This is a topic that has been nagging me more and more recently after having several conversations with Nintendo fans about MK8.

In the past art direction was the most important thing to Nintendo fans, and that was something i appreciated. Had i said i thought MK7 was nicer to look at than GT5 because of it's great art direction (a real opinion of mine), many Nintendo fans would have been quick to agree with me. Yet things seem to have changed with MK8.

I've never had anything but praise for MK8's art direction. Despite it's lack of graphical fidelity i believe it's one of the best looking 8th gen titles we've seen, thanks to Nintendo excellent artistic skills. In the past that statement would have been welcome, yet suddenly i seem to be being attacked for it :/ So here i'm going to try and explain what exactly i mean when i call MK8 a graphical disappointment.

I say it based on two criteria. The first is what the WiiU is capable off, the second is comparing it to the competition.

First comes the comparison to the competition. If i look at MK8 and Driveclub, i don't believe either looks better than the other. They are both beautiful looking games, but for different reasons. Before i go further i should note that this is a GRAPHICAL comparison, not a PERFORMANCE comparison. If you want to have a 60fps vs 30fps argument, have it somewhere else.

To really judge a game graphically you have to take an up close look, so here are two close ups of the karts/cars of DC and MK8. When we do that with something like DC, we see cars with huge poly gon counts, excellent use of AA and some top level textures (what i would describe as graphically impressive). Then we turn to MK8 and see very low res textures (especially on the floor), awful AA, and visible polygon counts (the exact opposite of graphically impressive).

None of this would have mattered to most Nintendo fans in the past, as long as the game looked good for other reaons, which it does.

Back when it was thought MK8 was 720p/60fps i was told i was wrong for believe MK8 should be making better use of the WiiU's power (by everyone who replied to be except carl-6). Yet some of those same users fully embraced the possibility that it may in-fact be 1080p/60fps. I'm sure you can see why that's a tad hypocritical, since resource wise that would be like running the game twice over. At 1080p/60fps i can fully understand MK8's lack of graphical fidelity, because it is at leats pushing the WiiU's hardware. At 720p/60fps i was disappointed.

All in all it's been a confusing experience. I miss the days when fantastic art style was enough for all Nintendo fans, but i suppose we can't have everything :/

So discuss! What has brought about this change in many Nintendo fans?

Like i said to someone else, it's not a genuine comparison. I'm just using DC and MK8 as points of reference for comparison of the universal graphical aspects of almost all 3D games, such as the polygon counts, textures, AA, AF etc. For example I wouldn't criticize MK8 for not having realistic road textures, but i would criticize it for them being low rez/murky.

As an overall package i do find MK8 a lot more pleasing on the eyes than DC, but this was a comparison of the technical side of things. The thread was primarily about the willful ignorance of some Nintendo fans here, which wasn't much of an issue during the 7th gen.

In the 7th gen Nintendo had to rely on art direction to make their games look great. When the WiiU was released i was exited to see how good a game could look with a combination of Nintendo's artistic skill and high end console graphics. It's a hope that started with 3D Mario then moved to MK8 and now lays in the hands of Zelda >.< 

Regardless to my ranting, MK8 itself will no doubt be great ^^

You said you didn't want to discuss why MK8 looks worse than Drive Club, spoiler alert *it's performance*. Let's even take the 60fps thing out. Look how many things have a direct effect on the player:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1ju83K_VfY

Opponents, monsters, moving obsticals (stationary ones don't require any prosessing other than rendering), items, and the physics of the vehicles in its different modes (gliding, anti grav, or regular). 

Now let's look at the different things Drive Club has to process:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6ROVV9PU2k

Opponents, and time lapsing. I could be wrong (and post if I am, I'd like to see) There isn't even any shift animation besides the guy moving his fingers on his right hand to shift up and left hand to shift down.

In Mario Kart 8 there is also 4 player split screen, with 2 player split screen having no impact on performance. Drive club doesn't have split screen.

http://www.justpushstart.com/2013/09/driveclub-lacks-splitscreen-multiplayer/

There are also customization (such as the frame, tires, and glider which effects speed, weight, acceleration, handling, and off road) in Mario Kart 8, there is NO performance customization in Drive Club.

"There is no performance customisation in the game. We have spent a lot of time developing the handling model for each of the cars so we’ve made sure the handling and characteristic of each of the cars really come through. We don’t want to change that. We want to make sure that the experience is just like the real car."

Read more at http://gamingbolt.com/driveclub-interview-ps4-advantages-dedicated-servers-customisation-club-progress-and-more#lUBJdd0hq2lDf4u8.99

And there is no official word on how many players can join the online matches. 

You might be "disappointed" with the graphics of Mario Kart 8, but I'm disappointed in quite a bit of things missing from Drive Club. Enjoy dem graphucs!!!!

Like i said to someone else, it's not a genuine comparison. I'm just using DC and MK8 as points of reference for comparison of the universal graphical aspects of almost all 3D games, such as the polygon counts, textures, AA, AF etc. For example I wouldn't criticize MK8 for not having realistic road textures, but i would criticize it for them being low rez/murky.

As an overall package i do find MK8 a lot more pleasing on the eyes than DC, but this was a comparison of the technical side of things. The thread was primarily about the willful ignorance of some Nintendo fans here, which wasn't much of an issue during the 7th gen.

In the 7th gen Nintendo had to rely on art direction to make their games look great. When the WiiU was released i was exited to see how good a game could look with a combination of Nintendo's artistic skill and high end console graphics. It's a hope that started with 3D Mario then moved to MK8 and now lays in the hands of Zelda >.< 

Regardless to my ranting, MK8 itself will no doubt be great ^^

I know it's your fault but I hoped people would ignore it. Obviously, this didn't happen.

Do you mean to say it's not my fault? Because otherwise i don't quite get what you said o:

Like i said to someone else, it's not a genuine comparison. I'm just using DC and MK8 as points of reference for comparison of the universal graphical aspects of almost all 3D games, such as the polygon counts, textures, AA, AF etc. For example I wouldn't criticize MK8 for not having realistic road textures, but i would criticize it for them being low rez/murky.

As an overall package i do find MK8 a lot more pleasing on the eyes than DC, but this was a comparison of the technical side of things. The thread was primarily about the willful ignorance of some Nintendo fans here, which wasn't much of an issue during the 7th gen.

In the 7th gen Nintendo had to rely on art direction to make their games look great. When the WiiU was released i was exited to see how good a game could look with a combination of Nintendo's artistic skill and high end console graphics. It's a hope that started with 3D Mario then moved to MK8 and now lays in the hands of Zelda >.< 

Regardless to my ranting, MK8 itself will no doubt be great ^^

I know it's your fault but I hoped people would ignore it. Obviously, this didn't happen.

how can someone downplay 3d world and MK8 graphics?