Nintendo fanboys are completely ignorant and delusional: the Wii U and the Wii's problems is that they're technically so behind.

Art Direction? Nintendo are still the best. Looks at the Super Mario Galaxy. I haven't played Mario Kart 8 but from what I see it's probably the same.

The know-how is in the details: the little animation, dynamics, sounds, playability, level-design, assets are a touch that is unequaled by any platformer or adventure game maker.

So in the same sense should we score nintendo gameplay bad because their graphic is inferior to ps4/x1? I put explicity that the discussion is purely on graphics basically to avoid this pitfall.

There is ground. Ps4/X1 uses complicated techniques to display graphics with ultra fidelity. While Nintendo use simpler techniques but enphasize in other aspects to make their characters more likeble. For the comparison to make sense I would have to use a book about race? Do it even make sense for you? Ulysses have a good technique (comparable to Crysis) and good history (not comparable to crysis lack of good gameplay and story) but in the technical prowess of graphic they would be in the same boat (until games with greater techniques comes).

 You are derailing the thread by putting aesthetic into it when op says it is purely graphic prowess. And I have seen several people (that I can't name because it's bannable behaviour to name someone that haven't entered the thread) defend that SMG2 have the best graphics (in all aspects and to refuse the techinical part says artistic view is what matters and techiques are the easy part).

For you what achieves higher in graphics department, SMG2 or TLOU? And why?

If you have difficult understanding harder read as more time consuming, horsepower dranning, more expensive to put.

I stablished that shouldn't be a discussion in this aspect, but you can see in this very thread that people try to distort the graphics achievement to favour nintendo. And I have see here people claim that WiiU is technically on par with ps4 (while in discussion most people would say even X1 is a lot lower).

We have metrics. How much a GTA cost to produce and how often it ships, or an Uncharted, and how much a SMG costs. Iwata was even saying about returning to nintendo profitability margins in sw because they saw the increase in cost to achieve 7th gen graphics (wiiu).

What confusion there is between OP saying graphics prowess is one thing and creativity/artistic view is another and that photorealism doesn't negate the other aspects of that graphic making it less artistic.

So what cinematics games do you appreciate?

I appreciate that you put a lot of thought and energy into your OP, but it reads a lot like a polemic against Nintendo and its fans. That fact, and the inappropriate analogy to J.K Rowling and James Joyce, make this argument difficult to take seriously.

If it's any consolation, I agree with you that superior art direction and production design does not equal technically superior graphics. There's no denying that games like Crysis, Uncharted, and Grand Theft Auto are greater graphical achievements than something like Wii Sports or Castle Crashers, and no amount of artistic ingenuity can change that.

That being said, some people, myself included, are more impressed by a coherent artistic vision than state-of-the-art dynamic lighting, textures, and resolution. Moreover, high-powered graphics, lighting, physics, and sound mean very little without a solid mechanical foundation underneath that provides an engaging game experience.

In the end, I'm glad that there are people on both sides of the spectrum. It makes the community here much more lively and diverse. I only wish we could refrain from attacking each other so aggressively.

Like I said before, the way I see it, Creativity=Style and Techniques=Graphics. That is why I can't really tell what you are arguing. You already established that people agree that Sony/MS games are greater technical achievements, so what is the problem here? The people who say that SMG has the best graphics of the gen were likely saying that because of the style, not because they believe it to be more technilogically advanced. 

As for the comparisons between TLOU and Galaxy, I personally prefer the look of galaxy, but it is obvious that TLOU is more technilogically advanced. If I were grading them, I would give them both very high scores. "If I were grading them" makes it feel like I am a reviewer and as such I would be taking in things from console's capabilities to the style to the technilogical achievements to the performance of both games while rating them.

"And I have see here people claim that WiiU is technically on par with ps4": Here as in this thread or here as in this forum? because I really don't think many people are saying that...

"We have metrics. How much a GTA cost to produce": But we don't know how much of that went into marketing or licensing music or creating the huge world or story or mission design etc.. We have no way to breakdown costs, and even if we did, money is not a perfect representation of graphical achievement...

"What confusion there is between OP saying graphics prowess is one thing and creativity/artistic view is another": The OP blatantly compares technology to creativity and weighs them against each other...thats where the confusion comes from.

