vonboysp said: archbrix said: axt113 said: archbrix said: Wii Sports and the like did push hardware; it STILL doesn't mean their big three lineup isn't strong. If the word "casual" offends you, too bad.  Let's use "wider" since you seem to prefer it.  Many, many people who bought the Wii are people who fall into the "wider" category.  People that , as you admitted yourself, are not core gamers.  People who bought it on a whim, many of which hardly use it anymore.  People who are grandparents who like Wii bowling.  People who play every long once and a while with their kids.  In other words:  PEOPLE WHO PLAY CASUALLY!  Sound better?  Less idiotic, perhaps?  I never said this was a bad thing; not in the least.  No they would not be interested in Mario 64.  But Mario 64 did more than deliver a "3D star hunt".  It delivered a new era of gameplay and showed that Nintendo could gracefully transition great gameplay into 3D.  That impressed people whether they were fans of the direction the game took or not.  I personally prefer most of the 2D Mario games myself, and now that the "wider" market has embraced the Wii, great games like NSMB will surely sell much better.  But in 1996 Nintendo started the N64 off with a bang by adapting to the market instead of just releasing another 2D Mario which would have largely gone unnoticed at the time.  Super Mario World came with the SNES, but Super Mario World 2?  Despite being one of my favorite games ever, it definitely didn't sell anywhere near what Mario 64 and Galaxy have... there's your clue. Sony opposed to what the wider market is looking for?  Because PS1 and PS2 didn't sell squat, right?  Do YOU hear yourself?  I won't argue against Christensen's points simply because I do agree with a lot of what the man says.  Doesn't mean Move and Natal couldn't surprise us, but I'm not holding my breath either.  And I never stated I "trusted" the analysts; I NEVER did, as I was sure Nintendo would regain their #1 spot in the market.  Why?  Because I DO understand the market.  Do You?     Wrong, still weak, doesn't move hardware is weak   Its not offesnsive, its stupid, because it shows you really don't ge the market.  Not core means they value different things than the core, they don't care about HD graphics for example.  No 3D mario, mario 64, merely closed off the market, alienating those gamers who were fans of the Super marios, I know I never enjoyed the 3D marios like the Super marios. Going unnoticed, lol, are you listening to yourself, Mario 64 never sold close to what those 2D marios you think would have gone unnoticed did, like I said, you don't get marketing, study business a little first. Sony just sold to more markets, and to larger populations, they didn't expand the market, and they still won't with move or NATAL Study business a little first?  Why don't you try studying grammar and spelling first... then maybe you'll "ge"  the market yourself. Yes I am listening to myself, but obviously you're not.  Did you not read my example?  SMW2 sold NO WHERE NEAR what Mario 64 did.  Why?  Because at that time 3D design was in.  I know it and Nintendo knew it too.  You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, hiding behind the opinions of Christensen and people who actually do know what they're talking about in hopes of sounding like you have a clue yourself...   do you even know what smw2 was? it had a baby mario in it, and you played as the yoshi. the gameplay was vastly different from the first smw. there was more of a focus on collecting things, which was a precurser to the star hunting 3d marios. when the game game out, many people complained that it was not the same, and that it strayed too far from mario. it wasn't a mario game, it was a joshi game. it didn't sell not because it was a 3d mario, but because it wasn't a mario game at all.   to compare this to shooters, the earlier marios were like shoot-em-up fps's, while this new game was a stealth fps. it was vastly different, and many people did not like it.

Read my post.  Obviously I'm familiar with SMW2; as I stated, it's one of my favorite games of all time.  The argument from axt113 is that a 2D Mario would have sold better than Mario 64.  I don't agree; not at that time when 3D was becoming the popular design choice.  It sold over 11 million copies and was the biggest selling N64 game of all time.  Those numbers sound small compared to SM3 which sold much more, but again, that was a different time.  A 2D Mario surely wouldn't have sold as much in '96.

Your "shooter" analogy is strange, but I get the point you were making.

