Alright, I stopped playing Battlefield and read the article. He makes interesting points, but I still don't see why it's particularly bad to create 3D Mario games. 3D Mario opened the door for so many new 3D platformers to rise - and they did, until platforming games took a nose-dive in sales.
It's definitely important to have 2D games like Mario create a market where other 2D games can thrive, but I don't see why Nintendo can't do both. They made a 2D Mario game and 2 3D Mario games on the Wii just fine. Are you trying to argue that instead of investing time into both series, Nintendo should *only* make 2D Mario games and use the 3D Mario game resources for other non-Mario projects?
Also, while he says that 2D Mario makes it possible for other 2D Games to sell, why did Rayman Origins, which was widely critically successful in reviews, completely tank in sales comparatively? Mario didn't make a good market for Rayman, apparently... Maybe these types of games don't rely on Mario as much as Malstrom thinks they do.
