@Zod:
First I would like to adress this statement here:
"You and other people here demand from me an extremely high accuracy that not even you are able to follow. It's easy to criticize me out of thin air, not giving subtancial arguments, not providing evidences to back up your claims, and then demand the opposite from me."
You are misunderstanding a lot of things. I personally am saying "your opinion is not fact", not "your opinion is wrong". To do this, I am poking holes in your theories and opinions to demonstrate that you aren't being objective in your points. That is what I am arguing. Feel free to hold these opinions and I will not cross you, but don't pretend they are facts. That is why we demand accuracy. A fact, by definition is something that can be proven. You are not providing us with "facts", you are providing us with conclusions based loosely around facts.
Anyways, on to the rest:
a. "Effort=talent+dedication+capabilities"
The above is your definition of the word effort. I would just like to point out that none of those words have a quantifiable measure and as such, effort is not an objective term. Others have went into this already so I will be quick, but assigning a value to "effort" you are making some sort of value judgement or assumption in your head that cannot be proven or measured and therefore cannot be considered factual evidence (feel free to hold your opinion though).
b. "I'm just selecting some simple but highly correlated indicators that suggest how much effort / time / money they might have required. Don't bother to look at small ineffiences here and there of such a system. It is simple and it works quite well."
Simple: Yes
Works well: Arguable
Once again, you are just making things up without any real factual basis. Also, the inefficiencies are not small. I have already said this but your argument is as follows: Vocals+Instrument is more effort than Instruments only. However you agreed that vocals are just another instrument. Therefore, by the transitive property Any Specific Instrument+Instruments is more effort than Instruments only (lacking specific instrument. That means, by your logic, an equal conclusion would be Any song with a Piccolo (Specific Instrument+Other Instruments) takes more effort than any song without a Piccolo (Other Instruments Only). That my friend is broken logic.
c. "Ultimately, companies don't have any skills. People do. What is the difference between paying to inside or outside workers?"
So you would give Mamoru Samuragochi (look him up) applause for all the "effort" he put in to "writing" all his music then? I personally would applaud someone more for drawing a nice picture than paying a friend to draw a picture for them...I guess we are getting too far away from the argument at its core in this particular discussion but I will allow you to keep your opinion that licensed music is of equal (or in some cases greater) worth than original music.
d. "A talented and very committed worker usually costs more."
So then you know how much each of those bands who worked with Sonic Team was paid in comparison to standard payments doled out for the purchase of new compositions in other video games? I'd like to see those figures please!
e. "But at least I showed you an example of a Sonic level that has vocal music."
I would like to point out just how different that particular level is to 3D mario games and how similar it is to..(see next point)
f. "NFS Hot Pursuit, Pro Skater, TrackMania, Crashday, SSX, MotorStorm"
...pretty much all racing/sports games...I think that is pretty interesting dont you? I think it lends itself well to the idea that vocal music is good for a certain type of game (typically the kind where you don't really think too much and just go with the flow, which is typically fairly fast paced) and not so good for other types.
g. "Regarding the 2nd answer, come on, you're not being honest. You surely hear Mario 64's music and realize how simple it is. Why can't you admit it? It has less tracks with less time, less instruments and less complexity."
First of all, I would like to say that you were the one who didn't want to argue about musical complexity because it really isn't something that can be measured.
Second, I would like to say that I am truly jealous of your magical ears that allow you to hear effort. That is truly a miracle...
Third, I would like to say that I find it humorous that you are trumpeting generic, cheesey rock tracks as your paragon of musical effort.
h. "But, regardless that to be true or false, the fact is that the use of voice in music is highly correlated with complexity, sophistication and number of instruments."
Woah, I would directly argue that point! Most rock bands have 1-2 guitars, bass, drums and vocals. Most pop bands have vocals and some electronics. Most rap bands have vocals and some electronics. Most symphonies have well over 10 different instruments, with multiple people at some instruments. Then there are bands such as Explosions in the Sky or Godspeed You! Black Emperor who fall into the category of Post-Rock which typically is more complex and sophisticated and has more instruments than most rock bands.
I would say that the opposite point is true. Vocals make songs easier to carry in simple, repetive pieces (I have already went over this) because they give the brain something to attach to. Take vocals out of most songs and you are left with something quite boring and repetive. Because of this, acts lacking vocals must go the extra mile in their compositions to keep their music interesting and keep it from getting boring.