 

 

archbrix said: vonboysp said: archbrix said: axt113 said: archbrix said: Wii Sports and the like did push hardware; it STILL doesn't mean their big three lineup isn't strong. If the word "casual" offends you, too bad.  Let's use "wider" since you seem to prefer it.  Many, many people who bought the Wii are people who fall into the "wider" category.  People that , as you admitted yourself, are not core gamers.  People who bought it on a whim, many of which hardly use it anymore.  People who are grandparents who like Wii bowling.  People who play every long once and a while with their kids.  In other words:  PEOPLE WHO PLAY CASUALLY!  Sound better?  Less idiotic, perhaps?  I never said this was a bad thing; not in the least.  No they would not be interested in Mario 64.  But Mario 64 did more than deliver a "3D star hunt".  It delivered a new era of gameplay and showed that Nintendo could gracefully transition great gameplay into 3D.  That impressed people whether they were fans of the direction the game took or not.  I personally prefer most of the 2D Mario games myself, and now that the "wider" market has embraced the Wii, great games like NSMB will surely sell much better.  But in 1996 Nintendo started the N64 off with a bang by adapting to the market instead of just releasing another 2D Mario which would have largely gone unnoticed at the time.  Super Mario World came with the SNES, but Super Mario World 2?  Despite being one of my favorite games ever, it definitely didn't sell anywhere near what Mario 64 and Galaxy have... there's your clue. Sony opposed to what the wider market is looking for?  Because PS1 and PS2 didn't sell squat, right?  Do YOU hear yourself?  I won't argue against Christensen's points simply because I do agree with a lot of what the man says.  Doesn't mean Move and Natal couldn't surprise us, but I'm not holding my breath either.  And I never stated I "trusted" the analysts; I NEVER did, as I was sure Nintendo would regain their #1 spot in the market.  Why?  Because I DO understand the market.  Do You?     Wrong, still weak, doesn't move hardware is weak   Its not offesnsive, its stupid, because it shows you really don't ge the market.  Not core means they value different things than the core, they don't care about HD graphics for example.  No 3D mario, mario 64, merely closed off the market, alienating those gamers who were fans of the Super marios, I know I never enjoyed the 3D marios like the Super marios. Going unnoticed, lol, are you listening to yourself, Mario 64 never sold close to what those 2D marios you think would have gone unnoticed did, like I said, you don't get marketing, study business a little first. Sony just sold to more markets, and to larger populations, they didn't expand the market, and they still won't with move or NATAL Study business a little first?  Why don't you try studying grammar and spelling first... then maybe you'll "ge"  the market yourself. Yes I am listening to myself, but obviously you're not.  Did you not read my example?  SMW2 sold NO WHERE NEAR what Mario 64 did.  Why?  Because at that time 3D design was in.  I know it and Nintendo knew it too.  You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, hiding behind the opinions of Christensen and people who actually do know what they're talking about in hopes of sounding like you have a clue yourself...   do you even know what smw2 was? it had a baby mario in it, and you played as the yoshi. the gameplay was vastly different from the first smw. there was more of a focus on collecting things, which was a precurser to the star hunting 3d marios. when the game game out, many people complained that it was not the same, and that it strayed too far from mario. it wasn't a mario game, it was a joshi game. it didn't sell not because it was a 3d mario, but because it wasn't a mario game at all.   to compare this to shooters, the earlier marios were like shoot-em-up fps's, while this new game was a stealth fps. it was vastly different, and many people did not like it. Read my post.  Obviously I'm familiar with SMW2; as I stated, it's one of my favorite games of all time.  The argument from axt113 is that a 2D Mario would have sold better than Mario 64.  I don't agree; not at that time when 3D was becoming the popular design choice.  It sold over 11 million copies and was the biggest selling N64 game of all time.  Those numbers sound small compared to SM3 which sold much more, but again, that was a different time.  A 2D Mario surely wouldn't have sold as much in '96. Your "shooter" analogy is strange, but I get the point you were making.

History proves you wrong, you keep saying that 2D Mario wouldn't sell as much, sorry, but if that were true, then you wouldn't have seen NSMB Wii blow by every 3D Mario in a matter of weeks.  Also trying to point to SMW 2, which wasn't a Super Mario game just proves the weakness of your argument.

No a good game is a good game, is a good game, and a 2D Super Mario game is better than a 3D Mario, and that's been proven over and over, Mario 64 was a flop when compared to Super Mario games, and it has nothing to do with the times, if it did, NSMB Wii wouldn't have sold as much, but it sold far more, because its a better game, not because of the times.  But obviously you just don't have a clue of how the market works.

 

axt113 said: History proves you wrong, you keep saying that 2D Mario wouldn't sell as much, sorry, but if that were true, then you wouldn't have seen NSMB Wii blow by every 3D Mario in a matter of weeks.  Also trying to point to SMW 2, which wasn't a Super Mario game just proves the weakness of your argument. No a good game is a good game, is a good game, and a 2D Super Mario game is better than a 3D Mario, and that's been proven over and over, Mario 64 was a flop when compared to Super Mario games, and it has nothing to do with the times, if it did, NSMB Wii wouldn't have sold as much, but it sold far more, because its a better game, not because of the times.  But obviously you just don't have a clue of how the market works.

