The market for Pokemon is not the same as the (potential) market for Zelda. A toon Zelda only appeals to existing fans. A Zelda in the style of the tech demo would have attracted gamers who will now avoid it.

The older is a tech demo. They had not decided on what art they wished to use for the next Zelda, but they wanted to show off the tech on the WiiU.

I think showing an example of a potentially upcoming game is the wrong choice for them, because it does create expectations. Perhaps they should just use generic stuff. But really it just means that whatever demo they show at a console's launch, don't expect the next game in the franchise to look like that.

I, for one, am very happy about the visual upgrade to the new style (;

I dont think you even understand what you are posting.

We are the current market, the loyalists, the number of sales would probably not double because of the art style, this will just miss a little bit of actual buyers. Anyone who ever considered buying a Wii U because of a Zelda, would still buy even with this art style.

Unfortunately, the loyalists are not enough. If Nintendo only sells to the loyalists, they'll be extinct within a decade. They need to expand their player base.

What? Zelda and Pokemon are both made by Nintendo and they sometimes are on the same hardware (3DS). Yuck. You're just a waste of time.

But they are different genres, and have the potential to reach very different kinds of gamers. There are gamers who would never touch Pokemon with a ten foot pole but would have bought a darker styled modern Zelda.

Good point.

One could even go a step further and say Wii Fit and Metroid Prime 3. Both made by NIntendo, both Wii games, very different audience.

??? Not really. The publisher plays a huge role in the "making" process. The Pokemon Company is essentially Nintendo owned.