| happydolphin said: Please don't get impatient. In your analogy of a race, liken video game sales to the amount of people said race attracts in the stands. From that metric, you can say for instance if one event, no matter the details, attracts more of a crowd than another, then it is the more popular event, regardless of the nature of the attendants. The same can be said for Mario Kart vs 2D Mario, the metric in this occurence being sales. This ultimately translates into bottom line, for Nintendo, which is the heart of this issue after all. |
Nuh-uh pal, no changing the final metric, else the analogy doesn't work, and the explanation is pointless!
Remember, I'm not spewing all this to try to convince you that one answer or the other is correct. I'm spewing all this to try to explain why the question you're posing should not be answered using the data you're attempting to use.
| happydolphin said:
How can I disagree with this? I was running from the track record of gen 7 onwards. That's all... |
Then your analysis is flawed. Why are you discarding useful data? Especially when you're beginning with the outlier generation? That's how we get Michael Pachters.
| happydolphin said: I was just saying that in the case where someone said that Mario Kart was leaps and bounds more potent than 3D Mario (which it also is), then applying the Europe 2D Mario chart argument only to one and not to the other was inconsistent. That's all I was trying to say. |
If we compare the sales of any JRPG ever to just about any 2D Mario game, it demonstrates that every JRPG ever made is in trouble.
This argument is flawed, in spite of because its (mis)using sales data. Explain why.
