I've seen the data before, and plenty of people (even a mod no less) called you out for embellishing when you were peddling that "pre-Aonuma Zelda was more popular" bs before.
Embellishing?
Here is the raw data:
Gathered from:
http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda
(I've checked, and they seem to just be pulling the most up-to-date numbers from Nintendo)
Ignoring remakes (which really just make the classic Zelda games look even better in terms of popularity staying power anyway) and the Four Swords/Minish Cap low outliers (which, again, were Aonuma games, and would bring down the sales average for Aonuma games), you'd end up with the following sales:
Legend of Zelda 6.51
Zelda II: Adventure of Link 4.38
A Link to the Past 4.61
Link's Awakening 3.83
Ocarina of Time 7.6
Majora's Mask 3.36
Oracle of Seasons/Ages 3.96 (combined)
The Wind Waker 4.6
Twilight Princess Wii: 6.82 (Wii - 5.23, GCN - 1.59) - edit: outdated apparently? Should be 8.58m combined.
See this post - enclosing other figures as edit/updates for transparency
Phantom Hourglass 4.96
Spirit Tracks 3.19
Skyward Sword 3.69
A Link Between Worlds 2.41
There are five games from the pre-Aonuma era (pre-MM, pre-2000). Those games sold a combined 26.93 million (not counting remakes).
26.93 / 5 = 5.386
The average for the pre-Aonuma (pre-MM, pre-2000) games is
5.386 million
There are eight games from the Aonuma era (MM and beyond, 2000 and beyond, not counting the Four Swords games or Link's Crossbow Training). Those games sold a combined 32.89 million (edit: updated 34.65m) (not counting remakes).
The average for the Aonuma (MM and beyond, 2000 and beyond) games is
4.12375 million
(edit updated: 4.1875m)
If you count the Aonuma era games, there are ten games (debatably 11 if you count LttP + Four Swords, but I think
that would be disingenuous since LttP is a pre-Aonuma game), and they sold a combined 35.12 million (edit: updated 36.88m).
The average for the Aonuma games, including these games, is 3.512 million (updated: 3.688).
There is no world in which the Aonuma games are not considerably less popular (by at least 1 million sales
on average) than the pre-Aonuma games, and that's
despite the gaming population (and particularly the population that is hungry for games with large worlds) having very significantly grown since then.
They're two different genres that appeal to different audiences; I wouldn't be surprised if nobody buys a Zelda game and thinks "I'm expecting there to be an option which allows me to play as a skinny Goron priestess with mind control abilities from the snowy mountains of Termina!"
Your arbitrary comparison will continue to be mute no matter how much you bring it up, they're two different genres with different expectations.
The people who invested in Skyrim probably never wanted to invest in Zelda or the Wii in the first place.
Yes, but I've never argued the thing you just quoted above.
I've argued that Zelda was more popular when it was non-linear/relatively open world, placed more importance on combat/RPG-like equipment upgrades, had more straightforward dungeons that didn't revolve around puzzles, etc., and that people are now looking to games like Skyrim or Minecraft
for these specific things that are now missing from Zelda.
Because Skyrim is an action-rpg and action rpg's tend to focus on that kind of stuff; if it's not more fun and in-depth in a game who's whole genre is dedicated to it that would be kind of sad.
No one expects Zelda to have intricate crafting mechanics, stat systems, or an in-depth economy system and if they happen to be present they're usually just novelties or they're implemented in a way that's simple enough to serve the needs of an action adventure game without complicating things and muddying it's focus.
You're right, no one expects Zelda to offer these things.
But you're speaking from the perspective of a customer who continues to buy Zelda. You are not speaking from the perspective of a customer who no longer buys Zelda because it no longer suits his/her tastes.
Also on the subject of level design. Zelda 1 is primitive, the devs were basically just winging it, and they wanted it to be different from Mario; of course it's level design is flat and straightforward.
Zelda 2 had a lot of important platforming in it, and (as someone else has already stated) ALTTP's level design was anything but flat. ALTTP's more "primitive" dungeon design was basically the direct ancestor of the modern obstacle course-esque stuff that has been a staple of Zelda for the past 16 or so years.
I wouldn't be so daft as to argue that dungeon design in Zelda 1, Zelda II, and LttP are exactly the same. What I can argue is that combat and navigating the level's layout were still centerpieces, and "puzzles" were less prominent than in games beyond OoT. Even OoT is miles away from a game like SS or even ALBW.
