When looking back at the reaction to Wind Waker's reveal in 2002, the narrative that's formed now is that it was an example of shallow and insecure gamers pre-judging a game for its aesthetics and unfairly knocking it because they felt entitled to a more mature looking Zelda game based on the Spaceworld 2000 tech demo. While much of that is true, I think actual context was slightly more nuanced than just that.
I've mentioned before that Ocarina
somewhat elevated Zelda into the mature franchise of Nintendo especially with Metroid still in hibernation and Fire Emblem not having broken out in the West. What's also relevant was that the Gamecube quickly found itself having released on the wrong side of a zeitgeist shift that hit gaming hard in 2000/2001. Major genre defining titles likes GTA III, Metal Gear Solid 2, and Halo were all making significant impacts and none of them were coming out on Nintendo consoles.
Then when you consider the other big events of the time period like Sega going third party, Microsoft making online play with Xbox Live a cornerstone of the console, and numerous non-platformer genres doing even stronger business on the PS2 than the PS1? It added to the perception of the Gamecube was a nice console for kids starting out with the hobby but not a system made for fans wanting more sophisticated and/or evolving gameplay experiences. Adding to this were films like Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring getting incredibly big around this time and illustrating the impact well executed fantasy stories could have when done with respect to the genre.
Such a situation I think made Zelda perceived as even more critical to some Nintendo hardcores; the big first party IP that (by the definitions of the time period) could be the mature and nuanced franchise that the Gamecube really needed. A significant and realistic Zelda title could thus do for that series what X did for Final Fantasy; taking the growth in the 5th generation to an even further level and really demonstrate just how depth LoZ really had. You have all the hype and expectation of what this next game could be and in 2002 fans and the broader gaming public after all that time saw this:
Now this isn't a bad trailer, however in a lot of ways it doesn't quite do justice to the full scope or even entire tone of Wind Waker. It highlights the charm of the designs and the range of facial expressions delightfully, but if you knew nothing about WW and just had this to go off, you could be forgiven for assuming the next entry was Zelda by way of Looney Tunes. It was essentially one of the least ideal reveals given the presumption of the time period and for some it probably felt like a complete betrayal.
Keep in mind, I'm not defending the practice of writing off an entire game with such little footage just due to art style. There was a clear self-image issue video game and especially Nintendo fans had about the hobby at that point, and much of the pre-emptive dismissal of the cell shaded cartoon aesthetic was rooted in that. Given the direction of where gaming seemed to be going though, I think some disappointment was at least a little bit understandable. The industry's eventual excess in "real" aesthetics circa the 7th gen and the subsequent move away from it in the 8th was something few could have predicted at the time and Wind Waker's art style, while aging beautifully in the two decades since, seemed symbolic of Nintendo's commercial and cultural superannuation to hardcore fans (a status it arguably it didn't entirely shake off until the Switch).
Basically, while WW getting its flowers now is entirely justified and the "Celda" dismissal was in many ways silly, the backlash did make sense with Nintendo's then place in the broader industry and a media form that was finally hitting some mainstream recognition after 15-20 years of being seen as a kid's hobby. It was a brilliant title whose merits were simply not of critical value to what many believed gaming needed at that time.
