Anyway, since I'm bored, I can pretty much prove 2D Mario takes less skill than 3D.
Simply imagine a computer program. The function of the computer program is simply to play Mario games. The computer program is completely unskilled. By this, I mean it will randomly enter inputs. It will press right, down, left (we'll ignore up as it is functionless. You can keep up if you like though), B, and will jump in NSMB. To keep things simple, we'll assume each move input (left right or down is held for one second).
For Mario 64, the program will enter one of 8 directions (to keep things simple). Punch the air, crouch, jump, or do some sort of combination of those activities. (Kick, ground pound, backflip, etc). Again, move inputs are held to a second.
So, the program, working with no skill i.e. completely randomly. Tries to play both levels. Which one will he complete first?
In the case of NSMBWii, the program eventually will solve the level. Assuming the computer randomly selects more right inputs than left (by quite a significant amount), and jumps at the 29 appropriate times (your counts of hazards + flagpole) and does so within the time limit, he will reach the end of the level and win. The program will fail on most occasions, but eventually due to dumb luck (meaning no skill) the computer program will get to the end. It will certainly take a long time, but eventually it will happen. There are only really 29 points in the level which it could fail.
((((((As an aside, lets assume a level will take 100 right inputs (as in inputs to the right not correct inputs) to cross the level, and 29 correct jumps. The odds of a correct input at any time is 1/5. So, the odds of completing the level should be 1/5^130. Or something like that. So the odds of a successful run with 0 skill relying solely on dumb luck is 1/7x10^89 or seven with 89 zeroes after it. Of course, my math may be off.)))))))))
In the other case, we have level one of bobomb battlefield. If we use the same rules (random inputs). The computer program is going to have to randomly input a series of commands that takes him from the beginning to the level, to the top of the level, while avoiding taking damage. Once he gets to the boss, a random series of inputs will have to be entered that takes the player behind the King Bobomb, hits the punch button, and throws him in the ring three times in a row, without stepping off of the platform once.
Obviously, this is a far more complex sequence of events that would have to occur to reach a successful outcome. If we take out every enemy from the equation, how many random inputs would it take to get to the top of the battlefield? If we estimate it will take 150 correct inputs to reach the top, then at best out odds are 1/11^15. 1/1 with about 150 zeroes. That's not counting the enemies that can stop you, the need to get right behind king bobomb and throw him in the ring, the need to stay in the ring, and the need to not fall off any structures that send you to the beginning, and the need to grab the actual star.
If we estimate 150 correct inputs to reach the top, 45 correct inputs to defeat King Bobomb, and another 5 inputs to get to the star, then our odds of succeeding with no skill in 3D Mario are...
1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000
compared to
1/7000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in 2D Mario.
And the gap is actually far greater, I just underestimated the complexity of getting the first star in Mario 64.
TL:DR or WTF Numbers is those version: Of course those are estimates, but any idiot can see that succeeding in Mario 64 (for instance) takes a much longer and more specific series of commands. Therefore, the odds of succeeding without any skill (through button mashing) in 2D Mario is significantly less than succeeding in 3D Mario. The math stuff was for my own amusement but it's self evident.
To dumb it down even more. Asking a player to complete a series of relatively complex objectives is obviously more difficult than asking them to complete one objective.
Askin someone, go to the right and jump over these 29 things, is far less complex than asking someone "Go into this house. In the house, go to the room on the left. Jump up, get a red coin from the book shelf, lure this piano monster out of the way, get the red coin, go to the top floor, cross the grating full of holes, get another coin, etx etc."
To dumb it down even further more options, more specific needs=more complex=duh=really?=comeonyougottabekiddingmewith3dgamingissimpler=
giveonefiveyearoldmario64andanothernsmbandseewhathappens
/thread
