.... Wii sales were fake? Lol, now I've heard everything. The Wii was marketed well, was cheap and offered a new way to play. And perhaps most importantly the Wii had great software.  Hence it sold well.

3d world isnt real 3d Mario? Wii sales were fake?

I was meaning "not solid sales", with maybe only 20% of serious users and 80% of "sheep purchase".

10/10 for the mental gymnastics. Sales must be solid to count.

Just remember, Nintendo is never allowed to win. Especially when they win. 

He never said the sales didn't count, and he never said Nintendo didn't win.

His point is that the market the Wii captured was unsustainable, and did not become part of the core nintendo fanbase.

Thank you very much for avoiding me being banned again.

Great games on a system people want to play on. Same reason 3rd parties are having success on Switch.

For most people, probably the portability and accessibility. I pretty much only buy Nintendo exclusives, as i only play my Switch hooked up to the tv and with a pro controller. I'll get multiplats on Playstation.

210m Total Software sold as of June 30th 2019, a whopping 115m+ of that is Nintendo. Over 50% of games sold on the Switch are Nintendo Games. So I think a good number of people only buy Nintendo games and almost nothing else.

Edit: Out of interest looked up 3ds figures.

Total 3DS Games Sold : 379.6m
Nintendo Games: ~205m (54%)
3rd Party Games: ~175m (46%)

Interestingly those percentages are almost exactly the same as the current Switch.

Total Switch Games Sold : 210m
Nintendo Games : ~115m (55%)
3rd Party Games: ~95m (45%)

I would guess that the top down view actually represents a pretty large portion of Galaxy. Either way, the only reason we got to talking about cameras is because you were making a point that Galaxy is closer in design to Odyssey, Sunshine and 64, which you more or less have already conceited to ... at least from a gameplay standpoint, so this is kind of besides the point. 

Uh no. The top down view only appears in a select few levels. I think you are confusing when the camera pulls way back at a non-90 degree angle, as Mario walks on a small planetoid, with top down. Like this...

Top down is when the camera is direction overhead Mario at a 90% angle. 

All I conceited to was that getting individual stars in Galaxy was linear. Having linear sections does not make two games like 3D World, and Galaxy closer in design than Galaxy and 64. There are a myriad of gameplay elements, in different games, far beyond whether or not goals are linear. By your argument a racing game, with a start and finish line and a single track that you can't deviate from, is closer in design to Galaxy, because racing from one starting point to one ending point is linear. Nevermind that racing a car is completely different than running around as Mario. Nevermind that you don't kill enemies in a racing game. Nevermind nearly every other element of game design. Ignoring those other elements is just as stupid as ignoring the 90% of Galaxy that is completely different than 3D World. 

This is incredibly disingenuous and honestly just lazy. You don't bring up a point in a discussion, find no way to tie it back to the main point, and then sloppily try to repeat it as if it's profound. No one said anything about always trusting Nintendo, your original stipulation was incredibly misguided because what I was referencing was a statement from Nintendo that made complete and total sense in terms of the games - something you even acknowledged. 

I acknowledged that 3D World and Galaxy both have linear goals. That's about it. But like I said before having linear goals doesn't make two games more similar than two other games. It's not profound, it's just common sense. You don't accept something as fact just because someone in a position of authority said so. If said authority's reasoning is flawed, then they are still wrong. Nintendo's reasoning is that since both games have Mario doing rather linear things, that they have more in common with each other than the other games. Again, this ignores virtually all other elements of gameplay in the Mario series. Two things having a single element in common with each other does not make them more similar to each other, than another thing that shares multiple elements in common with one of the original comparison. It's also common sense, not to accept something that somebody in a position of authority is saying, if that someone has ulterior motives. Nintendo saying that Switch wouldn't replace 3DS, was all just a lying attempt to keep 3DS sales up. Nintendo saying that 3D World and Galaxy are more similar to each other than the other Mario games is just a lying attempt cover up their lazy game design. They want people to think of 3D World as a Galaxy-type game because if people think of it as a lazy throwback then that makes them look bad.  

Again, you're missing the point. I'm not saying that I can't see how you'd dislike a game that takes more from the 2D styles, it doesn't matter whether or not you think 2D Mario is worse than 3D Mario, because what I was commenting on was how unsubstantial your original reply was. If you said "3D World was more like 2D Mario and I don't like 2D Mario as much, therefore 3D World is not a great 3D Mario game", that would mean something. But just saying 3D World is not a proper 3D Mario game tells me nothing. It's not an argument, it's just a statement without anything supporting it. And it could mean many things, not just that it's too similar to 2D Mario to be a "real" 3D game, it could mean it isn't creative enough, or that it's too buggy, or that it doesn't have enough levels - because the statement again isn't specific and presents no real arguments. What is a "proper 3D Mario game" varies from person to person and people have different criteria, so it tells me nothing.

