By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DM235 on 03 May 2010
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
Spedfrom said:
2D or 3D Mario is still Mario.

3D Sonic wasn't as popular as 2D Sonic but, for example, Sonic Adventure still sold relatively well. It wasn't for a lack of Sonic that SEGA went down, but for a myriad of variables.

The bottom line you're trying to convey is that Nintendo is so strong that even without their flagship franchise for two generations (a fallacy) they still managed to be successful.

Well, how about not having any Mario at all for one generation? Now the question this thread asks is a fairer one.

1) 3D Mario is as much Mario as Halo Wars is Halo. A spinoff, not the big thing. The same goes for Sonic Adventure.

2) Of course there are plenty of reasons why Nintendo and Sega lost more and more marketshare, but not releasing their biggest guaranteed system sellers certainly made things even worse.

3) No, this isn't about how strong Nintendo and Sega performed without their flagship titles, I wanted to point how ridiculous and dumb it was from both companies to not make these games anymore.

4) You were missing the point. If you want a fairer question than it has to be "what if Sony and Microsoft would only release spinoffs of GT and Halo for the next 15 years?", because that's what Nintendo and Sega did.

Since Miyamoto worked on those games, I think it is unfair to call them spinoffs.  I think they were more his evolution of those games.

Unfortunately there was no 2D Mario platformer released to compare if sales would have flopped (because everyone wanted 3D), or it would have been a system seller.