Quantcast
Malstrom equates 3D Mario with poison

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Malstrom equates 3D Mario with poison

Do you want more Super Mario Bros.?

Yes, I am smart. 94 75.81%
 
No, I am an idiot. 16 12.90%
 
No, I want Nintendo to fail. 13 10.48%
 
Total:123

Yeah. I think if you called Malstrom out on it he would change the language. It does read like that. He repeats himself endlessly in blog posts so fully explaining it's about sales as if to a new reader is not something he does any more.

I would rephrase it like: NSMB brings in new gamers, expands the gaming audience. SMB inspired a whole generation to go out and make games, leading to almost everything we have today. SM64 games only appeal to the existing gaming audience so are likely to lead to more SM64 games (Banjo-Kazooie) so gaming stays small and doesn't become like music and art and literature and film.



Around the Network
Soleron said:
Yeah. I think if you called Malstrom out on it he would change the language. It does read like that. He repeats himself endlessly in blog posts so fully explaining it's about sales as if to a new reader is not something he does any more.

I would rephrase it like: NSMB brings in new gamers, expands the gaming audience. SMB inspired a whole generation to go out and make games, leading to almost everything we have today. SM64 games only appeal to the existing gaming audience so are likely to lead to more SM64 games (Banjo-Kazooie) so gaming stays small and doesn't become like music and art and literature and film.

That clarification helps alot, but even that doesn't really hold water. Check my retort here. It inspired a generation of games, but that generation of games appealed to only a very small fraction of Mario's initial market. So how is the result different from 3D Mario I just don't see it. Actually, 3D Mario launched more success, since games like uncharted sell at least 3M.



happydolphin said:
Soleron said:
Yeah. I think if you called Malstrom out on it he would change the language. It does read like that. He repeats himself endlessly in blog posts so fully explaining it's about sales as if to a new reader is not something he does any more.

I would rephrase it like: NSMB brings in new gamers, expands the gaming audience. SMB inspired a whole generation to go out and make games, leading to almost everything we have today. SM64 games only appeal to the existing gaming audience so are likely to lead to more SM64 games (Banjo-Kazooie) so gaming stays small and doesn't become like music and art and literature and film.

That clarification helps alot, but even that doesn't really hold water. Check my retort here. It inspired a generation of games, but that generation of games appealed to only a very small fraction of Mario's initial market. So how is the result different from 3D Mario I just don't see it. Actually, 3D Mario launched more success, since games like uncharted sell at least 3M.

Conceded.

I don't actually believe 100% in my rewrite.



RolStoppable said:

theRepublic said:

It doesn't change the fact that Malstrom doesn't know jack about game criticism or recognize the value of a diverse game line up.

Which is why he called Reggie an idiot for not wanting to bring the Operation Rainfall games to America or Nintendo on the whole for keeping games like Zangeki No Reginleiv in Japan.

You people keep criticizing Malstrom for being closed-minded, yet none of you ever saw a problem with Super Mario Galaxy 2 which goes completely against the idea of a more diverse game lineup. Its changes to the previous game are minimal. It's just Yoshi and a couple of new power-ups. Likewise, apparently there's no real problem with the 3DS lineup even though it's one 3D gameplay title after another. Despite the fact that Nintendo are masters of 2D gameplay.

I would agree with that.  There is no reason for NOA to not localize these games.

No, Galaxy 2 did not promote a diverse line up.  However, it was based in good business practices.  The assets and ideas were already there.  Low cost for high profit.  It is clear there was demand there, so fans got what they wanted too.

But if Malstrom had his way, the first Galaxy would have never existed.



NNID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing/Backlog:
Wii U - Currently Gaming Like It's 2014 (Hyrule Warriors) - 11 games in backlog
3DS - Currently Gaming Like It's 2013 (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) - 7 games in backlog
PC - Currently Gaming Like It's 2009 (Borderlands) - 9 games in backlog
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

happydolphin said:
RolStoppable said:
Jumpin said:

Can you prove that the loss is due to the 3DS? You need to show evidence, because I have no reason to just take your word for it.

You also have to prove that 3D games hurt the 3DS sales, because I think it was the lack of first any major games and a pricepoint of 250$USD. You can see a substantial increase in 3DS sales with the release of Ocarina of Time 3D, and then an even bigger jump in sales with the price drop, and yet an even bigger sales boost with the release of Super Mario Land 3D.

Another thing I will note is that when New Super Mario Bros launched, the DS actually sold less than the prior week in 2 out of 3 markets (US, 33K dropped to 32K, in the EU it dropped from 170K to 144K). 

