"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.

Her reaction doesn't explain anything NintendoPie.

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.

Pie, you're the one doing the process of intent, so it's up to you to tell me what I did wrong. Okay bud?

You personally offended her and her work. You brought up the fact that she failed her diplomacy (which I don't know where you got that from. Did she post that on here?) and then you said that she's being a snob for questioning your OP for that reason.

Out of all the people on VGC, I would think you would've known where you went wrong here. That was just plain rude.

^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 ;)

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.

It is the same thing, only another skill. What you said in bold very much applies in the same way to a graphical artist. I personally believe that the teams in charge of NSMB at the moment are B teams, and I have industry and game playing reasons to believe that.

Also, I doubted whether Nintendo had an artistic goal or not to begin with (my questions were "was it intentional or was it based on a business direction?").

And yes, the fundamental point I was making was that there was hypocrisy between how gameplay and presentation are being handled when it comes to what is objective and what is subjective. Unless people have a reason to do that, I challenge the status quo without burden of proof. I know how to argue.

I have to admit it's taken me forever to understand what it was that was upsetting me about NSMB, and indeed it was that deja-vu feeling. Definitely the gameplay is tried and true but it is rinse and repeat, and that repetition takes away from the ooh and aah of playing a game that can take you somewhere new and distract you from that "I've already done this" feeling that nags someone who's sensitive to that (hence why I liked the use of the sentence "might put off repeat customers", it made perfect sense).

True that Gunman clive doesn't have the baggage of  being a sequel, on the other hand it has the baggage of emerging as a competitor in a genre that has been done to death and still help redefine it.

For now we don't necessarily need to get into the specifics, I agree that most wouldn't be able to accept it without some kind of disclaimer in OP (this is a topic that some take personally, and insulting to them), so I can accept that. But the matter is that, like you said, though this is seller gangbusters, at the same time some repeat customers are being put off and the question is "Is it necessary?" and "Is it intentional?".