I don't think even the best actress could have done much with Other M's atrocous script and wooden direction, frankly.

*Sigh* Wall E fits MY argument, NOT yours. I was arguing for The Legend of Zelda having voice acting AROUND Link, not OF Link. And that's what Wall E has. If the whole movie was just gestures with subtitles, do you think it would have done anywhere near as well or do you think people would have been like, "Well...this is awkward."

I think Link should stay silent, but the rest of the game should have voice acting. I was never arguing against that. If you had read my first post you actually would have known that.

And Mario is a platformer, consumer expectations for platformers are different from consumer expectations for action adventure and action rpg games.

Also, resorting? Me? You went right to the "Post hoc" fallacy; you have nothing to celebrate. Entering a debate and using that is tantamount to entering a chess match and then flipping the table and punching your opponent in the face and then jumping up and celebrating.

If I remember correctly, it wasn't even Nintendo who created that tech demo. Or am I wrong?

Not sure about that, from what I remember they actually developed it rather quickly, whether it was nintendo or a small team or something I don't know.

Sigh, you still dont get it. :( Oh well. All I know is that a game has finite recources and time for development and I (and I believe the Zelda audience) would rather Nintendo use that time to create 9 dungeons with [no] VA instead of 8 or less dungeons with VA. If you dont understand my post, look up the definition of "opportunity cost". You will learn a little about economics. ;)

You're coy attitude and contentious condescention is entirely unnecessary.  I am aware of the "limited resources" argument  and the principle of "opportunity cost," that is why I said it would have to be planned out and done from the get go; obviously if this Zelda lacks it it can't be done in less than a year. 

The only one not getting something is you. Does this sound remotely similar in any way to Zelda?  No, no it does not.  Wall-E is a mostly silent protagonist but many characters around him are not.  In The Legend of Zelda the whole cast is silent and pantomimes their "lines' while subtitles appear.  If you don't think this holds Zelda back you are, quite frankly, living in denial.  This has nothing to do with what Zelda fans are content with, this whole discussion is about broadening appeal.  

And since you clearly don't have the foggiest idea what I am saying in my posts, take a philosophy course.  You'll learn a bit about logic.  And maybe about how not to be a condescending prick, although I have heard there is no cure for that ailment. 

Like I said earlie I know a few COD gamers who look down at borderlands simply because of its look then seem inerested once they here what its about. First impressions/graphics definately count for those kind of people.

Because it is a time honored and respected tradition for Nintendo to troll the fanbase when it comes to teasing new Zeldas.

In all seriousness though, it's because in both Gamecube and Wii U's case, Zelda was a good franchise to showcase the potential graphics of said systems in pre-system release tech demos. But when they actually started making those games they realized those art styles didn't fit the games being made.

To try and trick people who hated the Skyward Sword art style into buying a Wii-U.

I think the notion that a Zelda with a stylized art style is less marketable is bollocks, to be honest.  I mean, look at this:

Is anybody going to try and argue that GTA isn't marketable? Come on.  Borderlands? No.

Moreover, if you're trying to attract buyers to the Wii U, washing Zelda in the same homogenized, realistic green-and-brown art style that's flooded the industry isn't the way to do it.  Zelda needs to appeal to Zelda fans before it appeals to anyone else.  Attracting new Nintendo buyers should be done with new IP and more 3rd party support.  Nintendo's absolute strong point is its 1st party IP.  Whatever their other faults are, when it comes to their own IP, they know what they're doing.  Armchair internet marketing experts don't know better.

For the record, Ocarina of Time is the best selling Zelda because it was massively hyped and the first 3D entry.  It was an absurdly influential game that changed the industry forever.  It's still being emulated today in some way by pretty much every action game out there.  To downplay that and chalk up its popularity to "it had more realistic graphics" is a great disservice.  Ocarina of Time came out about the same time as Castlevania 64 and both were 3D action-adventure games.  Which one do people remember and why?  Castlevania for its dark maturity and realistic graphics? Or Ocarina of Time for its superior gameplay and whimsical storytelling?  Twilight Princess is the second best selling Zelda because it was a launch title on the Wii, one of the best and fastest selling consoles of all time, and the first console Zelda game in four years.

Let's also not forget that the first original Zelda game on a system has always outsold the second, no exceptions.  That applies to both consoles and handhelds.  Ignoring all of that and assuming that OoT and TP were the most popular because of realistic graphics ignores Majora's Mask, which was even darker and more mature than OoT, but sold poorly by comparison.  There are other market reasons for that.  It has nothing at all to do with art direction.

Finally, the E3 2014 reveal of Zelda U literally dropped my jaw.  It is easily the most breathtakingly gorgeous Zelda game ever made, and one of the most gorgeous games ever made, period.  I'll take it over Twilight Princess HD any day.