Meaningless. I wonder if you would argue the same points if you liked the art style. And what is this notion of being "right" about art style preferences? It's a subject with much more room for subjective judgement than most, to begin with. 

"It doesn't make those preferences the best possible choice for keeping Zelda a top series appealing to the most people. "

This is what I'm getting at, but my view extends to a much broader scale.

There's a clear difference in sales between 'regular' Zelda games and games which look deliberately weird and call it an 'art style.'

One can argue the merits of such a 'style,' but the games that do not purport to have a 'style' all sell better.

Nobody talks about Mario's 'art style.' Mario games simply look like Mario games. 

If they made one that deliberately looked different, as 'Yoshi's Island' did, they would say it had an 'art style.'

To act like the correlation between 'regular' looking Zelda games and high sales is spurious is willful blindness, at best.

To ascribe the lower sales of the stranger looking (i.e. 'style-having') games to other issues such as controller add ons and install base is reaching because there is a different supposed 'factor' involved for each game. They all have two things in common. One is the differing art style. The other is their lower comparitive sales.

In fact, one could easily point to the fact that the period of time in which Aonuma has been directing Zelda has been one of series sale decline, aside from the one time he made a game he operated against his desire to 'surprise' fans of the series and made the game they expected, Twilight Princess.

No it wouldn't.

I feel as though it'll definitely look better. The dimensions on Link's body definitely looked more flat than I remembered, and I think Nintendo would fix things like that. If it doesn't end up looking better, it'll just look the same. However, I doubt we'll get a Zelda that looks like that. Didn't Nintendo stress that the Tech Demo wasn't being turned into a new game?

WRONG AGAIN!!! TUROK 2!!! Turok 2 is realistic fantasy on the N64 as I've already stated numerous times!!! Your claim is a falacy, as has already been proven.

What exactly are  you claiming to have 'proven?' Turok does not look remarkably different from Zelda aside from having guns and things. Certainly, it has the same type of texture mapped walls and things that Zelda has.  Their looks have more in common than they do differently.

Arguing that Turok 2 is a more 'mature' game with guns etc. doesn't make the chicken-laden Ocarina CARTOONY in comparison. It just means the subject matter is different.

ALL Zeldas have chickens and things. There's just some that look like bloody cartoons and some that are presented in a straightforward fashion. Ocarina is absolutely presented in a straightforward fashion, not as a cartoon.

You clearly don't understand what a teck demo is. All that tech demo did was take assets from twilight princess and remodeled them for the Wii U's hardware. It has literally nothing to do with the Wii U Zelda. It's not a waste of anything because they are completely separate projects. It's not even that much work. All they did was model one isolated room and three animated models which where predetermined. You don't build a game off of something like that. When was the last time any Zelda tech demo was indicative of the following game. I'll wait.

Let's not talk about things we don't understand.

Just because you played it as an adult doesn't mean it wasn't a game for children. It was rated E for everyone and advertised on children's television. I'm an adult now. I'm still going to play it. That doesn't suddenly make it a rated m adults game. It's still going to be a kid's game. It will still be advertised on cartoon network and Nick and it will still probably be rated E, like 99% of Zelda games are.

At least you weren't condascending about it.

Eh, to me that doesn't seem much worse than acting like it's absolute truth. Instead, I accept it as a possible factor. Is that not rational? I desire more evidence. Something other than sales numbers would be nice. Preferably something that I can't immediately pick at.

By the way, there are quite a few Mario games with differing art styles. :P The difference are generally smaller than Zelda, though, because Mario games typically have strong tonal similarites. I believe that is what you mean by a "regular-looking" Mario game.

"To ascribe the lower sales of the stranger looking (i.e. 'style-having') games to other issues such as controller add ons and install base is reaching because there is a different supposed 'factor' involved for each game. They all have two things in common. One is the differing art style. The other is their lower comparitive sales."

How about market climate? Evolving gamer tastes? The other subjectivive and objetive qualities of either game? Considering other possibilities is not reaching-it's being thorough with analysis, and not jumping to lazy conclusions. But it doesn't matter. I don't have the time or will to fully research all of this. That's what Nintendo is supposed to do. So, I play it safe with my viewpoints while criticizing what I do and do not like.

But the top-down, isometric Zelda is in the vein of ALttP, which was a realistic game at the time. It doesn't seem deliberately odd.