Also, you're going to have to prove that the Mario Land 3D didn't do its job, because it looks to me that it did a much better job than the 2D Mario game, and other 2D games did on the original DS. The 3DS grew in all three markets with the release of Super Mario 3D Land (66 to 137K in Japan, 106 to 144K in the US, 101K to 165K in EU).

So yes, he is ignoring evidence. His claim is refuted by bringing evidence in.

One last piece of evidence. In its first year, and at a higher price point, the 3DS with its 3D games sold more than double what the DS did with its 2D games during its first year.

Iwata says that the 3DS hardware is the main culprit for their financial situation.

Since Nintendo was forced to run their business at a loss and based on the fact that software sells hardware, it's logical that the 3DS lineup in 2011 wasn't sufficient to achieve the desired results (good sales and profits).

Nintendo's flagship games are supposed to have good legs and sell for months or even years, so looking at a single week of sales to determine the value of these games is most definitely the wrong way to go about this. Especially when the release of Super Mario 3D Land coincides with the start of the holiday sales.

All your evidence is faulty. The DS didn't have flagship 2D games during its first year which is why its sales weren't good. Super Mario 64 DS was the flagship game along with a Metroid Prime Hunters demo, accompanied by mostly gimmicky touchscreen games like Pokémon Dash and Yoshi Touch & Go that hardly anybody remembers nowadays. Additionally, I have once again to point out that the 3DS business was run at a heavy loss while the DS was profitable during its first year. It's no achievement to have higher sales when you are losing money.

My evidence that Super Mario 3D Land failed to do its job are the poor 3DS sales we see each and every week in America and Europe. Nintendo must have had higher expectations for this game, because if they hadn't, they would be a poor business.

So much fail in 1 post. 

"Nintendo's flagship games are supposed to have good legs and sell for months or even years, so looking at a single week of sales to determine the value of these games is most definitely the wrong way to go about this. "

He used it as an indicator for HW push. That's the only way to do it, otherwise enlighten us.

"Since Nintendo was forced to run their business at a loss and based on the fact that software sells hardware, it's logical that the 3DS lineup in 2011 wasn't sufficient to achieve the desired results (good sales and profits)."

Nintendo had Mario Kart, Super Mario 3D Land and Nintendogs. What do you want more?? If it didn't sell well, it's because the pricepoint was just too damn high, period. Once they reduced the price, they met their target, how can it not be more clear than that? Yet you blame 3D Land? Give me a break. It would not have sold any more with a 2D Mario excuse me, as awesome as it would have been.

When NSMB pushed the DS, it came out mid lifecycle, after much buzz about touch controls, and when a remodel came out. Systems don't sell explosively at launch unless they are the Wii (ie. Extremely exceptional).  To think 2D Mario would have propelled the 3DS into explosive sales is wishful at best, if not idiotic. (how'd you like it?)

"It's no achievement to have higher sales when you are losing money."

When the market dictates a level of performance and pricepoint that your platform simply cannot afford without counting its losses, then yes, high sales while losing money MAY be a serious indicator of success, at best. At worst, and in all realism, it is a sign that the market is probably not sustainable for much much longer. Quote me on it.

"My evidence that Super Mario 3D Land failed to do its job are the poor 3DS sales we see each and every week in America and Europe. 

2D Mario would not have changed that, see my first point on Mario Kart, Mario and Nintendogs. Sorry. And NSMB got its help from the dogs and from the brain games, you constantly forget that. If Nintendogs 3D didn't pull it off, I fail to see how much better of a job 2D Mario could've done.

Sorry.

You forgot to add the DS price drop and the release of the DS Lite in addition to your stuff. =P



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

The same way 2D Mario in some way gave birth or a place for Mega Man, Castlevania, and others. 3D Mario aka Super Mario 64 gave birth to the 3D age. Games like Ocrania of Time, Tomb Raider, all of Rare games on the N64. Then even Sega attempting to do a 3D Sonic game. It's the same prinicple.



 

Just because someone is saying something different. Doesn't mean their point of view is right!

Member Of The Wii Squad: Warriors of Light!

One of the 4 Yonkou of Youtube aka Wii Warlords. Other Members include ThaBlackBaron, Shokio, and Cardy.

Soleron said:
happydolphin said:
...

You clearly didn't read my post with the NES games and their sales, the market Malstrom was talking about created by Mario.

You're mixing two things up, Malstrom's views, which confuse sales and awesomeness, and Rol's pov.

