happydolphin said: Majora said: 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. @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.

My impression is that Nintendo is obsessing over keeping a simple, unified image of the NSMB series, hence the re-used art and music assets. A far cry from how the old Super Mario Bros. games were produced, but I suppose that limited technology may have forced Nintendo to think outside the box. Nowadays, the challenge is to stand out among a bunch of very nice-looking titles (Gunman Clive, as you said). Yet with an instantly recognizable look and not much strong competition in the platforming scene, NSMB more or less had it made. Even so, it would be greatly welcomed if Nintendo would utilize ways to step up their game while still pleasing fans. But as it stands, this series is probably one that will evolve at the pace of hardware iteriation, akin to Mario Kart.

happydolphin said: Did you expect me to be nice about that?

I don't see how you could possibly take this as Marucha personally offending you. What you said to her was uncalled for.

Obviously this wasn't my discussion, but I really feel that you did not need to say that. (Now back on topic...)

happydolphin said: Jay520 said: Gameplay is an art? I disagree. You could perhaps make that argument for a few rare games out there, particular from Indies. But for most games, that's not the case, especially for games where action gameplay is the main vehicle for entertainment. And you still haven't demonstrated how art can be objectively qualified. All you've shown is that there are classes about art. So what? @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).

I don't have to demonstrate that gameplay can be objectively qualified because I didn't make the argument that gameplay can be objectively qualified. But you made the argument that art can be objectively qualified, so you have to support your argument.

As for classes, that proves nothing. Art is to express and communicate feelings between the artist and receiver. That's it. If the artist had expressed himself/herself adequately then its successful art. If the receiver feels he/she has felt new feelings then it is successful art

You are right that there are some elements that can be studied which have shown to be desired by most people; but these elements are by no means objectively correct. They are still subjective but are very well regarded. Just as a chef may advise his students that a certain amount of a certain ingredient is ideal; his advice may be true for most people but it's still not objective. Other people may prefer more or less ingredients but their preference is not wrong or incorrect.

@Pie. It's not because Marucha is a girl that I'll treat her any differently than I treat all of you. I didn't agree with the argument she used and I called it as it was. If I offended her than she just needs to tell me what of what I said was offensive and I'll fix it, just like I do with everyone else.

F0X said: My impression is that Nintendo is obsessing over keeping a simple, unified image of the NSMB series, hence the re-used art and music assets. A far cry from how the old Super Mario Bros. games were produced, but I suppose that limited technology may have forced Nintendo to think outside the box. Nowadays, the challenge is to stand out among a bunch of very nice-looking titles (Gunman Clive, as you said). Yet with an instantly recognizable look and not much strong competition in the platforming scene, NSMB more or less had it made. Even so, it would be greatly welcomed if Nintendo would utilize ways to step up their game while still pleasing fans. But as it stands, this series is probably one that will evolve at the pace of hardware iteriation, akin to Mario Kart.

It would be interesting to see where games like Gunman Clive do it right and see where we could identify where in NSMB we could see improvements made and why, when we play it, we have that nagging feeling that it's stale (what elements, what factors).

Not to pick on NSMB at all, but as an exercise. To be completely fair, I found something I didn't like in Smash Brawl and it would be really interesting to see what exactly it was that turned me off (though I'm a huge Smash fan). Sticking to one game could make it simpler, but my point really isn't to pick on one single game, but to look at how we could demand better from Nintendo, as fans (or once upon a time fans).

happydolphin said: Majora said: 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. @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.

What do you mean tread lightly? I didn't once say you haven't played them =p 

^Sorry, maybe that wasn't the best word. I'm not native english sorry. I meant don't expect me to be able to follow with comparisons to NSMBU ;)

Jay520 said: I don't have to demonstrate that gameplay can be objectively qualified because I didn't make the argument that gameplay can be objectively qualified. But you made the argument that art can be objectively qualified, so you have to support your argument. As for classes, that proves nothing. Art is to express and communicate feelings between the artist and receiver. That's it. If the artist had expressed himself/herself adequately then its successful art. If the receiver feels he/she has felt new feelings then it is successful art You are right that there are some elements that can be studied which have shown to be desired by most people; but these elements are by no means objectively correct. They are still subjective but are very well regarded. Just as a chef may advise his students that a certain amount of a certain ingredient is ideal; his advice may be true for most people but it's still not objective. Other people may prefer more or less ingredients but their preference is not wrong or incorrect.

