| RolStoppable said: Some choice quotes: Let me introduce to you my villain. It is neither a he or she but an it. My arch nemesis, the Anti-Malstrom, who only wishes harm and destruction on gaming. The Anti-Malstrom somehow got hold of Doc Brown’s time machine/deLorean. It goes back to the year 1985, removes Super Mario Brothers from the Space Time continuum, and then travels back to the present. (...) The call for 2d Mario is not a call for a specific game. It is also a call for a foundational stone so a market exists so these other games can get made. (...) This is why I want a New Legend of Zelda. Not only do I want it for the game New Legend of Zelda could be, I want it because of the other Zelda-esque games it will spawn due to the market it makes.
It is not just that Nintendo makes 3d Mario and their finances decline while making 2d Mario and their finances increase. Gaming, as a medium, grows with 2d Mario. Gaming, as a medium, declines with 3d Mario.
Miyamoto appears in this post to say, “But if we combine 2d Mario and 3d Mario, we can compromise and everyone wins.” When food and poison compromises, which is the victor?
Read the full blog post here. |
There is a HUGE flaw in the article - and that is ignoring evidence.
|
62,043 | 5,813,358 | 23 |
Also, Super Mario 3D Land was a key product in ressurecting 3DS from a near death situation; it helped accelerate 3DS sales to the point where it became the fastest selling year 1 console in history.
There are also releases of 2D Zelda games, and they weren't very successful. While they are interesting, they are clearly inferior products; this is different from 2D and 3D Mario where they are different types of games - in the case of Zelda, it is the same type of game, just with many more limitations. That is, unless there is something done like Zelda 2: Adventure of Link - that might actually be fairly interesting; but I doubt it would be as successful as a 3D Zelda.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
