My thoughts as well, but it didn't stop the misdirected blame.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Regarding the underlined, I didn't mean to imply that I thought Nintendo chose TP's art style specifically to target a larger audience, nor that they are incapable of making a game in that style as visually unique and enticing as Wind Waker. Regarding appealing to fans, having greater sales doesn't mean the series' fans liked it more. There are at least a couple million people who bought Twilight Princess, yet bought neither Wind Waker nor Skyward Sword -- are they fans of the series, or did they jump on the realistic-graphics bandwagon? It's impossible to know for sure. But I think someone who lets the visual style alone come between them and a series they love for its gameplay has the wrong approach -- just my opinion. And as a fan of the series myself, I want the Zelda team to make the game they want to make. They've never done wrong by me, so I won't tell them how to do their job.

Yes, that's what I was saying. Wind Waker is often considered more kid-friendly because of its art style, but in truth its characters are as complex as any others in the series, and the game's focus on death, selfishness and its consequences, and accepting change (grieving, in a way) are some of the deepest and most well-developed themes in the series.

Bold

That's an interesting question, I think it's important to remember that Zelda always had the core fans and the outer-core fans. To support the idea, remember that Ocarina of Time sold 8m units in the N64 days.

Also, TP catered much more to girls that like Zelda than WW did. Does it mean they aren't Zelda fans? I think they would feel kinda offended by that. It's true they aren't the core of the core, but they would call themselves fans.

Underlined

It's important to remember that some people play Zelda for the immersion it gives them, and it's not the exception. When it comes to the greatest-selling zelda games, we see the trend (OoT, TP). For that reason, I believe it is fair for the devs to sacrifice time put on gameplay for time put on making the world immersive, because that connects with a lot of people in a non-superficial way. That's how people connect emotionally to the game. Having said that, have EAD ever compromised on gameplay? Is it a valid concern?

Yes. If you sacrifice sales of your product to show how artistic as a producer you are you are putting yourself in front of the product. It's equivalent to saying "My artistic vision is more important than my customer's experience". That's not how you run a business. That's how you repel your customers and run your business into the ground.

No.

Ignoring business logic, just no.

Having said all that, I believe sales only say so much when it comes to success. Sometimes a game may not sell as much but still be a success in that it deeply touched a smaller amount of people, but the effect was more profound, so as to improve confidence in the brand for those people, or to touch a vocal segment that also needs to be catered to. A great example would be Shadow of the Colossus imho. Low sales, very important title.

I'm not so sure that the reason Twilight Princess sold so well was because of "realistic" artstyle, that might have been a small incentive for some gamers, but imo, the reason it sold so well was thanks to the Wii, more specifically, the Wii launch. Everyone and their mother bought a Wii during that period and Zelda was probably the "best" game during that time (outside of Wii Sports), so Zelda took the spot for a very long time. If Wind Waker and TP would have changed places then WW would be the second best selling Zelda game right now. 

That said, is just a matter of circumstances, if the Wii U keeps selling like right now and the next Zelda has a realistic artstyle, then the game will probably sell the same as WW. If on the other hand the Wii U starts selling very well, then a realistic looking game might give the game a little boost, but is by far not the main reason people will buy or not buy the game. 

The problem is that we really don't have any evidence to proof if a realistic Zelda game will really sell more than a "cartoony" one. Like I mentioned above, TP got extremely lucky, so is no base to proof this. Another "realistic" Zelda game that sold really well was, well of course, Ocarina of Time, but again that game had the benefit of word of mouth, it got the tittle of being the "best game of all time" for a reason, and that's something not many games have the luxury to have. We also have Majora's Mask, which had the same artstyle as OoT but it didn't come close to sell the same. WW simple had the problem of a very low install base, and Skyward Sword has the "problem" of needing an extra accessory to be able to play. So really when you think about it, is really hard to compare Zelda games because most of them released during very different circumstances, making comparisons a little bit hard.

