The marketing thing is inseparable from the topic at hand.
. . .
I didn't initiate anything. You came to my thread, I just answered the question.
I was going through threads, read yours including a lingering feeling that it should have been something else, I questioned why that was still a thing despite marketing having been used and abused as an excuse in this sub before, but you made a point in making it more than that. Then became insistent and started projecting my own thoughts.
Some people had no gripe with pre-release, but just didn't like the game, or had wishes for some things being different. No issue with that in itself, at least that can lead to specific discussions on what they don't like. This here is about marketing because you make it important.
"The Great Calamity" has always referred to a very specific event which is spoken of in Breath of the Wild.
. . .
Prior to release, this is what everyone would have pictured upon hearing the words "The Great Calamity".
Again, I acknowledge the early perception, and I don't know why you stop at that. That's precisely the problem, you had early expectations and didn't update them as relevant information came in.
But no, the Great Calamity itself does not require defeat. The one 10000 years ago was won. This is made very clear in BotW. The Great Calamity happened in AoC.
We saw an alternate timeline wish-fulfillment scenario without the cost, without the tragedy, and perhaps most importantly, without an ending which leads into the game it's supposed to be telling the backstory for in the first place. Because The Great Calamity is Breath of the Wild's backstory, the event that led to Link waking up where he is at the beginning of the game.
"This isn't the right story because it doesn't tell the story I deem right". No, you didn't expect it, but the story told in AoC is just the right one. It's compatible with the overall marketing. Again, going in circles from your own expectations.
That video was the most comprehensive look into the game that we ever got during its pre-launch period
Oh really? Why skip hints in subsequent trailers, and the extensive showcases and the demo? You relied quiet a lot on fan theories earlier, what about the tons of analyses that did the job of listing these hints for people?
You can't have it both ways. Either you restrain yourself from being spoiler about anything, and stay on very early and superficial assumptions. But then own up to whatever you agreed to preorder without looking at anything, not even previews or "before you buy" videos. Or you do inform yourself, and stick to what is said, not what you strongly wish it was, to consider what it could still be.
If you can pick "many people" disappointed for disillusion, I can peak "many people" (actually not so easy, since they generally don't complain) who saw just enough to doubt of any strict continuity, which, again, was never promised.
For every doubt involving time travel that eventually surfaced (due to the demo release, or otherwise), there was a contradictory element from somewhere which seemed to explain our doubts away.
And? You still rushed to a conclusion without sufficient info. The rational approach was to be skeptical of what the story was actually going to be.
It's also a pretty contrived way to resolve all the counter-intuitions just so it fits a specific story we had in reference. But considering a time split, no, that was too far? In the Zelda franchise of all things.
Advertising material saying things like "Discover what led to the fall of Hyrule".
. . .
followed by Zelda giving a look of doubt to the camera, almost like a "knowing wink" to the player.
We've been over this already. That's the main problem: you interpreted this. And what the heck is that "knowing wink"? That's all vague and I think a poor reason to put it all on "marketing" when it's also enabled by a bad personal management of hype.
People have every right to feel deceived by the marketing.
Of course. I'm still just pointing out how people should know better.