Jay520 said: I like the presentation of Mario. Therefore, your argument is fallacious.

It isn't fallacious because you have yet to give a reason as to WHY you like the presentation and whether that constitutes taste or objective measure of quality in visual art.

happydolphin said: Jay520 said: I like the presentation of Mario. Therefore, your argument is fallacious. It isn't fallacious because you have yet to give a reason as to WHY you like the presentation and whether that constitutes taste or objective measure of quality in visual art.

Art cannot be objectively qualified.

So.....what you're trying to say is PSASBR >>>> SSBB

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! (??)

you have some good points happy, but mostly you seem to need one of these.

*hugs*

RolStoppable said: Gunman Clive definitely looks like a Jump&Shoot game in the veins of Mega Man, but my comment was refering to the expected quality. I was bringing up better alternatives to Gunman Clive. In other words, games that people should look into before Gunman Clive. Although I won't be upset, if people ignore my recommendations. It's their money and their choice. I didn't value your arguments, because you tried to pass off your opinion as an objective measure on the topic. You claimed that NSMB's graphics don't appeal to adults, then you had adults coming in your thread to tell you that the graphics are fine. Things would have been different if you just said that the graphics don't appeal to you, but then there wouldn't be much to say. "Alright, that's your opinion." - End of the thread after a couple of posts. But you chose to make broad statements like the aforementioned. You can't go around and impose your perception of presentation on everyone else while expecting no backlash, because different people see things differently. In extremely simplified terms, someone could start a thread stating that the best color in existence is green and give reasons why. Will everyone agree? Obviously they won't, because many people favor red, blue, yellow etc. over green, because they find those colors more visually appealing than green. Now the thread starter could either tell those people that they are wrong or accept that the topic is a matter of taste. You usually went with the first option, that's why your threads garnered hundreds of replies. By the way, the second half of SMB3's world 5 is clouds, not snow.

I tried to express why I thought, objectively speaking, the style in the NSMB games wasn't pleasing to adults in general. Of course there would be some for who it's okay, but it was my understanding that certain styles appeal more to adults than others. Also, a lot of the people who entered that thread didn't really display an honest intent on discussing the topic but more to simply defend NSMB no matter the arguments. It would be that had NSMB taken the approach I was calling for, they would have defended that.

Ultimately I was trying to bring out points about style. It would be the same thing if we were talking clothing fashion/style or musical grooves. A lot of us aren't used to talking in those terms because we're not familiar with that kind of topic, myself included. Though some of us have potential to talk about it, some here are completely oblivious to notions of style and what objectively could describe a visual direction as "in style" or "out of style".

Whether Nintendo applies this to NSMB or not, what mostly matters to me is that they at least are aware of the direction they took for NSMB to the detriment of style, consciously, at least it gives me piece of mind that they could pull it off if they wanted to, but simply opted not to in favor of a more sound business direction to them. But in the long run it's my opinion that money and safe business directions would only take them so far in face of emerging competition. (this kind of answers your question the_dengle).

Ultimately I hope you know that the reason this matters to me is because I have longed for the Nintendo of old to lead the industry but I've come to be disillusioned to that hope.

As for world 5, you're right. World 6 was the ice level.

Everything about a game is subjective whether its gameplay, graphics, story..etc.

Jay520 said: happydolphin said: Jay520 said: I like the presentation of Mario. Therefore, your argument is fallacious. It isn't fallacious because you have yet to give a reason as to WHY you like the presentation and whether that constitutes taste or objective measure of quality in visual art. Art cannot be objectively qualified.

You realize that people go to school to learn music theory and visual art, yeah? There is an objective side to art, to a degree. Gameplay is an art so it is bound to the same rules as presentation.

Everything is subjective...unless it's something like for example framerate

happydolphin said: Jay520 said: happydolphin said: Jay520 said: I like the presentation of Mario. Therefore, your argument is fallacious. It isn't fallacious because you have yet to give a reason as to WHY you like the presentation and whether that constitutes taste or objective measure of quality in visual art. Art cannot be objectively qualified. You realize that people go to school to learn music theory and visual art, yeah? There is an objective side to art, to a degree. Gameplay is an art so it is bound to the same rules as presentation.

Those classes are to learn the mechanics and components of music and the visual arts. They also help to equip students to express themselves via art and to read other people's art. That doesn't make the quality of art or music objective.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying gameplay and presentation are bound together. Two games can have the same gameplay yet have vastly different presentations with neither of them being objectively superior.