Stop this.

Trying to draw an absolute correlation between sales and quality is just as disingenuous as trying to draw an absolute correlation between Metascore and quality. Neither of them makes allowance for divergent value metrics, and neither of them is actually useful as a way to pick out games to play.

We can't kow if a 2-D Mario would have outsold 64 at the same time because it didn't happen. Trends may suggest certain things, certainly but those same trends tend to ignore the fact that NSMBWii was coming off of a 15+ year period without a mainline 2-D Mario on consoles. More, he has a point in that 3-D was the huge pushing thing for the N64, and contributed a great deal to pushing Mario 64 as far as it went.

Analyses of sales trends can rarely be cut and dry, and they certainly cannot be to the degree that you present here.

Khuutra said: axt113 said: History proves you wrong, you keep saying that 2D Mario wouldn't sell as much, sorry, but if that were true, then you wouldn't have seen NSMB Wii blow by every 3D Mario in a matter of weeks.  Also trying to point to SMW 2, which wasn't a Super Mario game just proves the weakness of your argument. No a good game is a good game, is a good game, and a 2D Super Mario game is better than a 3D Mario, and that's been proven over and over, Mario 64 was a flop when compared to Super Mario games, and it has nothing to do with the times, if it did, NSMB Wii wouldn't have sold as much, but it sold far more, because its a better game, not because of the times.  But obviously you just don't have a clue of how the market works. Stop this. Trying to draw an absolute correlation between sales and quality is just as disingenuous as trying to draw an absolute correlation between Metascore and quality. Neither of them makes allowance for divergent value metrics, and neither of them is actually useful as a way to pick out games to play. We can't kow if a 2-D Mario would have outsold 64 at the same time because it didn't happen. Trends may suggest certain things, certainly but those same trends tend to ignore the fact that NSMBWii was coming off of a 15+ year period without a mainline 2-D Mario on consoles. More, he has a point in that 3-D was the huge pushing thing for the N64, and contributed a great deal to pushing Mario 64 as far as it went. Analyses of sales trends can rarely be cut and dry, and they certainly cannot be to the degree that you present here.

Sales prove consumers preferred one over the other, and long term sales of super mario proves they are classic games

We can show that Super Mario has never lost its appeal and its ability to move hardware, while 3D mario has never had that ability or appeal.

Don't give me that garbage about 15+ years, NSMB DS was also a huge seller, and SMB 3 and SMBW both followed other Marios close by and were huge sellers.

Wrong, Mario 64 was never on par with the Super Mario's so obviously 3D wasn't as interesting to the Market

You can try and spin the facts as much as you want, but the truth doesn't spin, 3D Mario just never had, nor ever will have the appeal of Super Mario, and Nintendo was stupid to ever try and use 3D mario as their flagship games

axt113 said: Khuutra said: Stop this. Trying to draw an absolute correlation between sales and quality is just as disingenuous as trying to draw an absolute correlation between Metascore and quality. Neither of them makes allowance for divergent value metrics, and neither of them is actually useful as a way to pick out games to play. We can't kow if a 2-D Mario would have outsold 64 at the same time because it didn't happen. Trends may suggest certain things, certainly but those same trends tend to ignore the fact that NSMBWii was coming off of a 15+ year period without a mainline 2-D Mario on consoles. More, he has a point in that 3-D was the huge pushing thing for the N64, and contributed a great deal to pushing Mario 64 as far as it went. Analyses of sales trends can rarely be cut and dry, and they certainly cannot be to the degree that you present here. Sales prove consumers preferred one over the other, and long term sales of 2D mario proves they are classic games We can show that Super Mario has never lost its appeal and its ability to move hardware, while 3D mario has never had that ability or appeal. Don't give me that garbage about 15+ years, NSMB DS was also a huge seller, and SMB 3 and SMBW both followed other Marios close by and were huge sellers. Wrong, Mario 64 was never on par with the Super Mario's so obviously 3D wasn't as interesting to the Market You can try and spin the facts as much as you want, but the truth doesn't spin, 3D Mario just never had, nor ever will have the appeal of Super Mario, and Nintendo was stupid to ever try and use 3D mario as their flagship games

The langugage you use is too broad and non-specific; you mean to say that more consumers played New Supr Mario Bros. Wii than played Super Mario Galaxy, which means that they appealed to different value metrics. This does not make the former better than the later; it simply means that it has a wider appeal. There's a difference.

