Malstrom responds to my 'Mario and his Content' forum post

[theRepublic]

liquidninja said:

theRepublic said:

liquidninja said:
Actually, I think he said that new content will make a game sell forever. In other word superior content make a game a classic.
So his theory isn't all that vague.

Ah, I forgot he said that.

In the same piece he also said, "I am not linking content to pure sales."

How does it make sense to say that content is not linked to sales, but content makes a game sell forever?  This theory just seems disorganized to me.

You're changing it around and in the process lost an adjective.

He didn't say content wan't linked to sales. He said he wasn't linking it to "pure" sales. He said afterward that Sales are affected by many factors.

This doesn't change the fact that the theory is still disorganized.

He never addressed how his theory falls apart in Japan when moving from The Lost Levels to SMB 3.  He never addressed how it falls apart in Japan when moving from SMB 3 to SMW (especially since it is on a smaller install base).  Same when moving to Super Mario 64 in America.

I would say that the content of Mario Kart, as defined in this piece as what is left when the player turns off the game, is something like the Mushroom Kingdom's version of NASCAR.  That is the same for every Mario Kart.  Yet in previous pieces he has complained that the N64, GC, and GBA versions are lacking in contnet.  This does not make sense in that context.  The sales of those games don't support that either.  The N64 version outsold the SNES verion on a smaller install base.

In this piece, he makes the claim that the Zelda series was adding content up until Ocarina of Time, and that the series was seeing increased sales due to that fact.  He also claims the series has stopped adding content since then, and only connects to the timeline.  I already have shown that he is just wrong on the sales of the Zelda series.  That would mean that according to Malstrom the series was seeing decreasing sales despite adding content.  That is a direct contradiction of his theory.  Not only that, but the combined sales of TP have passed the first Zelda.  Pretty good for a game that is apparently devoid of new content.

Malstrom is just making his theory up as he goes, and tailoring it to his own personal taste in games.