@bold. I don't need to, because you haven't demonstrated how gameplay can be objectively qualified.

But I'll indulge you for a sec. Ever wonder why judges are selected for performances like dancing and figure skating? It's cause there's a way to tell if something was done with excellence when a standard or reference is set.

Classes should be enough to make it clear that there is formal theory on these topics, and that isn't a subjective thing as far as I'm concerned. The lecturer will provide mathematical explanations for artistic phenomena (especially in music, what notes give what mood). The onus is on you I'm afraid (to demonstrate that gameplay is not subjective and is purely objective).

@Mnemneth. Just look in this thread and you'll find some people who say that gameplay is objective while presentation is not.

Other than that the rest of your post is helpful, but my gripe isn't as much against NSMB as it is against Nintendo. I think they have lackings in that department of stylizing things without resorting to cliches. Sorry but it's an opinion I can support by analysing (like FOX said) the game NSMB, as an example. And I already have almost a year ago it turned into a pretty big thread.

I'm starting to question your observation skills.

I CLEARLY said I didn't care about that in a NSMB game, but it's really important in Tomb Raider or Zelda. This is just handpicking from your part.

This just makes your judgement even less valid.

No, you're just playing by both sides of your mouth. I do remember you saying that, but just a few posts prior you blatantly called presentation a gimmick, irrespective of the game it's discussed on.

VERBATIM (1st post, prior to the zelda one which is in light of this just pure bs):

"No, I do not believe that. Nintendo games are flawed, but changing core aspects and adding gimmicks that would detract from the overall game is a preposterous proposal."

It's done, you said it, that's what it is. And I'm sorry, but saying that I reserve the right to consider my opinion more valid that yours in that respect. Maybe if we're talking about Zelda I might lax up, but this was a general post, a general principle (e.g. do not sacrifice gameplay at the cost of presentation, which is a gimmick).

I think that is HIDEOUS and I hate it. But someone else might love it. But yeah I kinda see your point. I don't, however, see the link with that and NSMB. That image above is not made by Nintendo and looks nothing like a NSMB game. Which do look awesome. IMHO, of course.

"Changing core aspects." "The overall game."

You are SO blinded by your hate and pride that you are making up arguments and reading between the lines.

You know what? Screw that. Your opinion is the least valid of the thread. You make up stuff and speak about things you have no knowledge of just to prove your points no one can get. That's just sad.

Some people can't get the way others look at art. Some people prefer modern art over Da Vinci. Some people like Bob Marley more than Mozart. Are those people stupid? That seems to be your conception when it comes to gaming.

Your post is a breath of fresh air. Like you just realized, there's a level we can all see is "art" with the intention of making money (in the case of this clone).

Looking at certain elements in the NSMB games, the design of those games leads me to believe that they are made by B teams within Nintendo or are just intentionally made like that to ensure minimum effort and minimum alienation from consumers (by sticking to the same formula), similarly to how we notice patterns in that clone of a game.

I believe that though much about art is subjective (like you correctly said), I believe there is another aspect which is not, things we can discuss, especially in the gaming market where money has an influence on art design. The deeper we dig into this topic, the more you would understand what it is I mean by that exactly. By looking at variances between SMB games (like Basil did), we can compare Nintendo's effort on the creativity front. If we do, we'll notice that Nintendo has been making minimal effort to be creative with their games from a presentation and story point of view, and Gunman Clive was a good example of how to push the limits of the expected when it comes to 2D platformers, both in terms of music and visual art. If you have a 3DS you should try it just to see what I mean.

When, in that thread, did I ever say it had to be core aspects of the game?

But I'll again indulge you. A core aspect of mario is that it is a World, and in a world properties can change (like they did in SMB3, where you had an ice level). Where is that core aspect of 2D mario nowadays, I wonder? There is barely anything new, it's all following a tried and true formula, which is no-good for many who were there when the series started. I'm okay with that, as long as I can feel that Nintendo deliberately did that to focus its creative efforts on other franchises, but my concern is that they may not have that ability, and need to work on it. Their fans just gobbling Nintendo's content regardless of that concerns me all the more.

Yes, I realize there's a facet of art which is subjective, I was criticising the blanket statement of "Art is subjective" so as to block people from discussing certain less subjective aspects of it, is all.

My points are as valid as their integrity and consistency. I think I've been logical, consistent and fair in this thread. Maybe a bit strict with you but that's it.

Ok, I can kinda appreciate EXACTLY what you're talking about now. So yeah I agree to an extent on the whole art debate. What I do not agree with at all in any way shape or form though is that NSMB is not art or visually interesting or relevant. It caters to a wide demograph, which is rare for any game to do and for NSMB to do it so successfully I think is a testament to the creative teams at Nintendo. Also, having played NSMB from the first on the DS to the latest on the WiiU, I can tell you there has been a refinement - some of the levels on NSMBU are just sublime, really well thought out and beautifully presented. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I think HappyD's point is that even though the art styles of the NSMB games serve their purposes well, Nintendo is capable of doing better.

Which is probably true, but I think there may be a much better way to phrase such an argument so it doesn't come off as a harsh criticism of a series of good, decent-looking games. I also think it's better to find a point of understanding than to try to argue one's entire side at once.

@Fox and Majora. I think we're finally getting somewhere.

Though for sure I can accept that the art direction pleases some, I do believe that if we dug a bit deeper we would see that Nintendo, as a market leader and producer of this multi-million dollar grossing series, may have a thing or two to learn when it comes to art style (visual and musical).

The one thing I need you to know (because I don't want you to be surprised) is that I played through the DS, Wii and 3DS version, and only played through the first few levels of the U version (haven't bought it yet). So tread lightly there.