By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
happydolphin on 02 May 2012
Edit Thread

Sorry, I'll answer these in reverse order as that's the way I feel more cumfy answering them.

noname2200 said:

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.

 

Since the bottom line is the heart of the issue, imagine this. Imagine you were head of video game console manufacturing company trying to ensure momentum and a bottom line, then if you were to choose between releasing a JRPG or a 2D Mario game at a crucial point in time to drive momentum, then choosing a JRPG you would be in trouble.

As for your 2nd question, we fall back on the analogy.

 

noname2200 said:
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.

Then I'll trust your honesty. In that case, what was the initial metric, and what was the heart of the issue? As far as I knew, we were talking about sales strength to compare the frugality of one series over another. Where was I wrong?

ADDED: Keep in mind the analogy is there to support the point, and not the other way around. If the analogy fails by not being the right mapping, replacing it with something more mappable is the way to go.

 

noname2200 said: 
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.

I understand what you're saying. I'd be glad to concede this point after looking into it a little more. What I'd like to see first is how it's trending in Japan as compared to gen 7, and if its weakening is due to other more regional factors (lack of other support software, market penetration of the platform, etc.). If it is trending poorly in japan in gen 7, then that would be a fair conclusion, that Mario Kart in and of itself can't drive a platform. Would that be a fair way to go about it?

ADDED: Also, by the same fact, keep in mind. If Mario kart was able to break out of core sales into evergreen pastures, then I believe the same is possible for 3D Mario. It's what I would call untapped potential. I just wanted to slide it in there while we were on the topic of the MK trend. Let's not dwell on it.