You're just playing the devil's advocate. Really, if we take  two figure skaters, one with skill & talent and one without skill & talent, most trained to see the quality in the art will be able to discern which is a good performance and which is not. I'm not talking about two performers with a comparable skill & talent but different expressions, I'm talking about different capabilities and how people can identify that discrepancy.

I realize that much of art is subjective, I play music myself. But the point I was trying to make is that "Art is subjective" is a blanket statement that, in the context of this topic, I can't appreciate. I'm sorry.

As for showing that art is objective... until you haven't shown that gameplay is purely objective, I have no pressure to show the contrary, as I am challenging the status quo, while you are not.

happydolphin said: @Pie. It's not because Marucha is a girl that I'll treat her any differently than I treat all of you. I didn't agree with the argument she used and I called it as it was. If I offended her than she just needs to tell me what of what I said was offensive and I'll fix it, just like I do with everyone else.

I don't expect you to treat girls any different. I didn't even mention that in my post.

NintendoPie said: I don't expect you to treat girls any different. I didn't even mention that in my post.

So what was wrong then in what I said? (how was it uncalled for?)

happydolphin said: So what was wrong then in what I said? (how was it uncalled for?)

"Wow, that got personal really fast.

Forget it."

The fact that she took it personally, for good reason, and decided to tell you to forget it should give you good reason to consider that uncalled for. You don't say things like that to people. It's just wrong.

happydolphin said: @Pie. It's not because Marucha is a girl that I'll treat her any differently than I treat all of you. I didn't agree with the argument she used and I called it as it was. If I offended her than she just needs to tell me what of what I said was offensive and I'll fix it, just like I do with everyone else. F0X said: My impression is that Nintendo is obsessing over keeping a simple, unified image of the NSMB series, hence the re-used art and music assets. A far cry from how the old Super Mario Bros. games were produced, but I suppose that limited technology may have forced Nintendo to think outside the box. Nowadays, the challenge is to stand out among a bunch of very nice-looking titles (Gunman Clive, as you said). Yet with an instantly recognizable look and not much strong competition in the platforming scene, NSMB more or less had it made. Even so, it would be greatly welcomed if Nintendo would utilize ways to step up their game while still pleasing fans. But as it stands, this series is probably one that will evolve at the pace of hardware iteriation, akin to Mario Kart. It would be interesting to see where games like Gunman Clive do it right and see where we could identify where in NSMB we could see improvements made and why, when we play it, we have that nagging feeling that it's stale (what elements, what factors). Not to pick on NSMB at all, but as an exercise. To be completely fair, I found something I didn't like in Smash Brawl and it would be really interesting to see what exactly it was that turned me off (though I'm a huge Smash fan). Sticking to one game could make it simpler, but my point really isn't to pick on one single game, but to look at how we could demand better from Nintendo, as fans (or once upon a time fans).

That's an easy one for me. My issue is that by reusing the same assets, music, and general plotline, a strong sense of deja vu could be created in someone who has played at least one NSMB game in the past. Without having played NSMBU, I can tell that on a presentational level I would most enjoy the levels with expansive backgrounds (the early levels for sure) or rather unusual ones (Starry Night for the win), or the nice expansive world map, because these aspects provide a presentational experience that I have yet to identify with the series. With NSMB2 and Wii, I think the focus was to add new gameplay foibles and see how they work in a traditional Mario format. There's merit to this idea, but little is added to the presentation. The result for me is a game that feels more or less like a level pack. Again, I wouldn't call this a bad thing on the gameplay-side, becuase the games are still typically well-designed and provide entertainment value worth the entry price for millions of people. But I can't help but think that this overall approach might put off repeat customers unless, perhaps, Nintendo really is adopting a Mario Kart-like strategy.

Gunman Clive, as I put it, is designed to stand out. Part of me questions doing a comparison, since Gunman Clive doesn't have the baggage of being a sequel. :/

You could get into the nitty-gritty of specific art choices and try to see what might be an objectively better approach for the series that both Nintendo and its consumers could appreciate, but you're going to have to find someone else to discuss it with. I've been trying to focus on the market aspects of this topic, mainly because I have a feeling that discussing the fine artistic points would lead to splitting hairs, if not splitting atoms, and making broad statements would only do the issue injustice.