He's right. A game should be a game. Some games can, may and will be considered art at some point (including some Nintendo games), but that should never be the focus of a developer but more of a side effect imo.

I'm not saying recent games aren't well-designed, necessarily. There is almost certainly much to appreciate there. In truth, Nintendo still has much to offer me...but what it comes down to is I can get that content much more easily, cheaper, and (possibly) better.

And the truth is, and this is something of a minority opinion, the quality of some of their games has taken a bit of a dip. Skyward Sword, for instance, was a game I didn't care for that much. I thought it was pretty mediocre, and it seemed like Nintendo was trying for exactly the sort of thing I wanted from them in that game. They simply did it in a way I thought didn't work.

Consider movies. Are there movies that people enjoy even though they aren't fun? Like, say...

Horror

Documentaries

Drama

"Art" films

to name a few.

The point is, fun isn't the only way to get your kicks out of a piece of entertainment. Most games have an element of fun, but the fun can be a secondary, even a tertiary appeal for the player.

maybe when taken as a whole they are not "art" but the visuals on some of their games really are very creative and they have made some really interesting worlds with unique visual styles. I would consider them art from that aspect alone but they do fall a bit short on story.
The only way I can really put it and I am not trying to insult them but if they did paintings it would be "dogs playing poker" style stuff, not a serious museum piece but just something that brings a smile to your face.

I'd say it's up to Nintendo to create experiences that resonate with consumers, and it's up to consumers to decide whether or not a game has real artistic value. Any kind of role switch only complicates matters.

What i think is you, just like countless other people in the internet rush head on into emotive drama.

You say Nintendo has moved on and other people online say they are still too old fashioned.

I say: Shut up and enjoy your games without constantly feeling the need to criticise the company that makes it. Play the games like you dont know who the developer is devoid of bias. After youre done then criticise.SM3DWorld isnt even out yet. It may very well be quite fun.

uh what is wrong with what he said?

Art is one element of a game. He basically said he isn't making art but a product people will connect with.

that does not mean there be no art direction in it.

The whole videogame industry -- especially its most avid consumers ("hardcore gamers", if you will) -- has a bit of a Napoleon complex when it comes to their medium. It's not entirely unwarrented, since it took so long for videogames to become accepted as art in the mainstream. But it causes some people to become really defensive on the matter.

What I mean is that I doubt that most filmmakers, musicians, or writers are really concerned with "making great art." You never hear Stephen Spielberg or Martin Scorsese saying that they try to make their movies really artistically great; rather, they set a goal they want to accomplish with their film, and then they try to make the best film possible that accomplishes that goal. How could the director of Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan make a movie like Jurassic Park or The Adventures of Tintin if he was always obsessed with making great art? Maybe Jurassic Park wound up being great art in the process, but do you think that was on his mind while he was making it?

If we could go back in time and ask a great classical composer what his main goal was in writing music, I doubt he would say that he wanted to "make great art." Hell, most Baroque composers would be practically required to answer that their main goal was to please their client... not so different from Iwata's comment. It's a pretty humble response, actually.

This interview aside, it's clear from everything else Iwata and Miyamoto have ever said that Nintendo's entire purpose is to make great games. Not great art... great games. Yes, games are (or at least can be) art. Therefore Nintendo is making great art. But that's not what the company is concerned with. Even on an individual level, the people drawing the concept art, making the character models, writing the music, aren't thinking about their work as art. They're thinking about it as a piece of the whole; they're designing characters that the player can relate to, that fit in the world they've created. Writing music that accentuates the mood of the situation, helps the player grow more comfortable with and immersed in the game. No one is in it specifically to make art.

Ehh.......

I think the words you're looking for is mechanics used as metaphor. But art isn't a great term to place to such things. More like good design.

Nintendo may not design their games to be "artsy" (what an ugly word), but more than often they turn out that way anyways. This way they have a very good gameplay with awesome art design as an extra bonus. Just look at Skyward Sword (best effect on Dolphin T_T) and Pikmin3 for some recent examples. Especially Pikmin3.

Games being artsy just for the sake of being artsy may be conceived as being pretentious, by designing the games around the gameplay first Nintendo avoids that risk. (Not to sure how Kirby's Epic Yarn fits in my interpretation, though)