By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel on 06 March 2011
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
thismeintiel said:

<snip>  However, your comment about Mario 64 being a spin off is incorrect.  It was indeed a main entry to the series.  You can't justify calling a game a spinoff because it is in 3D as opposed to 2D.  Of course the previous ones were in 2D, the HW couldn't handle anything else.  But, when the HW could handle 3D well, they made the shift to 3D just like all franchises at that time.  I mean that would be like saying every Zelda game  now, except the one on the DS, are spinoffs because they are in 3D.  It's just not true.  And you definitely can't go by sales to determine what is a main entry and what is a spin-off.

Super Mario 64 was only believed to be a main entry for the longest time, but in hindsight the market's reaction makes it clear that the game marks the beginning of a new spinoff series. Mario's jump to 3D (no pun intended) was accompanied by drastic changes to the gameplay formula. The Super Mario Bros. titles (the mainline) are all about reaching the flagpole or an equivalent at the end of the level, but the 3D Mario games were about playing the same levels several times over to collect stars in different locations.

Due to their different nature, these games were never able to match the sales of the SMB titles. The sales of the Galaxy games vs. NSMB Wii show that it never was about declining interest in the Mario franchise, but rather the market considers these titles to be different series. If you still don't want to accept that sales can be used to determine what is a main entry and what is a spinoff, there's still the issue of differing gameplay which is characteristic for spinoffs.

Zelda in 3D really isn't all that different to the 2D versions, just like JRPGs haven't changed at their core when going 3D. It's more or less just a different perspective being used, that's why these types of games still worked while most sidescrolling games like Contra, Castlevania and countless platformers ended up being complete trash or disappointing. By the way, there are two Zelda games on the DS and both are in 3D.

Again, you're trying to use sales to determine what is a spinoff or main entry.  You can't do that.  Especially considering many early Mario games saw A LOT of their sales from bundling of the popular HW, which hurt Mario 64 sales in compariosn when N64 didn't sell so well.  And as far as gameplay, yes Sunshine was quite different, which is why I won't argue against it being a "spin-off."  Mario 64, on the other hand, has gameplay much like the original games.  The only differences (and there weren't really that many) only came about because of additions needed to be made to accommodate the transition to a fully explorable 3D world. 

Now, let's say next gen the next Nintendo console fails to sell close to what MS or Sony's next offerings sell.  Say Nintendo releases a new Mario that, for the most part, is just like SMBWii.  It obviously isn't going to sell as well as Mario's Wii offerings.  Will that make it a "spin-off" by default?  Of course not.  Which shows that your reinvisioning the history of what Nintendo made as a main entry vs. spinoff by sales is flawed.