I just realize its silly I mean I'm going to try to convince you and then you will disagree and then we would be going back and forth and at the end we won't change our minds. 

Its not that N64 and GC we abominations... Its just they had tough competition. Sony had a disc playing system which allowed things like listening to a CD while playing a game. PS2 then had the ability to play DVDs. Minor things when it comes to gaming but a perk nonetheless. Me personally, I loved both N64 and GC!!

Super Mario Bros.' raving success in Japan

In fact, Wikipedia strongly supports your claim with sales data:

By the end of 1984 Nintendo had sold over 2.5 million Famicoms in the Japanese market.^[6]

What happened with SMB3?

It begs the question, if a game like SMB could move 6M units non-bundled, and lead to a Software phenomenon, what happened with SMB3?

I don't buy the competition argument. If SMB was able to revolutionize the Japanese market like that and propel the NES into 20M sales figures at the time, then if SMB3 was a "true" successor (as judged by sales), it should have sold 6M itself.

Moreover, competition was not that strong (though I'm not sure these numbers are accurate). The biggest competitor to SMB3 in Japan was DQIII in 1988. You'd think buyers could offer two games.

Your argument makes much more sense: "A sequel on the same system can't wow gamers with technological marvel anymore while Super Mario 64 was the very first game with vast 3D worlds and appropriate controls, in other words the foundation for all games to come."

Did the bubble burst then? If SMB3 could not sustain SMB sales, what makes you think SM64, as a successor, would?

A sequel is a sequel. Whether on a new platform or not. The other common point between SMB3 and SM64 is that neither were bundled (the N64 was only in Europe on special bundles I believe).

The Tie Ratio argument

@italics, that's just one side of the coin. The other side of the coin says that a smaller userbase leads to less exposure (especially when there is fierce competition on other platforms), which leads to less sales. SMB3 had competition, but on the same system. People didn't have to change consoles to play it.

This argument begs the question, how much of the Mario market had migrated to the PS brand? To play Mario 64, they would have had to buy a 2nd platform. Due to Red Ocean failure 1 with 3rd parties, Nintendo was cut short from making Mario 64 the success it was meant to be. Ie, Playstation stole its limelight.

You look at the data and you say "It sold less because it isn't what consumers wanted". I say "It sold less because it didn't get the light it deserved to become the game consumers wanted from there on out." Since then, the 3D branch never reached maturity and now caps at 12M, if that.

I mostly agree with this. And their success is also thanks to the fact that Nintendo's old audience was aging. Sony capitalized (either intentionally or unintentionally).

However, as Rol said Sega had already started targetting that audience with the Genesis, but the market was still ready for more. Sega was also in Nintendo's child to young teen audience, so both markets were not so red, not super blue.

For all the factors you mentioned, I agree the cube was a Red Ocean product (except the less expensive part, see the wikipedia link I gave to Ninpie).

Having said that, it begs the question. Why the purple color on the lunchbox? Why the jolly-colored buttons? Why no DVD playback? Why the controller made for smaller hands? And why the jumpy splash screen?

Then, other question, why Luigi's Mansion? Sunshine and its totally mature and cool theme (on Sony's terms right? You'd think after 7 years Nintendo would learn the ways). And most of all, why The Nintendo Difference?

So much for red ocean strategy there! But that's why it's important to understand there are nuances here, and not everything done on one approach was clear cut red or blue, but likely a mix of both.

And even then!

Mind you your points aren't Red Ocean strategies, they are no-brainers. 3rd parties were begging for those things, whether within a Red Ocean or a Blue Ocean paradigms these were needed improvements.

I understand. I want you to know that I do play back and forth, but am a person who is able to concede when you are right, and argue when I think you're wrong.

Since you mentioned this I'll be sensitive, but I would like to see resources or segments of your book for my interest. I'd like that.

You can mistakenly call the GC an abomination and I won't even bother to defend it because mistakes by Nintendo early on (media format, design and it can be argued controller) that doomed that system.


But at least for America, the N64 was dope and paved the way for much of the newer system ideas that came out later. Were they all winners? Heck no. But console FPS, the brief surge of console Wrestlers, 4 person play sessions, mascot brawlers, mini game fests analog controls, force feedback, the various decent camera controls setups including camera lock-on/Z-locking outside of force perspectives are things that started on the N64 and helped build new genres .

Did the N64 have MGS or FF or a stellar fighting game not names Smash Bros, no not really, but by no means was that system a failure nor does it deserve to be called an abomination because it came second in the console war instead of first.