You can mak hypotheses all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't possible to know, and no measure of flat-out denials will change the fact that it's not possible to know. I tend to think a 2-D Mario probably would have sold better, yes, but pretending that it's a sure thing is the very height of fallacy.

More, saying that 3-D Mario never had the ability to move hardware is itself fallacious; it's a pretty sure bet that if a non-packaged game sells to 33% of the userbase (ala Mario 64) then it probably moved some hardware.

My primary point is that trying to draw an absolute correlation between appeal and quality is fallacious to the point of being ludicrous.

Khuutra said: axt113 said: History proves you wrong, you keep saying that 2D Mario wouldn't sell as much, sorry, but if that were true, then you wouldn't have seen NSMB Wii blow by every 3D Mario in a matter of weeks.  Also trying to point to SMW 2, which wasn't a Super Mario game just proves the weakness of your argument. No a good game is a good game, is a good game, and a 2D Super Mario game is better than a 3D Mario, and that's been proven over and over, Mario 64 was a flop when compared to Super Mario games, and it has nothing to do with the times, if it did, NSMB Wii wouldn't have sold as much, but it sold far more, because its a better game, not because of the times.  But obviously you just don't have a clue of how the market works. Stop this. Trying to draw an absolute correlation between sales and quality is just as disingenuous as trying to draw an absolute correlation between Metascore and quality. Neither of them makes allowance for divergent value metrics, and neither of them is actually useful as a way to pick out games to play. We can't kow if a 2-D Mario would have outsold 64 at the same time because it didn't happen. Trends may suggest certain things, certainly but those same trends tend to ignore the fact that NSMBWii was coming off of a 15+ year period without a mainline 2-D Mario on consoles. More, he has a point in that 3-D was the huge pushing thing for the N64, and contributed a great deal to pushing Mario 64 as far as it went. Analyses of sales trends can rarely be cut and dry, and they certainly cannot be to the degree that you present here.

Just to add to this, some advantages that a well done 2D game from a major franchise has today that it wouldn’t have had back in the day are distinctness in the market (how many well made and well known 2D platformers were released in 2009?) and a pent-up demand from older gamers looking for a retro-experience.

If you took the top 18 (to pick a number) 2D franchises from the NES and SNES era, put a significant effort into re-imagining the experience in 2D, and released a new version of each of these games on a 3 year cycle you would probably see strong sales for all of these games. If you start adding in twice as many lesser titles from that era of gaming, and several dozen clones and copies of games, odds are pretty good that only a couple of games would see any sales; and their sales would be significantly lower.

 

HappySqurriel said: Khuutra said: axt113 said: History proves you wrong, you keep saying that 2D Mario wouldn't sell as much, sorry, but if that were true, then you wouldn't have seen NSMB Wii blow by every 3D Mario in a matter of weeks.  Also trying to point to SMW 2, which wasn't a Super Mario game just proves the weakness of your argument. No a good game is a good game, is a good game, and a 2D Super Mario game is better than a 3D Mario, and that's been proven over and over, Mario 64 was a flop when compared to Super Mario games, and it has nothing to do with the times, if it did, NSMB Wii wouldn't have sold as much, but it sold far more, because its a better game, not because of the times.  But obviously you just don't have a clue of how the market works. Stop this. Trying to draw an absolute correlation between sales and quality is just as disingenuous as trying to draw an absolute correlation between Metascore and quality. Neither of them makes allowance for divergent value metrics, and neither of them is actually useful as a way to pick out games to play. We can't kow if a 2-D Mario would have outsold 64 at the same time because it didn't happen. Trends may suggest certain things, certainly but those same trends tend to ignore the fact that NSMBWii was coming off of a 15+ year period without a mainline 2-D Mario on consoles. More, he has a point in that 3-D was the huge pushing thing for the N64, and contributed a great deal to pushing Mario 64 as far as it went. Analyses of sales trends can rarely be cut and dry, and they certainly cannot be to the degree that you present here. Just to add to this, some advantages that a well done 2D game from a major franchise has today that it wouldn’t have had back in the day are distinctness in the market (how many well made and well known 2D platformers were released in 2009?) and a pent-up demand from older gamers looking for a retro-experience. If you took the top 18 (to pick a number) 2D franchises from the NES and SNES era, put a significant effort into re-imagining the experience in 2D, and released a new version of each of these games on a 3 year cycle you would probably see strong sales for all of these games. If you start adding in twice as many lesser titles from that era of gaming, and several dozen clones and copies of games, odds are pretty good that only a couple of games would see any sales; and their sales would be significantly lower.

