That may be your opinion but its certainly not mine. The tech demo blows away the actual art style both from a technical and an art style point of view. Regardless from an art style only point of view the tech demo is a better option in this day and age in my opinion. Maybe during the days of the GameCube they had to go with that kind of art style out of necessity but its not necessary now. At the end of the day its my personal preference whether you and others agree with it or not. The hardcore gamer may be able to accept this art style but if Nintendo is to reach the masses they really need to use the tech demo art style to pull in all those other gamers.
Heres your problem. You are trying to argue your opinion, on a subject comprised of facts.
Is the tech demos pathetic low poly tiny room more technically impressive than the actual games seamless gigantic open world? Where you can go anywhere you see? Every square inch of which is completely covered in dense grass, with each blade individually lit and shaded in real time?
How about the pathetically rigged tech demo link with ceramic doll face? How about the fact the actual game characters face has more animation points in her face than the entire tech demos link? Hell, the damn ARROW has more animation points than tech demo link.
How about all the shepards and goats in the fields reacting in real time to the monster? Oh wait, there WAS no other characters in the tech demo.
How about the fact the in game monster has more polygons and animation points in one arm than the entire ghoma model from the tech demo?
How about how it PERFECTLY reacts dynamically to uneven surfaces where tech demo goma has to be put on entirely flat ground?
How about the high speed cross country chase, while tech demo ghoma simply rotates in the same place?
You can have your opinion. Thats all it is. But it cant stand up to the facts.
The actual game obliterates the tech demo on every level except irritating adolescent 'gritty realism is teh matures!'