RolStoppable said:
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. |
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfdUZWwG-D8
4 enemies. There is no need to engage the koopas on the top of the platform. Run forward and you'll go under them. There is a red koopa in your path, there is a green koopa, there is a charging chuck, there is a pirahna plant. Every other enemy can be avoided by running straight ahead. There are no pits. You could call the level on the left the first level, but you don't have to beat that level to progress.
Now, even if I did give wrong data, that doesn't somehow excuse your missing games, that doesn't somehow allow you to gloss over the pits in Super Mario Galaxy as though they didn't exist, or to ignore most of the Mario series in general. Put good try on wiggling out of that one by casting blame on the other person. Classic tactic.
And not a skill? Utterly ridiculous. Navigating a character in 3D is most certainly a skill, and a more complex skill than jumping over an enemy. Maybe not to someone who has been gaming their whole life, but to someone who never played a game?
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
The numbers aren't exaggerated at all. The only problem is since Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a 3D experience and more complex than 2D Mario it's hard to count. In 2D Mario there are two ways to enter a pit. In Mario Galaxy 2, you can enter it from numerous directions. Throughout a great deal of Mario Galaxy you're surrounded by pits on all sides. Plus, you can also drown, and the threat of drowning is literally everywhere in a water level. Way more chances to fall in.
The problem is that your definition is very poor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV4Ocsy812k
How many oppotunities do you have to die here? The electric fence can kill you at any given moment, and any of the mines is instadeath.
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.
Except, you didn't prove that. You didn't disprove that 3D Mario games are harder. You only judged one level of each game, and it doesn't logically follow that the games will end as hard as they began. What if we compared Grand Master Galaxy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIJWYFCutL0
with the final level of NSMBU?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdWgrTv02eg
Follow That Shell has maybe... 12 enemies, and no pits in your immediate path. I didn't count for Grand Master Galaxy, but it's A LOT more. So, 3D Mario harder then 2D Mario confirmed? Well, no, because selecting the final level is just as arbitrary as selecting the last.
Of course, you didn't even prove that the first levels are harder in the first place. Any pit or enemy in 2D Mario presents you with 3 options (assuming you don't have a power up). Go left, go right, jump. 3D Mario gives you more options, so even with less enemies you have more choices, more room, and more complexity. On a floating platform in 2D Mario, there are 2 ways to die. In a floating platform in 3D there are four. This isn't mentioning the fact that 2D Mario games tend to shower you with power ups like the acorn or propeller hat that make it easier to jump (3D Land and World too). While enemies kill you easier in 2D Marios, the power ups make falling into a pit less likely than it is in Galaxy. Or the fact that it is impossible to fail a level in NSMBWii or U unless all players fail in unison (world as well). So... you haven't proved that 2D Mario is harder, or that it would be harder even if your arbitrary data had any meaning.
And you didn't prove that easiness is a factor in sales. If your theory is correct, harder games, whether in 2D or 3D Mario, should sell better than easier ones. Super Mario World should have flopped with its lack of level 1 hazards, and Lost Levels should have vastly outsold Mario Bros 3 in Japan. Galaxy 2 should have outsold Galaxy 1. New Super Mario Bros (11 enemies 3 pits) should have sold worse than NSMBWii. So, even if we grant that your definition of difficulty is correct, you can't show that it impacts sales.
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.
No, it wasn't. Maybe it's what you meant, or maybe you're revising your argument now, but that's not what you said. You very specifically, and very clearly focussed on the difficulty, and claimed that 2D Mario sells better than 3D Mario because it's more difficult, which is quite different than the bolded quote here. That's your opinion, and you're free to hold any opinion you want, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. That's fine. That being said, you did not prove or disprove anything. You presented two statistics (sales and number of hazards) and failed to establish any sort of link between them. This is a pretty classic example of people trying to dress up bad arguments with statistics, and it doesn't hold up.