If you want to argue that TLOU is more technilogically advanced than Super Mario Galaxy, I don't think anyone would argue with you, but the way you set up this thread seems like you are trying to stretch one small argument over a larger scale...

"So what cinematics games do you appreciate?": Well for one I really enjoyed Uncharted. I thought it was a good example of a cinematic story done well (although I do have a few problems with the marriage between story and gameplay, but that is another story). Additionally, the story in games such as Persona, Skyward Sword and Valkyria Chronicles all left a pretty big impact and contributed positively to my enjoyment of the game as a whole. 

Honestly, what is all comes down to is that I don't really think people are making the point you are arguing against and I think this is all just a big misunderstanding. So far, no one has really come into this thread to argue that point. The problem is the way you make your points...

PS: Out of curiosity, is english your primary language?

No no no and no. This is the equivalent of basically saying that every artist in the world given a blank sheet of paper is inferior to nintendo. Thats just practically impossible. SMG is a platformer. So in truth if you were to compare it to anygame, it should be compared to other platformers. Is SMG the best considering the combination of factors you mentioned? Thats possible, but its still a platformer. And that is just one genre of games. But I will give it to nintendo that they ahve some of the best platformers out there and no one else seems to be in competition with them. Well with exception to LBP, which does things that no nintendo platform does.

Just look at games like Uncharted 2, The last of Us, ME3, Infamous:SS, The order, LBP (presentation mention since we don't yet know how it plays), Driveclub (same as the other) actually better yet, GT5/6, Journey, Ryme (same as the other), Wipeout HD. there is nothing on the Wii or WiiUthat can touch any of those games mentioned in their respective genres. And all those games have varying art design and appropriate level design. There is literally "nothing" on a nintendo platform that is either like those games or matches them on a technical or artistic level and scale. Nothing. 

And this is the problem with nintendo gamers (and where I at least agree with you), when they talk; you can't help but see that its clearly obvious they live in a bubble. Its almost like no other game or platform exists.... I guess that has to be the case cause if it werent they wouldn't have the WiiU as their primary console. 

Glad we can agree. And I'm not taking any credit from Nintendo graphics, I aknowledge they are pleasing and "cutting edge" when analysed in their category. And as I said I don't want to define the most gorgeous or pleasing because that is purely subjective and defined by taste. But on graphics "impresiveness" side nintendo is a gen behind. And I like the fact that we have the diversity and nintendo would probably benefit from modern techiniques even when keeping their art direction. 

Well so we agree on graphics and style being diferent aspects of the presentation. But as I said I have come to different threads with members saying the best graphics were SMG2 because technique is meaningless and the art direction made it the best graphic in the gen (saying this while basically saying ps3 wasn't much stronger than wii since wii had the some of the best graphics of the gen and in smg2 the best overall) you may not believe but they exist and this is why I said the thread could be an anti-nintendo appologist but not anti-nintendo fan.

In your comparison of TLOU against SMG2 you seem to also consider that there is basically no artistic value or creativity because of it focus on realism.

There are threads on this and unfortunetely I can't search in the cellphone but when I get them I'll pm you.

We have certain measures of the work involved into making bigger world (and how much it impact into the graphical cost and exuberance and prowess) and how much cost to make better texture, models, AA, ilumination, etc. And those are the parts that basically make a game like SMG have a lot lower break even point than UC, marketing, voice and music were done in gen 6 and prior so you know from were came the rise in production cost. And I wasn't equating cost to achievement, I was equating to how hard (since you said it was subjective).

No OP shows how technology/techniques are different than creativity and that having techniques don't make creativity inexistent (and there are a lot of people that say there is no creativity in the art direction of ps/xbox).

But I'm certain that cinematics isn't your sweet spot. But that is ok. I like nintendo games in general (don't like the milking tough) and have no problem with the presentation.

Ps: if you click my name you will see that I'm brazilian.

I don't like the Wii U and won't buy it until the end of it's generation, and I don't know if Nintendo is still that good.

But when I look at their team and their games like Wonderful 101 and Mario Kart 8, I knowing past games: Nintendo are the best plateformer/adventure artistic directors of video game.

NO other company, whether Sega, Naughty Dog, Insomniac matches them in term of objective artistic and technical quality judgment. I love Crash Bandicoot, Ratchet and Clank or even Beyond Good and evil, but Nintendo are really in another league if you understand and see al the details.