I'm pretty sure Zelda, Mario kart and 3D Mario help sell systems as well.
Malstrom doesn't know ****.

I am not sure if there is one line of your post that is true:
* Nintendo has not said they want to be like Hollywood
* The 3D tech we use today is VERY different from the old technology which revolves around red and blue light
* Avatar does LOTS of things that not only did Dances with Wolves not do, but no movie has done; including but not limited to: realistic 3D models, animation by WETA to the flora and fauna which utilized some of the most powerful computers in existence,  shots that had over 90 cameras on the set, and utilized the most advanced motion capture technology to date; http://www.junauza.com/2010/01/technology-behind-avatar-movie.html
* Late sequels? What do you mean by that? Sequels to movies range in time of release.
* Adaptations is not a bad thing, all films are adapated from a screenplay of some sort.
* If Hollywood didn't surprise and impress, Avatar wouldn't have made 2.7 billion.

What makes you think I got that just from Malstrom? Those were the big hits of the N64 and Gamecube, and they were Nintendo's weakest home systems. You can't make that not true by being "pretty sure" of the opposite. The facts are right there, so acting like those who look at the facts don't know anything just makes you look double uninformed.

So because those were big hits of N64 and GC but the consoles still sold less than the others it means they didn't move consoles?

I think you got that from malstrom because he spouts that stuff all the time and you read his blog alot so your mindset reflects it and blah blah blah...

Lots of people got N64 for the Zeldas and lots of people got GC for Mario Sunshine and lots of people got Wii for SMG. They may not sell consoles as much as a 2D Mario but they sell consoles nonetheless.

Also: LOL at TC's icon.

1. Do you even know how many systems the N64 and Gamecube sold? 32 million and 22 million respectively. The NES sold nearly 70 million units, the SNES nearly 50, and the Wii is approaching 90.

If the systems had killer apps, they wouldn't have been that low.

2. Just because he writes it doesn't mean the information isn't there. Again, this site has the numbers that show this is the case. Trying to just go "he's wrong" won't magically change those facts.

3. That's not a counterargument. You have the PROVE they did that, not just claim they did that. You have to show sales around the time those games came out, and that sales spiked for weeks after the games came out. That's what a killer app does.

3. No, the sales of the systems that had just them show that "not... as much" is actually "far less". There's a difference between buying a system for an app and being a killer app.

Given that this is founded on the fallacious assumption that Nintendo wants to be like Hollywood which is based on Malstrom FUD, the rest of this thread is moot.

No, that is not what Malstrom is claiming. He's pointing out that a lot of game developers want games to be like Hollywood movies (although Yamouchi has expressed interest in Nintendo getting involved in anime movies), and it's not just people at Nintendo that are trying to do that. But google "iwata asks star wars" and you'll see that Miyamoto is talking about using the camera in cut scenes, which is more like a movie than a game.

 Sure it's not as bad as the spiel from David Cage, but the implications are there.

1. It doesn't matter how many systems N64 and GC sold. They would have sold   less if they didn't have games like Zelda OOT $ MM  and Mario kart and Mario Sunshine.  Those games sold systems.

2. Where did I say Malstrom is 'wrong'? For every sensible article he writes, he writes another BS article. The man says as much nonsense as he makes good points and he got worse through-out the generation.

3. So a game has to make sales spike for weeks to be worthy of being called a game that moves consoles? Being a game through-its life cycle that convinces people to buy the console doesn't make it a game that sells systems? For alot of people seeing Mario Kart, SMG 1&2 and Zelda TP on Wii's library convinced them buy a Wii, yes? So how do those games not sell consoles?

3(2). I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

What I'm trying to say is contrary to what you believe (because of Malstrom >=) ) those games help the systems. I don't see why a game has to spike up the hardware sales charts on release or sell $20 M to be worthy of a game that sells systems. 

3D Mario, Zelda and mario kart sold Wiis just like  Wii Sports , Wii Fit and Classic Mario sold Wiis. They do it to varying degrees and probably to different demographics but they do it nonethless so I don't see how you can say they didn't help the system.

Malstrom is wrong because he can not see the obvious point that is right in front of his (and all of our) faces ... Early adopters buy into systems based on their potential, late adopters buy into a system based on how well that potential was realized.

The Wii was so popular early on because of the potentially limitless interactions that were suddenly available was easily worth the "cost of admission"; even if the Wii didn't have the latest and greatest graphical technology. The people who bought the Wii early on were very impressed and showed it off to as many people as they could, and (effectively) 'evangelized' new customers to the Wii. For a couple of years people bought into the Wii and waited for the torrent of games to take advantage of the potential and many were certain it was comming because third party publishers would "obviously" support the fastest selling console of all time ... and it never came.

The Wii is struggling because no one has any "faith" that any quality third party games are comming; and the biggest Nintendo fans already bought into the system so a new Mario or Zelda game is not going to really recover any confidence.

Now, in my opinion the logical conclusion to this problem is that Nintendo needs to release a system with significant potential to attract early adopters again while doing everything necessary to get decent third party support to ensure that their system's potential is actually realised later in the generation.

Nintendo has never tried to be like Hollywood.  If anything, they've become so successful because they do the opposite of Hollywood.

And I find it ironic you're complainnig about Nintendo trying too many 'new things' when people have critisized  Nintendo this gen for focusing too much on their older series and the 'Wii' lineup.

This is indeed what Nintendo needs to do, and what it looks like they're trying to do.  But its also what they tried to do with the N64, GameCube and Wii.  And each time third parties avoided Nintendo like the plague.