Just another way in which your indicator is broken...
i. " The onus of proof is mine regarding everything that is said in the OP but you must also answer for your claims. You cannot say the OP is wrong without presenting evidence."
I don't say the OP is wrong, I say that it is not fact (and therefore, not "truth). I have already explained this and I think it is pretty clear that what you are saying is not some objective truth but instead your opinion, which is based on your interpretation of some facts.
j. "You were and still are making that mistake. At the moment you are comparing the rest of the industry moving to the vocal standard in the mid 2000s with Nintendo using vocals for a while. Using a few vocal parts in few tracks of few games is not the same as massively shifting to vocal music."
So Nintendo is no longer allowed creative freedom to create tracks that fit he mood of the piece and use vocals when they deem it necessary and they must instead follow the industry standard, even if it means sacrificing artistic freedom and it jeopardizes the mood or environment of the game?
Nintendo uses vocals when they feel that vocals would make the music better fit for the game. Isn't that what everybody in the game industry should do instead of just blindly following? Isn't this something that should be lauded, not insulted?
k. "It just says they've adopted it later than the competition."
But they didn't...we've already gone over this. I get that you may point me to "j" as what you mean in this point but I will once again point you towards my response to J. You are advocating following the leader, not innovation. Nintendo uses vocals when it should use vocals and it has been that way for a long time and it should stay that way for a long time. The industry would be a better place if more companies did what they thought was best for the game instead of following the leader....
l. " I don't want to elaborate on this because it's already off-topic but for me Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 are by far the greatest platformers of all time."
Woah...woah.....WOAH...let me just point you to this again: http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/sonic-adventure
I mean, I know metacritic isn't a fact but not one of those 28 professional reviewers gave the game above a 70. I think you are quite far in the minority here.
The rest of this paragraph is fairly standard conspiracy theory bullshit...to be honest, I'm surprised you haven't started blaming the illuminati for things yet. Next are you going to tell me that Sonic 06 was a shining example of great gameplay mechanics?
m. " Unlike you say, Mario has not evolved and New Super Mario Bros U seems the same 2D game they have been doing since 1985."
I was obviously talking about 3D mario here due to the fact that I blatantly said I was talking about 3D mario. However, the New series was obviously a direct throwback to the classic mario games and was designed as such. The market was very receptive to this because Nintendo really hadn't made many (any?) 2D mario games since the SNES era. This is an example of Nintendo being able to read the market and releasing a 2D game in an era where the market clearly wanted 2D mario (remember all that talk about how Nintendo didnt follow the market? once again, I will say you are right, they lead it).
n. "Mario 3D got some minor evolutions but it continues to be the same basic character in the same sketch environment devoided of complexity."
Once again, whenever someone talks about what style 3D mario they want, they bring up one of the various 3D mario games in the past, because they each have their own unique feel and style while holding on to the central pillar of what makes the franchise great. These are of course just my opinions on the matter but I think they are supported well enough that you cannot claim every 3D mario is the same as fact (once again, I'm not arguing your opinion...just saying that they aren't facts).
o. "you are naive if you don't see that and think videogaming web sites could afford to express their own specific opinion about everything"
And you are naive to believe that sites would call a game that they hate the best platformer of all time or give out 10s left and right. You have no proof here and while score inflation is likely a thing, it would not cause a bad game to be heralded as one of the best of all time. Nintendo games hold the top three spots for best reviewed games of all time at gamerankings and three 3D mario games are in the top 10 (2 in the top 3). You are absolutely insane to think this is just because reviewers are afraid to say something bad about a Nintendo game (despite saying bad things about Nintendo almost every day)
p. "On the other hand, there's no big problem in giving bad scores to brilliant niche games"
Yet niche games or indie games still frequently recieve great scores from reviewers. This seems more like a case of you having bad taste than anything.
q. " As for those 28 songs from Mario Galaxy, if they were instrumental-only and very simple, that was not much of a waste."
Hold the ****ing phone. You haven't even heard these songs and you are calling them simple. Funny stuff.......jeesh, you are becoming more and more of a waste of time the longer I debate.
I would like to restate the key part of this argument: Your opinions are not factual. They are conclusions loosely based on facts. Please realize this or you are just going to keep embarassing yourself
(edited for language)
