Did you ever make that thread on neogaf? I didn't see it if you did. :P

If that's what he meant, then he's crazy. 

:$ I didn't hehe. I'm still a noob there, the site didn't give me the priviledge :) I don't want to get humiliated there either so I'm not sure if I'm going to, but how do you think they'll react, just for fun I'm curious to know?

I actually made my point a couple of pages back here. Put simply, I disagree with everything you said. I like the way 2D Mario is, because I think it fits the way the game plays. I've never really cared about graphical abilities, and generally put a lot more into the artistic bit of it than the technical. For instance, Portal 2 is in my eyes the best looking game out there, despite technically not being that advanced. The artistic bit of it is just amazing. The same is the case with these 2D Mario pictures, although obviously not to the same degree. I'd rather not have a HARDCORE DETAIL spider.

I also disagree with 2D Mario being budget price. They're arguably the best games out there, and I absolutely love them. I'll pay 60 dollars without a doubt for any of the NSMB games. What the production cost of the game was is completely irrelevant.

I also find the thought of not buying a game because you want the game creators to change their mind to be ridiculous. If you don't want the game, fine, but that's something different entirely than not buying the game to prove a point to Nintendo.

I'm rather shocked by your claim that Nintendo should make one Mario for the mainstream and one for the true gamers. Calling yourself a true gamer while other people aren't is arrogance on an incredible level.

I could probably go on, but the point is essentially made. I fundamentally disagree with you on nearly all of your points - just as most other people in the thread have - which makes it hard to have a discussion. There wasn't much of a need for me to say much either, as Rol said mostly all of it in a quite brilliant manner. Instead of you actually having a discussion with him, though, you kept calling him hopeless and stuff like that. Really, he constantly discussed in a far more polite way than you did.

Point is, you're completely unwilling to change your opinion, and just keep stating the same over and over while being rude to people for disagreeing with you.

^I'm willing to accept that I have things to change, and you need to know that Rol is my friend, and I'm glad you think he did a better job at debating than I did, I learn from him all the time, as from my other good friends on here. I will make an effort to improve, but in exchange I'd like you to realize that it isn't pleasant to be called a troll or troller, to be called a graphics whore simply when I'm stating my PoV and looking for like-minded individuals, or looking for people who can carefully and non-judgingly challenge my PoV. It's all I'm asking for in return.

Having taken care of that which was after all important, I'd like to address a few points if you care to indulge. Please don't see my underline as impatience, but as simply trying to make things clear if that's okay with you:


1) Regarding artistic detail versus graphical capabilities, I mentioned to Rol that the HW capabilities weren't what necessarily mattered, but that given said capabilities, a game that has appealing artistic direction is important to me. The example I gave was Kirby's Dreamland, to counter Rol's idea that I had no interest in the graphics of the 8-bit games I played. It was very off the mark to me, personally. I enjoyed the art and visuals of most of the NES games I played, despite the lack of HW capabilities.

2) Regarding price, it is important for me to pay for the work that was put in a game. If less work was put in (big if, but let's assume), then that's the work I'd like to be paying for. I don't like feeling like I'm being overcharged. Please understand, we have different consumer values and it's important that, though we disagree, that we can at least be able to see each others' perspectives and talk about it. We don't need to convince each other, but just be able to understand each other. It's a fundamental part of building bridges and learning from each other online, on forums.

3) Regarding not buying the game and the reason, I'll try to explain. When I decided I might not buy this game, it wasn't directly intended to send a message to Nintendo. Sure, that can be a good side-effect, but that wasn't the intention. The intention was purely to abstain from buying something you don't see value in, going along the lines of "You don't like it, you don't buy it ". But even then, we will see if I'll be able to look past my pink ponies as another member mentioned earlier. I was just trying to say that I wanted to be more conscious of what I'm being offered, and stop buying without questioning if the product is what I actually want or not. It's called being an "informed buyer", and not just buying what the company assumes you need, if that isn't what you need. I hope I'm being clear but if not that's really my fault and I'm trying to get better at it.

4) Regarding two flavors of Mario, I never mentioned that the version that catered to me was catered to a true gamer. What I did say is that the way I interpreted the artistic direction of NSMB as being intended to cater to a younger audience, possibly one that doesn't notice a lack in artistic quality and would buy a game like babiz or horsez. I'm not saying I'm more of a gamer, I'm just saying that I value artistic quality, and to me that was lacking value, and so I just proposed a solution, that's all.

5) Regarding HARDCORE DETAIL, my sentence was carelessly written and poorly understood. I meant that the spider lacked detail, and it lacked it alot, meaning that in my eyes alot of work needed to be done before I was more happy with the results. Like someone looking at a construction worker working on his house, and envisioning the remaining work that needs to be done.

6) Regarding not changing my opinion, ask any of my friends here. When someone is able to challenge my opinion above and beyond the misinterpretations, I am more than capable of changing my mind or refining my PoV. But to get there, you need to get past the tall grass of misconstructions and ask me questions to see my PoV as it is, without judging it too soon.

Before I close my post, thank you for making that post, it brought value to my thread and it's much appreciated. The clearer you are, the less judgemental you are, the easier I will understand. But if you're judgemental, it's hard for me to respond with passivity. Despite my efforts, I often fail at that. I'm hoping this can lead us to better understanding each other, and seeing why the polls give the results they give, and reduce the flaming on this site if that's a benefit people value.

Here's a comparison shot of NSMB Wii recreated with NSMB2. Very interesting...
http://gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=176220

^I already prefer the Wii one. Thanks for posting that.

I actually think 2 looks better. The ground textures are partically the same. There's a small polygon difference. Mario is a bit shorter in 2. 2 is more colorful, like a lot more. Like the background in 2.

Not to mention that the 3DS is MUCH more capable of doing better visuals than what we see here, it looks like the DS one. I can definately see how other people would be frustrated. Imagine if ANY other game series released a next gen game and it looked the same as the one on an older console, their would be some sour people

^I wouldn't go as far as saying the same, but pretty close, yeah.

For the sake of being reasonable, let's say the graphics quality was acceptable, just for the sake of not being totally pedantic, let's look at it from an art direction perspective (and pokemonbrawl this is for you too k?).

"I actually think 2 looks better. The ground textures are partically the same. There's a small polygon difference. Mario is a bit shorter in 2. 2 is more colorful, like a lot more. Like the background in 2. "

Look at underlined, it's true that mario is shorter in 2. His head to body ratio is also too high, his head looks too big compared to his body. Then look at italics. It's much too colorful. Look at the colors in the Wii version, it's much less glaring, the background is more acceptable. And the fushia pipes, they are just unacceptable in 2. And we didn't get to the glitters in 2 that are just everywhere.

Remember that thread about Mario Party 9's boxart? This is kind of it. Try not to look at this as a jab at Mario, really it isn't. If it's anything guys, look at it as a jab at 1 of 2 things. 1) a failure at art direction or 2) a business failure, one where they thought this was the right art direction to cater to their customers, but in so doing they may alienate a good portion of said customers.

Mario has never been about flashy. Never, at least not in its tradition. Mario is Matté, it means he's not all glittery and when he is it's more ecclectic than glittery or McDonalds'ey (think of the the star in Mario 1, or the color of the flower). This whole focus on flashy colors is really alienating me as a veteran Mario player and as a young adult. And even as a kid that kind of thing didn't really get me. I guess what I'm trying to say is all the glittery seems to be striving to achieve something Mario was never meant to be.

Food for thought, please share yours.