No, I don't, it makes way more sense than "SM64 was about to get a sequel, that's why Odyssey 2 makes total sense"
Right, but that wasn't the point I was making, that's just a fallacious way of simplifying it. My point wasn't just that Super Mario 64 2 was originally planned, but also that the lack of sequels to 3D Mario games have a lot to do with the success of the devices they were on (Mario 64 2 was developed for the failed disk drive expansion). Even then, I don't understand why you're making fun of that characterization, because your logic was basically to create as simplistic of a parallel as possible, which is ironically what you're making fun of. If you list 3 3D Mario games that didn't get sequels, and then someone specifies that one of them was itself a sequel to a 3D Mario game, and another one of them had a sequel planned, does that not discredit a large chunk of the simplistic parallel made? Sure, you have a pattern of Mario games not getting sequels, but without explaining that pattern it doesn't mean much. Which is the point I was making. I gave you an entire host of reasons why none of those examples are applicable - I was even fair enough to discredit my own point about Super Mario World 2 because you didn't discredit it in a substantive way.
It doesn't take that long to read, but if you're that lazy then I suggest not making some really simplistic and poorly thought-out parallels, especially if you aren't going to justify them well.
Odyssey's situation has a much stronger parallel to Mario Galaxy than any of those games, but to be fair I'm not saying it's guaranteed to happen either. I'm just disappointed that I tried to be reasonable and what I get is a lazy mischaracterization as a response.Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 16 June 2019