| happydolphin said: I understand that games can sell on their own, but gain much more of an advantage when coupled with a game of the same of likely caliber. It's what we call a one-two punch. We're both familiar with the phenomenon, so I do see where you're coming from. But having said all that, I still fail to see how, while DS Mario challenging 3DS 3D Mario is relevant, the standard can't be held when it comes to Mario Kart... I understand that MK takes its strength from its peers, but the same can clearly be said for 2D Mario. It's the one-two punch. Maybe you can argue that 2D Mario is more self-sufficient, but to what extent? Even so, whether dependent on peers or not, there is no doubt that Mario Kart is a powerful franchise ever since gen 7, and went viral even before NSMB came out on the Wii, like you said. It is strong on its own, but certainly the Wii series helped to propel it, there's no doubt about that. I'm not sure I understand your PoV. Maybe what you're trying to say is that MK7 is challenged by NSMB DS precisely because 2D Mario was not there to give it wind in its sails. I can understand that. So you're saying that SMB3DL was not the answer that would give MK7 wind in its sails, and hence MK7, as an entry in the series, is struggling to fly past NSMB DS. Am I understanding you right? |
I'm afraid not. What I'm saying there's far less value in comparing NSMB to MK7 than there is in comparing NSMB to SM3DL. The latter is a useful insight for gauging which flavor of Mario platformers the market prefers, which is part of what this topic is about. The former is a cross-comparison between two games in unrelated genres. That is much less useful.
If what you're asking is "is a 2D Mario platformer bigger money maker than a Mario Kart," then the answer is "yes." The follow up answer is "so what?" It's not only a different topic than the one in this thread, it's largely irrelevant because each of them is quite valuable to their systems, and deciding to omit either is a dumb idea.
If we're going to keep on our food analogy, apples (fruit) and broccoli (vegetable) offer quite different nutritional value, and you're supposed to eat some of each every day anyways, so comparing the two is less valuable than comparing them to other fruits/veggies.