Mario games in that era were coming out when everyone else was making platformers as well, didn't hurt them

Khuutra said: axt113 said: Khuutra said: Stop this. Trying to draw an absolute correlation between sales and quality is just as disingenuous as trying to draw an absolute correlation between Metascore and quality. Neither of them makes allowance for divergent value metrics, and neither of them is actually useful as a way to pick out games to play. We can't kow if a 2-D Mario would have outsold 64 at the same time because it didn't happen. Trends may suggest certain things, certainly but those same trends tend to ignore the fact that NSMBWii was coming off of a 15+ year period without a mainline 2-D Mario on consoles. More, he has a point in that 3-D was the huge pushing thing for the N64, and contributed a great deal to pushing Mario 64 as far as it went. Analyses of sales trends can rarely be cut and dry, and they certainly cannot be to the degree that you present here. Sales prove consumers preferred one over the other, and long term sales of 2D mario proves they are classic games We can show that Super Mario has never lost its appeal and its ability to move hardware, while 3D mario has never had that ability or appeal. Don't give me that garbage about 15+ years, NSMB DS was also a huge seller, and SMB 3 and SMBW both followed other Marios close by and were huge sellers. Wrong, Mario 64 was never on par with the Super Mario's so obviously 3D wasn't as interesting to the Market You can try and spin the facts as much as you want, but the truth doesn't spin, 3D Mario just never had, nor ever will have the appeal of Super Mario, and Nintendo was stupid to ever try and use 3D mario as their flagship games The langugage you use is too broad and non-specific; you mean to say that more consumers played New Supr Mario Bros. Wii than played Super Mario Galaxy, which means that they appealed to different value metrics. This does not make the former better than the later; it simply means that it has a wider appeal. There's a difference. You can mak hypotheses all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't possible to know, and no measure of flat-out denials will change the fact that it's not possible to know. I tend to think a 2-D Mario probably would have sold better, yes, but pretending that it's a sure thing is the very height of fallacy. More, saying that 3-D Mario never had the ability to move hardware is itself fallacious; it's a pretty sure bet that if a non-packaged game sells to 33% of the userbase (ala Mario 64) then it probably moved some hardware. My primary point is that trying to draw an absolute correlation between appeal and quality is fallacious to the point of being ludicrous.

Only in semantics, appeal is a view of quality, I don't go to watch certain types of films because most I consider to be snoozefests (English patient was one of the most painful experiences of my life), that to me is a view of quality, consumers are the same way, if they consider something unappealing, to them its not quality, just because you disagree, means very little, because why is your opinion any more worthy than another's.

No its not, its extrapolation, we know how well they sold before and after, we can easily extrapolate how it would have performed back during the N64 era.

Actually, that we can show to be false, by showing whether other 3D Marios have had hardware pushing power, and they haven't (I'm not talking about being able to move a few consoles the week of its launch, I'm talking about sustaining momentum, like NSMB Wii is doing for the Wii).

 I disagree, people find things they like to be appealing, if they don't like it, they don't view it as quality (the old saying "I may not know art, but I know what I like"), only things that are truly classic have long term sustaining power like Super Mario games

axt113 said: Khuutra said: The langugage you use is too broad and non-specific; you mean to say that more consumers played New Supr Mario Bros. Wii than played Super Mario Galaxy, which means that they appealed to different value metrics. This does not make the former better than the later; it simply means that it has a wider appeal. There's a difference. You can mak hypotheses all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't possible to know, and no measure of flat-out denials will change the fact that it's not possible to know. I tend to think a 2-D Mario probably would have sold better, yes, but pretending that it's a sure thing is the very height of fallacy. More, saying that 3-D Mario never had the ability to move hardware is itself fallacious; it's a pretty sure bet that if a non-packaged game sells to 33% of the userbase (ala Mario 64) then it probably moved some hardware. My primary point is that trying to draw an absolute correlation between appeal and quality is fallacious to the point of being ludicrous. Only in semantics, appeal is a view of quality, I don't go to watch certain types of films because most I consider to be snoozefests (English patient was one of the most painful experiences of my life), that to me is a view of quality, consumers are the same way, if they consider something unappealing, to them its not quality, just because you disagree, means very little, because why is your opinion any more worthy than another's. No its not, its extrapolation, we know how well they sold before and after, we can easily extrapolate how it would have performed back during the N64 era. Actually, that we can show to be false, by showing whether other 3D Marios have had hardware pushing power, and they haven't (I'm not talking about being able to move a few consoles the week of its launch, I'm talking about sustaining momentum, like NSMB Wii is doing for the Wii).  I disagree, people find things they like to be appealing, if they don't like it, they don't view it as quality (the old saying "I may not know art, but I know what I like")

It's kind of surreal having to adapt the "metacritic doesn't equate to quality" argument to fit someone who insists that widespread appeal is an indicator of quality. I may have done it once with Avinash_Tyagi but I cannot be sure.

