| noname2200 said:
That's fair. My apologies for becoming impatient. I don't agree with either of those conclusions, because each is based on irrelevant data points. The chart is relevant to show that a recently released 3D Mario platformer is only doing marginally better in 2012 than a 2D Mario platformer from 2006. This is, if not an apple-to-apple comparison, then at least an apple-to-pear comparison (or whatever fruit is the apple's close relative. I'm not a botanist). You're asking what it means about the healthiness of a game in a completely different genre. This is an apple-to-broccoli (sic) comparison; the two in completely different genres, with nothing in common beyond a theme. It's an especially flawed comparison when Mario Kart 7 already has a DS counterpart that launched somewhat around the same time as NSMB. Basically, the reason I didn't answer your question is because, based on the data presented, I could draw no real conclusion. For a VERY imperfect, off the cuff analogy, think of someone saying that "the top 100m sprinter in the 2000 Olympics had a best time of 10 seconds. The top 100m sprinter in the tryouts for the 2012 Olympics had a top time of 12 seconds. From this, what can we conclude about the state of the Hammer Throw event at the 2012 Olympics?" |
I know you must be facepalming from my last post to Trucks, but bear with me.
Now it's true that you can't compare commonality between an apple and a broccoli in terms of texture. That's true. But one thing you can do is compare their nutritional values.
That's why I was going abstract. Ultimately these are video games, and what metric we can use to measure their appeal is sales.
The question was, what is more profitable for Nintendo. So whether one is a racer and one a platformer really is non-relevant to the matter at hand.
