You could always try to learn archery from Pit and Link, lol.  

Maybe. On the one hand, it's more sophisticated but, on the other hand, it doesn't demand as many resources. It's like comparing books with ebooks. eBooks are more sophisticated and versatile, but anyone can publish one. They don't demand as many resources. Would you say they are more evolved?

Regarding complexity, that's why I said "theoretically". Complexity in music is only subjective as long as it's hard to assess. And this applies to any matter (not just complexity) on any subject (not just music). Anything that is hard to analyse is considered subjective. Once it becomes easy to demonstrate, it is considered objective. Philosophy vs Science is a good example: the knowledge migrates from the former to the latter as it becomes possible to demonstrate. Demonstration doesn't change anything but our perceptions. Reality continues to be what it always was.

That is not proved. Nevertheless, I'm talking about music as an established form of art, which began to be instrumental-only.

If we're talking about 1 music track, of course it doesn't. But if we're talking about several and large soundtracks, it becomes harder to believe that the games that comprise vocal music are not more complex than the ones that don't have it at all.

That doesn't seem weird, it's quite logical. If you are able to count the number of instruments used to create the soundtrack in Mario 64 and the same number regarding Sonic Adventure 1, then feel free to post them here. I can't and therefore vocal music is one of the few indicators I have at disposal.

"it only suggests", I haven't jumped to any conclusions.

a. Definition of Evolution:

I've already told you that the way you are thinking about evolution is wrong and explained myself. You are saying the way that I am thinking about it is "wrong" or "different" but I am thinking about it in the context in which the word was designed to be used (the scientific sense). In this sense, what you are saying is evolution is wrong.

Because of this, you need to present your own definition of "evolution". Gathering from what you have said already, it is not just about time ("Evolution is not only about time. Vocal music is instrumental + voice. Instrumental-only is...well, I think it's obvious."). By this you mean to say that because vocal music has instrumentals, it is more "evolved". However! Vocals are essentially only an instrument. I think most people involved in music would say that vocals are no easier or harder than playing an instrument and holding them at a higher level than instruments is making a value judgement.

By this rule, all instruments (including voice) are equal, so would you not say that the more instruments something has the more "evolved" it is? Would this not match your definition of evolution perfectly and more objectively that assigning a value judgement to vocals? Therefore, symphonic music, which nintendo uses and has used for quite some time, meaning, arguably, using your definition of the word, symphonic music is the most evolved form of video game music and Nintendo evolved faster and further than most video games?

b. Technological Limitation vs the Industry Standard:

Okay, I see what you are saying here. So lets go down to your final point where you show me a few examples of early games featuring music including vocals.

First, I would like to talk about Licenced Soundtracks. Your point here is counterproductive. You speak of the "effort" taken to create something and then you praise when a game company simply buys songs released by musicians elsewhere? This is highly contradictory and from an objective standpoint, it takes infinitely more effort to create a song than it does to pay to use a song someone else has already created. 

I would like to see some more examples featuring original music to prove to me when it became the "industry standard"...

Additionally, I would like to talk about Nintendo for a moment. Between 2002-2003, Nintendo released both F-Zero GX and Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, which both featured original vocal performances (choir in WW, lyrics in F-Zero) around the time where you claimed it was becoming the industry standard...

c. Which took more effort?:

Unfortunately I am unable to listen to these at the moment but I will say that it is impossible to determine effort by listening to something objectively... I will get back to this question later today if you wish me too

It's like my comments about MIDI. It's not easy to get consensus.

On what basis would you call it "extremely complex"? I'll leave it up to you to decide how to assess and rank complexity in music

Sure it's not a fact, it's a hint ("it only suggests..."). And you're right when you say music is made for games but games aren't made for music (except Guitar Hero and alikes) and that vocal music may just not fit into a specific game. I see that happening essentially on movies / games with heavy environments like Schindler's List and Getaway. But Mario and Sonic are totally different. If Sonic could evolve into an environment of vocal music, I'm not seeing any reason for Mario to have not done the same.

I didn't say, I asked. I'm telling you this so you'll think about the difference between a statement and a question.

No, you talked about other aspects (lack of damage on characters, etc.), you didn't refute mine (real fighting techniques, etc.).

I will not say nothing can be determined because actually it can. Only on this forum people have shown such a hate for the OP (because it severely criticizes Nintendo) that they've become obsessed at refuting anything that was there to the point that neutral arguments became "bias" and facts became "blatant lies". With this kind of soldiers, there's no truth that can "survive".

Ultimately (and we've already got there), anything can be viewed as an opinion, not a fact. You can think about any general statement you could make regarding Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft. Take the time you need. Pick the one that you think to be undeniable. I can say in advance (without knowing what it is) that it's an opinion, not a fact. And, using the same "argumentative weapons" as people here have been using, I can show it.

Now imagine this ultra-phylosophical mindset dominating journalism, science and other areas. It would kill them. People are not being reasonable and they know it. They are just protecting Nintendo at all costs.

See my reply to MDM: "I'm talking about music as an established form of art, which began to be instrumental-only.".

How can you claim it has more complexity? Why don't you say that's just your opinion?

History of Music is one of several arguments to show evolution, of course it's not enough by itself.

I'm not assuming they aren't high quality because my focus isn't on quality but commitment to it (remember our conversation on the Unity thread?). Commitment is easier to perceive through objective variables like effort, time and money.

This is the reason why I don't buy Nintendo hardware or software. To all Nintendo fans: They are WAAYY worse than EA has or can be.

A tagged question at the end of a declarative statement is presumptuous of its statement therefore making it both rhetorical as a question and a declaration foremost.

Don't play stupid semantic games with me when you get called out for "truths".

I would just like to say that "effort" is not objective and you have no way of knowing how much time and money was put into the music that was created for any given game...

doesn't that destroy your entire argument from an objective standpoint? (meaning that you cannot objectively argue that Nintendo puts in less effort or time or money into music than any other game).

Let me ask you again...what exactly is your point here? I think we have not only proven that Nintendo does, and has for a while used vocals in their soundtracks and we have said that there is no objective measure that can be used to measure effort or complexity or quality in music...doesn't that mean that you have essentially no point in this particular debate and you cannot objectively stand by your vague conclusion or assumptions?