Got it. I need to be more specific. I assumed that you would understand immediately a lot of implied things. 

Besides, this isn't even true. I mean, I suppose that 2D Mario games certainly haven't gotten the acclaim of the 3D ones in a long time, but that's mostly because of a shift in priorities at Nintendo. The NSMB series is cheaper to produce, sells a lot, and for a while was a big driver of systems - there wasn't much reason to put the effort into those titles that the 3D games got because they sold on nostalgia and simplicity. But if you talk about 3D Mario games vs 2D Mario games and just ignore stuff like Super Mario Bros 3., Super Mario World, Super Mario Bros., The Land Series, or even SMW2: Yoshi's Island (if you include that) ... then you're just purposely being ignorant. Sure, maybe the amount of 2D titles that have stood the test of time, or have gotten the same level of acclaim as the 3D games is limited (arguably just 2 games, maybe 3 if you include SMW2). But then again, Sunshine/3D Land and 3D World are nowhere near as acclaimed as 64, Galaxy 1-2 or Odyssey ... but by your own criteria you couldn't even include Galaxy 1 or 2, leaving us only Odyssey and 64. And again, the reason the 2dgames have not gotten that attention to detail has a lot to do with technology and priorities - 2D has only been the king for 2 Nintendo home console generations. I've never heard it implied, as you just did now, that 2D Mario games are just inherently worse than 3D Mario games. Seriously, that just sounds really ignorant. I've heard people say they prefer the 3D ones, or that there are more top tier 3D games, but not that 2D Mario, or the inspiration it provides, is just inherently worse. 

Damn, I need to be more specific. 

"It is generally accepted that (modern) 3D Mario is better than (modern) 2D Mario (because modern 2D Mario doesn't move the series forward in a game design sense). 3D World has more in common with 2D Mario than Odyssey, 64, Sunshine, or the Galaxy games. This makes it inferior to all those games, (because those games move Mario forward in game design (or at least in the case of Sunshine stay still), while going back to the 2D style puts the game design car in full reverse)." 

I really felt that the implied parts in parentheses above were self explanatory. 

If you don't believe me take a look at my list of Greatest Games of all time from 2018. 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8948914

Notice how 64, and Sunshine are absent from the list, while SMB3, and World are on it? That's because I rank SMB3 and World above Sunshine, and 64. Sure, 64 was better than World when it first came out, because it moved the series (and much of 3D gaming) forward in game design. But (many not all) 2D games from the SNES/Genesis era have aged better than many (not all) games from the PS1/N64 era. And sure, maybe in the future 3D World will hold up better than Odyssey, because of its simplicity (or maybe it will be looked down on even in twenty years). But even if 3D World (hypothetically) manages to age better (again, not saying that it will) than Odyssey, that still wouldn't change the fact that at the time of release it reversed Mario game design, instead of moving it forward. 

By my own criteria we wouldn't include Galaxy 1-2? Why not? Because you still think Galaxy counts at a top-down Mario? Oh well, that's beside the point. 

Not any lazier than 85% of the moons in Odyssey.

There are 880 Moons in Odyssey vs 120 Stars in 64. Had Nintendo added in an extra 760 Stars to SM64 that you could find after beating the main campaign would you have called SM64 a lazily developed game too? (This is a rhetorical question btw.) These easier Moons being in the game in no way takes away from all the hard work that was put into the more creative Moons. Adding in 760 more stars to SM64 for the post game, would have in no way taken away from the massive accomplishment that was moving Mario into 3D and showing literally every other game developer how 3D is done. And yes I realize that not all of the lazy Moons are in the post game. That doesn't matter though. You are comparing the lazy side dishes of one game, to the lazy main course of another game. Odyssey isn't lazy at it's core. 3D World is. 

And don't get me wrong here. I like 3D World. I would recommend it to anybody that has a Wii U. But I would also remind them to temper their expectations. It's not a grand over the top adventure. Merely a great (but lazy) retread. And yes, games don't necessarily have to constantly move forward to be fun. Sometimes a good formula like Pokemon, or pre-BotW Zelda will work great for years. But that is not the same as putting the game design car in reverse. Stagnation should not be confused with regression.