So, we must retrocede in the argument because you werent happy with the conclusion. It hasnt changed. Those games are predominantly grey and brown with a prevalent dominance of dry tones. This is a fact, you just have to see the % of the image they represent and the lack of color variety and quantity compared to mario kart.

But this is a different thread and the point is that not all look grey and brown, and that is very true, but those games arent good examples. Bring out a Xenoblade X, an FFXV for example, and you see a much richer varied pallete. Straight from real life rips are boring. If that was the measure of good graphics then you are comparing a painting to a photograph. I suppose a photograph is more realistic, but its not necessarely the better looking.

It really all comes down to personal preference and perception, as arguing whether something is "too brown and grey" or "too cartoonish" is completely subjective in the end. Some people prefer a more realistic looking game, or a game with muted colors and a darker atmosphere.

You could show two people the exact same screenshot and one could claim that it's colorful, and the other claim that it looks dull and muted. Neither are really wrong, since there isn't a set standard as to what is considered 'colorful'.

Yeah exactly. The bleak colour pallet is there to convey a tone and a theme, chances are those games will not feature a wide and varied bright pallet because it would be totally out of place. It's a strange argument though, it's like blaming war games for being war games, it doesn't make much sense.

As someone who understands what is going on, I find this conversation hilarious.

Agreed. It's lovely stuff.

So "black" as we use it is actually a misnomer, because it isn't truly black at all. In order for us to see it, it must reflect some small, tiny amount of light, which would make it definitively not black. Visible blackness (an oxymoron) reflects an amount of light so minimal that you perceive it as the absence of light entirely, when it is simply very, very, very dark grey.

I would say that 'greys' as a group are a curve approaching an asymptote -- black -- as they grow darker. So the "color" we call "black" is actually just the darkest possible grey we can create or perceive.

When talking about colorfull seems like person think 256 collor palette with 16 simultaneous is colorfull while 256 shades of grey aint altough Both have the same number of colors.
the same way they think mk8 is colorfull when in reality a shadow in KZ:SF have more color variation than it. Don't mistake color variation with distance between frequency of the colors or contrast.
And realistic graphics will have the color palette of the ambience it shows, non-realism don't care about it.
If you see a rain forest or tundra setting game that is brownish you can complain, but a city not being greyish would be strange.
about paint being art and photo not being please review your logic. Perhaps you think the cistine chapel ceiling and Monalisa not art because they try realism and have mutted down colors right? While there was an exposition of invisible paintings that were called art.

I would like to call out Nintendo fans over this issue. They are the first one that bring this up, and act that everything that they play is the most creative thing that was ever made, even tough the company makes almost the same things for 3 decades.

Its mostly born from envy towards everything that is not available on their system, and whenever they try to downplay other developers creativity :|. It is sad and pathetic in the same time, especially when the very same people try to prove that the very same tech that they bashed a decade ago is high-tech now.

Man, stop spouting no sense. If you don't know physics, ophytalmology and the like.

you wouldn't ever see true black as that would mean nothing being transmitted. And we call a plethora of colors black. And who is to say black is a shade of grey. Really dark brow would look black to you as someone with brown hair can be Said to have Black hair because of the way you perceive it as a whole or a single hair.

a Blue wall when you turn of the Light turns black and by that a shade of grey because you in that situation would be incapable of seeing it is blue?

your eye have cells that see color and cells that see "greyscale" by light strength. Is a BW pic less colorfull because you took out information from it?

there is too much than the eye don't meet.

And it is no misnomer. In real life there is no true replication of straight line, circle, true black or white (the sun gives us an yellowish white. We call them those names because in pratical use that is what they are and they had that name before we understood them. Actually science uses the misnomer for simplicit. I would bet black was considered a color before newton explained dispersion of wavelength of visible light, discovered white was all and black none. And we took even more to understand only Black hole is true black (because not even Light escape it) because anything with energy will emit or reflect something. And the only real life straight I can remember is light path in vacumin total absence of gravity (never observed since true vaccum don't exist and no matter how faint gravity exist everywhere. So don't try to use absolute terms in confusion of theory and real life.

This is a lot of trouble to go to simply to try to help people understand what irony is.