In terms of hardware looks/cosmetics (An important factor if Apple products and the Wii/DS are any indicator)

As similar thing can be said about the N64. Sony did a much better job than both Sega and Nintendo gen 4 in targeting the older market. And it still managed to appeal to kids and families. (Just like VHS or DVD players do when they want to watch their favorite movies)

Don't get me wrong, I loved the look of this damn thing (I salivated). But this did a better job at conveying the right idea... it does the job.

Let's not talk about this hunk of crap.

Nice logo, but super boxy.

I do, so the phenomenon applies to Mario 64 as well in my eyes. We both read the same data, but interpret it very differently. I gave you my reason why (competition, drastically lost userbase and stolen limelight), and you have yours (alternative control method and completely bastardized gameplay and non-linearity). We don't have data to prove either is wrong, since both theories reflect subsequent sales patterns. However, I do expect bottom up disruption of the 3D Mario branch if Nintendo perseveres and makes the 3D flavor as great as it was meant to be.

Yep, sadly the harm is done. Mario 64 being relatively unpopular (to the general market) and mostly played by the Nintendo fanbase, added to a kiddie image during the 2 gens it defined (for reasons other than it, bar Sunshine), left the branch in a bad state.

Sadly that's the nature of this hobby. We all see the same data, sometimes it can mean one thing, sometimes it can mean another. For that, one needs to take other factors into consideration. For one, it's clear that the fanbase of Brawl was on the Wii as much as it was on the Gamecube (i.e. core Nintendo fans). The same can be said about Zelda TP versus say Wind Waker on the Cube. The same can't be said about Mario, since alot of the SMB userbase (the mainstream) was now on the PS platform.

@italics. That's mostly the core userbase. Those who bought Mario were the mainstream. They were the same who chose the Playstation for its market appeal and marketing, game type (good sports games, lots of variety) and many other much more important factors at the time.

Also, Mario had already evolved in Mario 3, and a sequel (by what you said earlier) would have probably done less. Hard to compare against SMW since it was bundled, but hey, SMW sold half as many units and it was bunled globally. For SM64 to sell half of SMW without being bundled, that's telling for a sequel.

For underline, my theory also covers that.

This is blue ocean strategy. And though it's a separate topic from where this dialogue has been going thus far (why did 3D Mario fail), I certainly don't disagree with it.

The N64 and GameCube abominations? Not really. Sure they didn't live up to the SNES, but that doesn't make the bad.

With the N64, I believe that system, while lacking good third party support throughout it's life has proven to be a good system long after it's death. How? Look at games like Super Mario 64, the Banjo games, the Zelda games, Wave Race 64, Diddy Kong Racing, and Star Fox 64. After all these years, these games are very fun to play. A lot of them still hold up to this day. Now, compare this to a lot of the PlayStation classics. Back in the day, these N64 games were well received, but were dismissed by some gamers for lacking some of the bells and whistles some of the PlayStation games have provided. The PlayStation games were revered for their high production values, the usage of voice acting and FMV's. However, in order to achieve this, gameplay had to be sacrificed for many games. But because this was the dawn of 3D gameplay, a lot of people couldn't see it at the time. Now, if were to go back and play a lot of these PlayStation games which were big hits at one time, a lot of them would almost unplayable for a lot of people nowadays. They've aged terribly. The high production values that were so well received back in the day now work against the games because the voice acting for most games back then was terrible and the FMV's look like crap. The gameplay definitely would not hold up. This is probably the reason we have not gotten a real remake of Resident Evil 2 yet, or Final Fantasy VII. The developers would have almost make an entirely new game.

I see GameCube as Nintendo's most disappointing console, but definitely not an abomination. Nintendo had the ideas for the system and a lot of it's games, but unfortunately had poor execution. the Cube design was awesome, but unfortunately, it looked too much like a toy. Had it looked closer to Apple's Power Mac G4 Cube, which was released a year earlier, it would have been more accepted. Had GameCube been released a year or two later than when it was released, the lack of DVD playback would have been for forgivable. As for the games, the third party support actually improved compared to the N64, but the first party support did not. Had Nintendo maintained the momentum they had at the beginning of the GameCube's life, they would have had better games for it.

It entirely falls down to game design philosophy. Nintendo doesn't need to do dick regarding following industry trends, because they are capable of designing games that do things that very few other studios are capable of doing

The consoles themselves were not bad, but the strategies behind software development for these consoles very much were.