Edit: Well we do indeed have 2 Zelda games that are easier to compare. Skyward Sword and Majora's Mask. Both games require an extra accessory (MM required the N64 expansion pack and SS required the Wii Motion Plus), and both launched pretty late in each console's life. One has "realistic" artstyle (at least at the time it had) and one has a "catoony" style, and well, according to VGC both sold practically the same: 3.69 for SS and 3.36 for MM. So this kinda proofs what I said above, the artsyle doesn't really matter all that much, it all depends on the circumstances. 

no. i dont see correlation
if WW would ve had a two console launch likeTP had. i would ve sold similarly.
SS had different factors playing against it.

Great thread, and a really interesting question.

As a video game fan, I hope EAD continues to experiment with different art styles and color schemes and doesn't fall victim to the lowest common denominator. However, as someone interested in the longterm commercial viability of Zelda (my favorite series) I'm conflicted. One one hand, the Zelda games with more realistic art direction have sold better, but, on the other hand, the evidence that those titles sold better BECAUSE of the art direction is mostly circumstantial. As others have said, Ocarina sold so well because it's generally considered the best game ever made, and Twilight Princess sold so well in part due to the phenomenon that was Nintendo Wii.

In general, though, I think we as fans need to do a better job of looking past art direction. How many consumers balked at Wind Waker in 2003 after seeing the cartoonish art style only to miss one of the defining games of the generation? How many thousands continue to dismiss Super Mario as a game for the very young because of its bright, primary colors?

Anyway, great OP, dengle, and great posts from everyone.

Bolded: Wait, what?? Where did you get that from? What about TP makes it inherently more appealing to girls, and what did I say that would offend lady gamers?

Underlined: Compromising on gameplay isn't what I meant. I think I should take a moment here to etch out a definition of some kind for the word "fan," so bear with me.

What makes someone a "fan" of a series, or of a specific game? Do you have to self-identify as a "fan," and is that all it takes? If I have never played a Zelda game before but say I am a fan, is my opinion of the series and my desire for its future to lean a certain way as relevant as those of someone who has played every game? What if they played every game but didn't like any of them?

The heart of the question is -- what about those people who have played two or three Zelda games, but skipped the others for one reason or another? Their praise and criticisms of elements of the series are no less valid than a long-time fan who knows every title inside and out. But of course, they can have no praise or criticisms for a game they haven't played. They may offer some, anyway, or they may pretend that game doesn't exist. Should the criticisms of someone who has not played Wind Waker be taken into account, considering they are unable to praise the parts of the game that would deserve it? How about games like Link's Awakening or Majora's Mask, praised by a few but unplayed by many? If we focus on the preferences of the many, they will drown out the voices of the few who have interesting thoughts on experiences the many never had.

This is a series with a long and extremely complex history. The series has many fans, each with a unique opinion of the many different games and elements of which the franchise is comprised. Some only like the 2D games; some have only played the 3D games; some only want realistic graphics; some want vivid, animated characters. It is impossible to appease all fans from every era at once. I would even say it is a futile effort to go out of your way to try to appease all of The Legend of Zelda's fans.

The simplest suggestion I can make is that there's a good reason the series has so many fans with such a diverse variety of tastes; that EAD 3 must be doing something right, and that I have the utmost faith in them to deliver more outstanding experiences in the years to come.

What I meant by my comments about the gameplay is that if you consider yourself a fan of Zelda, whether you've played one game or fifteen, you most likely appreciate something about the series other than the graphics. You most likely enjoy the gameplay as well -- if you didn't like the gameplay, I doubt you would call yourself a fan of the series or the game(s) you played. And from that note, I would say that if you enjoy the gameplay of the one Zelda game you have theoretically played, you owe it to yourself to give other games in the series a chance, regardless of how you feel about their visual style. You should find yourself enjoying them just as much. I'm always disappointed when someone says they can't get past the art style to play a game, whether it's the bright and cartoony Wind Waker or the muted and reserved Twilight Princess, and I have definitely seen people on both ends of that spectrum. I've played and enjoyed both for what they are, and wouldn't skip any Zelda game simply because I don't favor the way it's presented, regardless of my personal preferences. The things I love about the series are deeper than its coat of paint.