Malstrom is a bit... loony, if you ask me. As someone who grew up playing both Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Land 2 (and Sonic the Hedgehog, on an unrelated note), I have an appreciation for both 3D and 2D Mario, and I don't see why anyone would want only one to exist. It was a drag for those 10 years or so when there were no new 2D Marios, sure, but let's not have that same drought with 3D Mario.
One of my biggest issues with Malstrom is his inconsistency in his arguments. Just in this article he gives a whole list of games that "wouldn't exist" if it weren't for Super Mario Bros., yet neglects to recognize games like Banjo-Kazooie and Psychonauts -- and maybe even some of Naughty Dog's work -- that clearly drew inspiration from Super Mario 64.
He doesn't like 3D Zelda either, frequently singling out "Aonuma Zelda" as something to be hated. But why does he use sales figures to demonstrate the supposed irrelevance of and lack of demand for 3D Mario while ignoring the fact that the two best-selling Zelda games are 3D? That the last true 2D Zelda (Minish Cap) was the worst-selling game in the series? Likewise, 3D Zelda has influenced loads of amazing games -- Darksiders is an obvious one.
Malstrom just has a one-track mind. He refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn't affirm his confirmation bias. Part of me even wants to agree with him, because I love 2D Mario and Zelda as much as the next guy. But I can't follow his contradictory logic.
You know what games wouldn't exist without 2D Mario? 3D Mario. The food begat the poison. You cannot have one without the other. So long as we have 2D Mario, 3D Mario is inevitable.
