Several times on this forum people say that Nintendo games have the best graphics of the 7th gen and right now of the 8th gen and explain that saying it is because of the art direction. And when countered about the resources and technical achievement of the titles (in regard to graphics only) they will come with several excuses.

One of the best is that Nintendo goes for creativity and Sony/MS go for technology/techniques. Meaning that Sony/Ms efforts are nule and simple because you just need to put more horsepower to get the result, while lacking the charm of Nintendo games.

They often say that is a lot harder to create characters (well they already exist for like 30+ years in some cases) and rich enviroment in cell shading or other cartooney techniques because the artist needs to imaginate, and in "photo-realistic" games they just need to copy the place (lets say Venice). I won't even enter in the worlds presented by FInal Fantasy that have photo-realism type of graphics in fantastic worlds belonging to sci-fi/medieval lores.

I think I understand they. Nowadays is a lot easier to find fans of Harry Potter or Crepuscule than Eneida and James Joyce's Ulysses. One could say that the first two are the work of imagination (well let's ignore that they are a amalgam of other books ideas and some recipes) and the last two are work of technique (as if they don't have passion and a compelling story, maybe too complex for most). Would anyone really debate that HP and Crepuscule are better books or histories than Eneida and Ulysses? It could be debated that they are more enjoyable (personnal opinion), but in no way analysing the whole piece can someone regard HP above Eneida (even if HP sells more).

Simpler histories and telling/writting methods get more love nowadays.

But using some Nintendo fans logic, It's harder to write a picture book for kids where you need to draw the fantastic characters than writting an aerodynamics book in which you just copy theories and formulas, or writting LOTR that is just a narrated dictionary and that is simply absurd. No one tries to dismiss Mario's games gameplay (we mostly complain about the milking of the character... and I can't get past of all the Mario Sports IPs that Nintendo shoved down our throat, but I know Nintendo's fans defense saying they design the gameplay and all aspects and just put a Mario template on the characters and that doesn't affect the game... well for me it affects the fact that someday we may have a cooking daisy or Koopa "guitar" Hero. It basically seems like Nintendo trying to force people to buy their product using Mario as a quality seal, not letting people deciding to buy the game for what it is, but that is another discussion), so why do Nintendo fans try so hard to dismiss other games achievements on the graphics field saying all of that doesn't matter and that cheap to make games are more graphically impressive than games that focus basically on graphics (and prefferences about gameplay x graphics isn't the discussion here)???

Believe it or not, some aspects of quality discernment can be subjective. How much stake is put into subjective measures is dependent on the individual, and it's healthy for the market and society in general for some people to value creative achievement over technical prowess, and vice versa.

Personally, Nintendo's commitment to 60fps and top-notch animation (something that gets overlooked far too often in graphics discussion) leads me to believe that they have their priorities in order when it comes to the presentation of the Mario series.

Evaluate the quality of the game or if the aesthetic is pleasant is subjective. To discuss the technical aspects of the graphical achievement isn't.

Of course the animation is overlooked when talking about graphics because it is a moving of the goal post. Non-Nintendo fans accept that they have other priorities and that conduct their design of console and games (even by making decision to be cheaper and more cost-effective). It's Nintendo fan that try to pass Nintendo graphics as better achievements than Sony/Ms and use weak excuses to that. It isn't like the whole game is hand-paint in afresco frame by frame... Just see how much time and money it costs to make the animation for Nintendo (or any weekly anime) - even worst when it was a SD versus 1080p comparison - versus a Final Fantasy type graphic.

Technical achievement is not as easily measured and compared than you make it seem. Yes, Infamous: Second Son is more technically advaned than Mario Kart 8 overall when speaking as objectively as possible... but then again, it's not running at a stable 60 frames per second. When one game has a technical feature that another doesn't, then there is room for subjectivity in technical discussion. You may call it a weak excuse, but it's not actually irrational justification.

To compare a simulation of let's say 120k polygons at 30 fps with dozens of enemies against a 10k model at 60fps with fewer things on the screen doesn't make 60fps on Mario better than 30 fps in Infamous. If we were discussing DR3 multitude of enemies making the fps drop bellow 20fps the excuse of too much on screen is valid, cutting everything to 1/3rd and achieve 60fps wouldn't make any player happier.

And as a lot of people in the forum have posted and I tend to agree, 1080p and 60 fps are more buzzword in the graphics department than the sole reason for a good graphic, the effects are more important... it is basically, models/textures/effects 1st, resolution second, framerate depending on gameplay needs.

Let's not forget and Mario Kart and Infamous are different games with different needs. Racing games benefit more from, at the least, stable framerates with 60fps being ideal for gameplay (particularly multiplayer) purposes. Would Mario Kart 8 be a better game at 30fps but better overall effects? I think you'll at least have a divided consensus over the answer to that question.

However, I agree with you that people who are saying that Nintendo has the best-looking games of this generation... probably haven't even played enough games to fairly reach that conclusion. Yet, I think you're going about your argument in the wrong way. The whole Harry Potter/Ulyssees analogy is so extreme that I'm not sure it's even applicable to a Flappy Bird vs. Crysis discussion! Literature isn't even a visual art form and the line between technical ability is creativity is more blurry since it's depedant on a rather malleable ruleset, not physical technology with more well-understood and evolving capabilities and limitations.

subjective can't be measured.....


same reason why picasso is more popular than some realistic renaissance painting....

Is that a bad thing? Personally, I'm happy with the implication that the human imagination is difficult/impossible to measure and interpret.

I do think (for me of course) that when it comes to graphics it is largely a matter of style over technical achievement. A photorealistic game will wow me for five minutes, a creative art style will wow me for hours. Wind Waker (both the original and the remake) or Okami still take my breath away and Valkyria Chronicles or Ni no Kuni have charm out the wazoo and A Link to the Past or Super Metroid are jaw dropping-ly gorgeous.

While Uncharted was certainly a pretty sight to look at, those pretty sights faded to the back of my mind pretty quickly, while the imagination and charm of the games I listed above reminded me how stunning they were with every turn.

However, I realize that is all personal preference and when it comes to art styles, there is no such thing as superior. I will say that your comparison to books seems very biased and doesn't make very much sense (you say imagination and technique are two sides to the same coin, however I believe they are entirely different metrics...). Also, the anti-mario rant you rattled off at the end just makes this who thread seem like an anti-Nintendo/Nintendo fan hate speech.

it is a good... thing... it is a bad thing when someone is rationalizing how this is better than that... even though it is a matter of taste...

same thing with a awards or sports that involves judging by points.  Some stuff is just better than the eyes of the individual