I don't think you're alleviating his problems with arrogance by stating that it is a fact that this game is "below the bar." What does that bar even entail? As far as pure aesthetics go, I think Pikmin 3 looks better than Banjo and is thus "above the bar." Stating that Pikmin 3 does not match current-gen games is not a statement of fact, but purely something concocted in the mind based on relative standards. A few more "in my opinion" statements might do wonders for your PR (not that you'd care, just saying). I welcome your opinion, but be open to the opportunity of being incorrect in your assessment if you are frustrated by others calling you out for arrogance (I'm not saying you are arrogant).
Everybody can use "I love the art" to try to say it's above whatever bar they have, but it's not a very meaningful discussion. But of course it's my opinion; if people feel the need to hear it being said with every post so that they don't think it's "arrogance" then I'll gladly take the arrogant label, if that's the case. But it's no surprise to me people only expect the "imos" when it's someone being negative. I never hear that comment when people are gushing over something. Interesting how that works.
I admit I don't know how one can reasonably argue that this game is technically competing with the basic bar of AAA game, let alone a AA game from the PS360 gen - whether it is a stylistic game or a realistic game. But you are entitled to the view. You say you think this game looks better than Banjo, but Banjo blows the ever loving shit out of Pikmin 3 technically. It's literally not even in the same football stadium. Pikmin games have the art, but I would have liked to see Pikmin 3 really match the technical bar of average PS360 games. I have consistently failed to see this is the case. There is so much room for improvement in the visual package that, as a huge Pikmin fan, it's a little disappointing. Because of course one of the things you want to see in a next-gen version of a beloved franchise is a substantial leap visually. Pikmin 3 shows its Wii roots at every corner, so it's disappointing to me.
I just don't think this is even remotely a shocking opinion. Many, many people have pointed out the underwhelming state of Pikmin 3's visuals, even those who love the series. It started as a Wii game in its engine, and it's clear it is not terribly far removed - whatever basic next-gen shaders it is utilizing to try to mask that fact. But let's be clear: I was never commenting on other people's opinions regarding its visuals. I just said I felt the graphics are mediocre. Then other people are trying to be all "oh Amir0x, there he goes again" when it's not even the least bit of a controversial point of view. These individuals just don't like hearing negativity.
But that said, I do appreciate the 60fps (Edit: Wait, now we don't know if it's going to be 60fps? I thought that was confirmed?) that it is going to hit. That does go a long way to making up for some technical shortcomings, and I'd take that over some better texture work if I had to choice (although, of course, it's a false choice in the case of Pikmin 3. You can have both, there's room to go unless I'm really overestimating Wii U's power).
Additionally, Nintendo does not owe us anything. A market economy gets rid of any form of owing. Legally, the only thing that is due when a game is made is for currency to be traded for the product. This only happens if the individual desires the game, and thus nothing is necessarily expected at all from the product on its own. If you don't want the game, don't buy it, then maybe Nintendo will "learn" to "meet/surpass the bar."
Of course Nintendo owes us. Every videogame company owes the people who buy their products (and, really, all businesses owe consumers, for whom they would not exist) - you're right in that the market will respond when the company fails, since that is the result of them not listening. Because they DO owe us. We pay money for their products. If they stop listening to our demands, they get less money. These conversations are a symptom of game hobbyists realizing they owe us. Without some real entitlement, videogame forums would be quite dull indeed (and nonsensical - these are giant faceless corporations who care a lick about us, why would we pretend they're not making mistakes?). All videogame companies are in a perpetual state of trying to earn the cash of the fans that love the medium. Nobody is talking about it from a purely legal sense, of course, but from the perspective of the relationship any business has with potential customers. If they fail to respond to the demands of people who are going to pay hard earned cash for their products - because they damn well
do owe us - they will suffer by earning less.
We're not actually too far on the perspective, judging by your comment, you just don't want to call it "owing." But that's what it is.
This is slightly off topic, but it's a fairly simple philosophy. Any game, no matter how much I anticipate it, is going to be looked at from a critical eye, because game companies are trying to earn my cash. Because they are in service to their fans and casuals and anyone else who tips their toe into this industry.
