But even if we use the word 'realistic', some (maybe not you) would find the same arguement there as well (Calling it realistic would imply that the other is unrealistic, or not a 'real' game). Don't get me wrong I know where you are coming from, but at the end of the day we're just talking about the art style right? In your Mario example I don't think you can fault anyone for looking at it and thinking it has a 'kiddy' looking art style. Even diehard fans can say it looks kiddy on the surface but knows very well that it's not a kid game.
I think that's just an eventuality of the gaming world tagging something based on how they see it. In Zelda's case, it was of my view that everyone knows that the game is a teen/mature title that everyone can play, so even the names it got over the years (mature and cel-shaded, which isn't so bad in itself) would have minimal impact (the impact would really be on individuals that never played/heard of the franchise before). But hey...I'm just speculating and you could be totally spot on, which is why I have respect for what you have said. Just discussing.

Wonderful strawman argument there.  I love how you created your own argument and defeated it.  You're clearly right, what was I thinking.  No, seriously, neither I nor any other logical person thinks TWW's artstyle is just a realistic as TP.  TWW clearly goes for a far more stylized world, where TP attempts to more closely resemble reality (that's not to say it's going for hyper-realism; it's got some style of it's own, but far less than TWW).  TP is objectively more realistic than TWW.  Again, that is an objective fact, and that's why you should use it to describe TP instead of "mature," a word loaded with unappropriate connotation.  To make any connection between the realism in a game's graphics and how much of a "real" game something is makes absolutely no sense.  Again, no logical person would ever make that connection.  You're just using twisted semantics to fit your argument.

What, exactly, is kidding looking about Mario?  Objectively explain that to me.  After you try and fail, I'll explain to you why it isn't. ;)

I prefered Ganondorf in Ocarina of Time. Much prefer him without a beard.

First off, I was never arguing. It was just a discussion on how I can see how ppl get to the point of calling it mature or whatever. I was being quite subjective, I never insulted and I never claimed to be the best thing since sliced bread. I thought we were on the same page of having an adult conversation but why did you have to make it seem like some fanboy arguement? The least we could have done was agree to disagree. Now I can't help but feel like I've wasted my time here. Feel free to have the last word.

Strawman argument is a term.  I wasn't insinuating that this discussion was heated or whatever.  Look it up.  Argument also isn't limited to just meaning a heated discussion between two people.  Argument is synonymous with the case a person is making.  "My argument is that blah blah blah."  I never insulted you or said you insulted me?  I don't see how this is turning into a fanboy argument.  It looks pretty clean on both sides to me.  The reason I asked you to objectively prove to me what you're saying is because you're speaking about them as if they're generally accepted facts.  Generally accepted facts have to be objectively true.  That's simply not the case with your claims.

I'll take your lack of an actual reply (in terms of the discussion we're hacing) to indicate that you can't come up with a rebuttal and are ackwnoledging you were wrong in claiming Mario's style is kiddy and that TP is somehow more mature-looking than TWW.

Oh and by the way, your last reply was an Ad hominem fallacy.

I love the graphics, the effects are beautiful...