I don't care. That's your opinion.

You don't compare the games themselves. You compare the technology, which makes the art work redundant.

You have pretty much copy-pasted this to my wall and here. What's the point in that?

If a game is technically better, then it is technically better, there is no opinion about it. We aren't talking art here, we are talking about technology.

And yet, more powerful platforms (PC, Playstation 3 and so on) had ports of Xbox 360 games that ran like crap, looked like crap.
Making them shit ports.

Citation needed.

Not necessarily true at all. Would you say Goldeneye on N64 (realistic) is more demanding than Ratchet & Clank on PS4? (Cartoon)

A game with a cartoony art style can easily be more demanding than a game with a realistic style if it uses more advanced rendering techniques, more memory, higher resolution and framerate, etc.

Technically yes, but in reality, at least with the current applications of NRR in games, NRR is less demanding. You don't need anything like as many texture and surface layers as a photorealistic car, and you don't need subsurface scattering and super-detailed facial textures. In fact painterly textures can get away with being lower resolution. Conceptually, a game could render photorealistically and then apply a transmogrification filter to make it look like a painting for maximal demands on the hardware, but that's not likely to happen, making non-photorealistic rendering a 'cheaper' rendering approach (you can still saturate hardware with. i'm also not arguing that you cant get away with having a much better looking game aesthetically with much less demand on performance, just that the reason that is, is because you are literally doing less, and human beings cant tell because its not a direct comparison to reality, not because the style magically makes it easier on performance in a 1:1 situation. 

That's an oversimplification. A game with a cartoonish style can have more advanced and demanding effects than a game with a realistic style.

Would you say that this:

Is more demanding than this:

of course it can' i'm just saying that comparing them to realistic games of today, they can look much better to some people with doing a lot less.

In some cases yes, you're right, all I'm saying is we can't take a "one size fits all" approach, we need to assess each game on its own individual technical merits.

true. just saying its pretty much impossible  comparison, example  uncharted 4 is mostly likely doing way more then ratchet and clank remake, but  i can''t say that for a fact, its a very difficult comparison. 

An apples to oranges comparison will always be more difficult, but even when two games have very different art styles we can still compare things like rendering techniques, resolution, framerate, etc. 

I think he is finally starting to get it now which is good.

its such a very difficult  comparison, cartoony games are just not big sellers except on nintendo consoles(aside from crash recently), so sony and Microsoft exclusives never really push those games to there limits like nintendo does on there respective hardware. the only impressive looking cartoony game on ps4 is ratchet, and thats a small budget remake, while there are tons of realistic looking games that are impressive.