore players, at least those were the oens who primairly beat it, because it required a great amount of time investment in order to learn the system or (morei mportantly) the layout of the world and its dungeons.

Old Zelda games by definition couldn't appeal to the expanded audience, though. If they did, then that audience woudln't be "expanded" at all, they would just be gamers.

No, I was going by the context of the comments I replied to.

You sure weren't!

"It's stupid to expect Zelda to have the growth and sales of Super Mario Bros anyway given that Zelda is a game for the core gamer (and so it should be and stay) and Super Mario Bros appeals to both the core gamer and expanded audience. Super Mario Bros will always have greater appeal. DWI."

That mentions difficulty in exactly no way, and it's syntactically and conceptually removed from the segment of his post that referred to gamers who were both skilled and/or heavy players.

Where did I mention difficulty?

First of all, you're the one making the positive claim; ergo the burden of proof is on you. Just what is the basis of your thesis? What does 'expanded audience' even mean in this context?

It seems to me you are working under the assumption that the more recent games are not as diverse in their appeal (not appealing to the 'expaned audience'). This is all fine and good - except how can this be, considering the sales numbers are neither particularly low nor particularly high for the most recent titles? In light of this, your claim appears to be a perfectly baseless presumption.

But hey, I'll accept your premise for now, though I still have a hard time buying your egregiously flawed logic.

See, if what we previosly established is true, it is also true that the audience to which Zelda appeals - be it core or expanded (or both) - still purchases the games; ergo they are still being catered to. Otherwise, it follows that the segment of the audience being ignored by Nintendo's recent outings was never significant enough to make up a substantial number of its sales.

Thus, if we accept your premise - that recent Zeldas do not cater to expanded sensibilities - it is apparent that Zelda was always primarily core oriented, just as theRepublic said.

You didn't have to; "heavy gamers" would be those who invest time and/or skill in their endeavours.

Regardless

Your original postulation, that the original Zelda g ames appealed to "the expanded audience"? It's untrue.

In defense of Skyward Sword, the gameplay not only looks cool, also a little more challenging than TWW or TP, even OoT or MM.

The enemies like Deku Baba's take one heart, or the Scorpion that looks difficult to hurt. Also, the new item pocket or the potions menu don't pause the game.