The reason why 3D Mario is not as popular as 2D Mario

[Arius Dion]

RolStoppable said:

JWeinCom said:
So... basically what you've done is taken two variables (one of whose definitions is very poorly defined. Why is running away from an enemy not a confrontation, and jumping over it is, particularly when some enemies in 3D games will chase you? And, unless you happen to know the layout before hand, you're pretty likely to run into more than 2 enemies in Bobomb Battlefield. Not to mention that defining the game's difficulty based on one level which is quite silly...) and listed them.

So... 2D Mario has higher sales, and more hazards (by your definition). And how do you prove that these two variables are in any way linked? By ummmmmmm... just saying they are? You really give no evidence that these two variables are linked beyond "hey I think this is why". You have data, and you have a hypothesis... but nothing more. You need some sort of test. If what you say is true, then Galaxy, by your data, should have sold WAY better than Sunshine and 64, right?

And your data is very very incomplete and cherry picked or in some cases wrong. What about Super Mario World? There are 5 enemies that are in your direct path, and 0 pits. So, I'm guessing that sold really poorly? What about Galaxy 2? There are at least a dozen opportunities to fall into a black hole, about 12 enemies located in such locations that they're basically necessary to confront, and a boss. Oh, and by the way, your data for galaxy is wrong. There are about 5 places to plummet to your death (one swiss cheezy planetoid that has five gaps leading to one black whole. You also conveniently ignore the asteroids, and electric thingamabobs. If they can hurt you and they move, why shouldn't they be counted as enemies?

Based on your theory, I would expect Galaxy 2 to be the best selling game of the series. But... it isn't. Now, before you go on talking about other factors (timing, sequels, etc), that just means you've done a crap job of isolating your variable.

So... uhhhhh... you've really got nothing here. You have a woefully incomplete set of data (that arbitrarily ignores half the series and focuses on one level), and you have no sort of evidence to show that your independent variable (number of hazards) and dependent variable (sales) are in any way linked. Your argument is in another castle.

Running around an enemy takes no skill, that's why. Especially in the huge open areas in Super Mario 64. You have to seek the confrontation to make something happen, that's not the same as being forced to deal with it. Super Mario World's first level has more than a dozen enemies and two deadly pits on the way to the goal. If you complain about incomplete and wrong data, you shouldn't provide clearly wrong data yourself.

What the comparison between pits and confrontations with enemies in various games was meant to show is that there is a much higher chance to lose in 2D Mario games. A fact that I expanded further on by pointing out how many hits it takes until the player dies and how long levels are. Super Mario Galaxy 2 may be more streamlined and thus more dangerous than previous 3D Mario games (you are exaggerating your numbers though), but danger is still far more spread out than in any of the 2D Mario games. There are other factors that also make 2D Mario games more entertaining (like the physics), but I focused on disproving the initial and commonly voiced premise that 2D Mario sells more because it's easier.

The conclusion of my post is that the overall feel of 2D Mario simply cannot be replicated in a 3D space, hence why 3D Mario will never reach the heights of popularity that 2D Mario achieved.

I'd love to see anyone argue against this.

The ironic thing is, as Miyamoto continues to try and fuse 2D & 3D, he actually repulses fans of both. It is futile to continue this endeavor. I'd like to know why Miyamoto feels so strongly about destroying the game that created him.