Like most of us, Rol wants to see Nintendo do well. In that case, he wants them to sell well. But if you look earlier in the topic, I asked Rol, what is most important here, sales or awesomeness, and he told me awesomeness. So the question is, if a game is fantastic, yet it doesn't sell all that well, which desire is the most important, for Nintendo to do well, or for their games to sell.

You'll tell me, they're one and the same, when a game is good, it will sell. But the fact of the matter is, many games don't sell all too well (relatively speaking) despite being gems. Galaxy is by far a much better game than NSMBWii, but which one sold better, we both know the answer to these questions.

Bottom line, if that is your stance, that you discuss sales as sales and don't equate sales to quality, don't bash a game if it doesn't sell well, be SPECIFIC. Just say: "this or that game would have sold better", don't use other confusing rhetoric such as "this game didn't sell well because it's not a real Mario".

 

And I'll gracefuly close this with

"..."

Wasn't really responding to you, was making a point Rol made stand out more.

Not, when a game is good it will sell. The games that sell IS the only decent measure of quality (obviously you can hold a subjective ranking but it's not worth discussing on the internet as your preferences are your own). Plenty of quality games that I like haven't sold, and they didn't deserve to sell either.

Galaxy had higher production values, yes. Was it doing the job the market needed it to do, not really. Nintendo put no effort into NSMB Wii (recycle art, sound and level design) and yet it sold more. If Nintendo had put NSMB Wii on an equal pedestal development wise we wouldn't need to have this debate, it would just be so high that Nintendo couldn't continue to be in denial about what they need to spend money on.

I disagree with Rol if that's what he said, I believe sales are the important thing. I desire Nintendo to do well because they will then have enough money to do projects that don't make sense - the games I like e.g. Galaxy.

"not a real Mario" is Malstrom shorthand for "a sequel to the original Marios that people who liked those would want to buy, and that new gamers can experience the same as what SMB did for 80s gamers".

But why would they?? they put little effort into the game and it still sold like crazy, what incentive would they have to put in effort when millions of people will buy it regardless?? Im not try trying to be difficult its a legit ?   I would have love them to put in more effort (one of the reasons i passed on that game)



Soleron said:

[...]

Galaxy had higher production values, yes. Was it doing the job the market needed it to do, not really. Nintendo put no effort into NSMB Wii (recycle art, sound and level design) and yet it sold more. If Nintendo had put NSMB Wii on an equal pedestal development wise we wouldn't need to have this debate, it would just be so high that Nintendo couldn't continue to be in denial about what they need to spend money on.

[...]

Recycled from what?  Sure it took its styling from DS NSMB, but didn't all the assets need to be redone for the Wii?  Wouldn't it have looked terrible if they didn't?  I don't know anything about the music, but I suspect that most of the levels were brand new too.  (Honest questions there, I don't know)

I personally thought that NSMB Wii was a highly polished game.  It seemed to me like a lot of effort was put into it.



NNID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing/Backlog:
Wii U - Currently Gaming Like It's 2014 (Hyrule Warriors) - 11 games in backlog
3DS - Currently Gaming Like It's 2013 (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) - 7 games in backlog
PC - Currently Gaming Like It's 2009 (Borderlands) - 9 games in backlog
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

theRepublic said:

Recycled from what?  Sure it took its styling from DS NSMB, but didn't all the assets need to be redone for the Wii?  Wouldn't it have looked terrible if they didn't?  I don't know anything about the music, but I suspect that most of the levels were brand new too.  (Honest questions there, I don't know)

I personally thought that NSMB Wii was a highly polished game.  It seemed to me like a lot of effort was put into it.

NSMB Wii had completely new levels with a lot of completely new obstacles. Plus a bunch of new power-ups.

The level design was highly polished which becomes really apparent when you try to rush through the stages as fast as possible. It's a blast to play. However, the graphics and music were minimalistic for the most part, just doing the bare necessary. The music was newly composed, but since it used the same instruments as the DS game, it sounded very similar. The soundtrack also wasn't nearly as memorable as in the first four SMB games.

NSMB Wii will age well, because the gameplay and level design are top notch. But when it comes to production values, it's nowhere near Super Mario Galaxy. I think Nintendo could get away with it, because people were starving for SMB, but next time they better put in serious effort on all accounts. Not just because the owners of NSMB Wii expect it, but also because it would get those to buy the game who thought that NSMB Wii felt cheap.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

I've seen some articles of this guy, he always raging about modern games. WTF?

How can he be taken seriously.



Spiders den are not for men.

My gaming channel: Stefano and the Spiders.

http://www.youtube.com/user/MultiSpider87?feature=mhum