| happydolphin said: That's not my point. Two games may vary in style it doesn't make one necessarily more inspired than the other. What can bejudged though is, above and beyond variability in the sphere of quality, what constitutes design choices that are not rooted in quality? And that's what I was pointing out in a series like NSMB. You'll notice that pokoko mentioned that jumping isn't a fun gameplay mechanic to him, that's his tastes. But you can't say that NSMB doesn't have solid gameplay. True it gets repetitive after a certain number of games but intrinsically the gameplay is tight. I can't say the same about the presentation aspect of the game. So there's taste, and then there's objective measures of quality. Objectively speaking the presentation aspect of NSMB is lacking grossly. I've mentioned why in many other threads so I won't go there now, but at least you can understand the difference between tastes and just objective measure of quality. |
Well, I'll bear with you for a moment -- I'll suppose NSMB has objectively terrible art design. I don't really know or care whether or not this is the case, as I don't play many Mario games, and NSMB are among the many Mario games I don't play.
So it has bad art design. So what? There are thousands of games with terrible art design. Why rail against Mario in particular?
The whole thing reminds me of the 1080 vs 720 issue -- gamers who ONLY play games that run in 1080p because 720p looks awful to them. Yes, 1080 is objectively better than 720. But the difference is visible to so few, and is a real issue to fewer still, that it hardly matters. Clearly, some 20 million plus people don't really see a problem with NSMB's art direction, or if they do see the problem, they don't care. It doesn't bother them. It does bother you, and that's okay. Just play games with better art design. That'll show Nintendo not to make games that don't appeal to you! (??)
