I some ways, what Iwata says perfectly resonates with how Nintendo makes their games. Their games typically have simple controls, an easy learning curve and most of them are made for general audiences instead of focusing strictly on kids or strictly on adults. What also makes sense about what Iwata is saying is how Nintendo talks about their own games. They talk about the play mechanics and how they work. It's the total opposite of another company like Epic games who will practically be masturbating on stage to their own game engine and talk about small mundane details that most people aren't going to notice when playing a game.

This also resonates with certain things Shigeru Miyamoto has said in the past. For example he once said that when creating certain scenarios in a game, he often thinks about how the player will react to it, the expression they might get on their face. So when Nintendo says they're trying to make whatever audiences will accept, keep in mind that what they do is theoretical. They have to predict how audiences will react to their products because their is no real way of knowing and Nintendo isn't the kind of company who obsesses with focus groups like Microsoft.

Didn't read it, but If Iwata doesn't think video games is an art form then I have a fundamental disagreement with him. And if you look at the definition of art in it's broad context then I'm right and he's wrong, simple as that really.

Saying that Nintendo develop games that first and foremost aim to entertain consumers does not mean that they do not create works of art. As usual, there's a subtle distinction that gets lost.

Gameplay always come first because til the end it is a game after all. Its just nice to add an artistic flavor to the traditional gameplay from time time, personality and stuff. For example: Kirby Epic Yard, Super Mario Sunshine and Mario and Luigi Series.

Not all need to be a masterpiece or anything, but its always nice to change up the game to give it a certain image.

You can already tell that there was something lost in translation/he didn´t express himself very well !

Of course games aren't art, what kind of pretentious statement is that? Games are games. They do have art components in them though such as graphics, music, and creative writing.

Yes..thus the evolution of the definition of art. Any medium which expands the capabilities for art to be shown and to touch others expands the defintion. Videogames can touch people and have the same effect that a movie gives to a person today. Games can also confuse the mind and create the broad spectrum of emotions through art style and gameplay (again...Journey/SOCT). Art styles affect certain emotions. For instance, Nintendos art style is formulated to attract children or bring out your inner child if you're not a child.

If you're deliberately playing Sunshine over either Galaxy game because of 'art' then you're doing something wrong.

The gameplay in the Galaxy games is an 'art' itself.

Gameplay can be considered a work of art. As tech expands gameplay becomes more sophisticated thus allowing for movements to cause us to emotionally respond. It doesn't even have to be movements interacting with the environment  with mood change like in Journey or flower, but rather  a setting or a build up of gameplay events up to a climactic use of power in gameplay (IE: from low to high powered attacks and a finale of a masterfually animated qte), or in Shadow of the Colossus. What would you do to save the woman you love? How many Colossi would you hunt, climb and kill to revive her? By the end of the game you look at back at all you did just to save that girl  sprinkle on some sad yet spiritual music and it hits you like a ton of bricks. The soundtrack for that game was amazing.