Now, you bring up an excelelnt point here, and I want to acknowledge that in more than one way:

This is very true, but the implication is not limited to the discussion we're having now: what it means, when taen to its logical conclusion (not so much a logical extreme) is that there is no absolute metric of quality to which everyone can agree - even if a majority agree, that is not a signifier of quality, nor has it ever been in any of the art forms (I can have a discussion with you about the critical history of popular literature if you like).

Extrapolation implies that we have a given data set that can be used to make predictions; predictions for the past are not possible. Extrapolations of nonexistent data sets are likewise not possible.

I should hope we can show a fallacious statement to be false, and Super Mario 64's numbers go a long way toward that.

When I say "absolute correlation between appeal and quality", what I mean is that it is intellectually dishonest to say "lots of people like it, therefore it is better than something that fewer people enjoy". That's simply not the case. This brings in the assumption that there are universal value metrics to which games try to adhere, and that the closer one gets to this value perfection the better one's appeal will be, but that's not the case. It doesn't go so far as to allow for different experiences, or even similar experience interpreted through different iterations.

I mean, Modern Warfare 2 is far ahead of NSMBWii right now and keeping good pace to stay ahead of it for a long time - still selling consoles right now, even. You're not goign to say that as of now it's a better game than New Super Mario Bros. Wii, are you?

axt113 said: HappySqurriel said: Khuutra said: axt113 said: History proves you wrong, you keep saying that 2D Mario wouldn't sell as much, sorry, but if that were true, then you wouldn't have seen NSMB Wii blow by every 3D Mario in a matter of weeks.  Also trying to point to SMW 2, which wasn't a Super Mario game just proves the weakness of your argument. No a good game is a good game, is a good game, and a 2D Super Mario game is better than a 3D Mario, and that's been proven over and over, Mario 64 was a flop when compared to Super Mario games, and it has nothing to do with the times, if it did, NSMB Wii wouldn't have sold as much, but it sold far more, because its a better game, not because of the times.  But obviously you just don't have a clue of how the market works. Stop this. Trying to draw an absolute correlation between sales and quality is just as disingenuous as trying to draw an absolute correlation between Metascore and quality. Neither of them makes allowance for divergent value metrics, and neither of them is actually useful as a way to pick out games to play. We can't kow if a 2-D Mario would have outsold 64 at the same time because it didn't happen. Trends may suggest certain things, certainly but those same trends tend to ignore the fact that NSMBWii was coming off of a 15+ year period without a mainline 2-D Mario on consoles. More, he has a point in that 3-D was the huge pushing thing for the N64, and contributed a great deal to pushing Mario 64 as far as it went. Analyses of sales trends can rarely be cut and dry, and they certainly cannot be to the degree that you present here. Just to add to this, some advantages that a well done 2D game from a major franchise has today that it wouldn’t have had back in the day are distinctness in the market (how many well made and well known 2D platformers were released in 2009?) and a pent-up demand from older gamers looking for a retro-experience. If you took the top 18 (to pick a number) 2D franchises from the NES and SNES era, put a significant effort into re-imagining the experience in 2D, and released a new version of each of these games on a 3 year cycle you would probably see strong sales for all of these games. If you start adding in twice as many lesser titles from that era of gaming, and several dozen clones and copies of games, odds are pretty good that only a couple of games would see any sales; and their sales would be significantly lower.   Mario games in that era were coming out when everyone else was making platformers as well, didn't hurt them

I don't think you understand what I was saying ...

While I think it is interesting and plausible that a 2D Mario game would have been more successful than Mario 64, I think that it is impossible to determine how successful it would be. In hindsight, knowing people like my sister who abandoned home consoles when they became so focused on 3D, I think it was probably foolish for the industry to abandon 2D gaming with the N64/Playstation, but I also think that moving classic franchises to 3D has produced some of the best (and best selling) 3D experiences around; and Nintendo’s work in this area is far better than most.