Next, you're going to try to tell me that Ocarina of Time is a real Zelda game.

...must resist temptation to make parody thread saying that Zelda for the Nes was the only real Zelda.....must.....

You really had me worried for a second that I made another mistake. Man I make a few mistakes each month but I was so worried I had made another one. In this case you did according to the Wikipedia page for Metal Gear "A separate team created a heavily modified Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) port of the game that was released in Japan, North America and Europe" The game definitely was released on NES in fact a sequel and second part of the Metal Gear franchise on consoles was also released "Konami then produced a NES sequel titled  Snakes Revenge. Metal Gear as a franchise has existed since the NES days and the franchise remains. I will agree their is a notable difference in the games from Metal Gear to Solid. However they still are the same franchise, the reason for the increase of sales is the fact that 3D made the gameplay elements evolve they became what Kojima had envisioned. They still remain a single franchise.

I have no problem admitting the lack of sales with 3D titles. I am not going to argue against that fact, but with N64 and GameCube you are talking consoles with far smaller consumer bases then NES let alone SNES. Lets compare when the first successful 2D Mario game came out it sold 40-million including bundles correct? With 61-million NES systems in circulation it sold like 2/3rds and that NES title was the biggest Mario title of all time, now lets compare that to Mario64 on the N64 which only had 32-million hardware units it had around a 1/3rd share of the over all market. But is that soully because 3D games were a spin-off? Nope it isn't fact is SuperMarioWorld also saw a huge decline in market share with only 20-million in sales (According to you) yet the console sold almost 50-million units. So if we go by those numbers and factor in Super Mario World's numbers included bundled copies more Nintendo consumers purchased 3D Mario64 with their hardware then Super Nintendo consumers purchased Super Mario World on theirs!  This shows Mario64 was actually more popular with Nintendo consumers then Super Mario World was, in fact it also shows it is more popular with consumers then any other Mario game except the NES game. Now I have to admit Sunshine took a nose dive with only 6-million in software sales for GameCube despite over 21-million hardware units on the market. But lets look at software sales in general on the GameCube, Sunshine was actually the third highest selling title on GameCube less then a million in sales apart from the leading title. Now you may wonder how I explain Wii's huge success of 2D Mario over 3D Mario.

Well Wii is a unique interesting story. Nintendo's consoles and fan base has been in a steady decline since NES. Many consumers bailed by N64 and never even got to truly enjoy Mario64. The consumers that left Nintendo for Sony with PSOne did not play the Mario64 game, though sales show Nintendo 64 owners liked Mario64 as much if not slightly more then Super Mario World was liked on SNES. When the Nintendo Wii launched it targetted demographics you don't believe exist as well as former gamers and so fourth. The Wii saw huge success but lets look at the numbers a second there are nearly 89-million Wii's on the market and NewSuperMarioBros:Wii only sold a louzy 22-million copies, why? I mean market share wise less Nintendo customers purchased NewSuperMarioBros:Wii with their Wii system then N64 consumers purchased Mario64. In fact around the same amount of Nintendo consumers purchased NewSuperMarioBros:Wii with their hardware as GameCube gamers purchased Sunshine! Now why did Galaxy fail so miserably? Well simple the decline of 3D Mario fans was steady simply because Nintendo's hardware had decreased in sales. The consumers who bought Wii's either weren't present on Nintendo's platforms for the jump to 3D, Mario64 or were new consumers drawn to the brand and the fact that NewSuperMarioBros was one of very few 2D platformers to release this generation.

What your sales figures prove is that Nintendo lost Mario fans along with their console user base. As the console user base declined so did the Mario sales. SMB3 saw around 18-million in sales I am betting if you took bundles out of the situation that Super Mario World likely sold less then SMB3 if not by much they still did. People got the game free with the hardware and didn't actually seek it out. Then Mario64 shows yet again this decline however you can note that a large percentage of Nintendo consumers still purchased just as many Mario games as ever. This decline went even further when GameCube saw miserable sales. Why did Galaxy sell so poorly on Wii simply put the consumers buying Wii hadn't been around to see the slow evolution of Mario these consumers thought that Mario3Dwas entirely different then 2D Mario. many of these consumers had grown up with the pre-evolved 2D Mario and as such purchased 2D Mario instead of 3D. With Wii Mario has taken a serious blow in the fact that consumers buying Wii weren't doing so for Mario anymore. Proving yet again my point that the people who bought Wii were not the Nintendo supporters but newer gamers who are unfamiliar with Mario and such.

So the sales figures can really be thrown out they are easily explained. To answer your question "so you are either looking at a bad Mario game or not a real Mario game" I would have to say neither, hardware sales are to blame up until Wii and once Wii was launched demographics and the Nintendo fan base were to blame as it no longer existed.

It is far too black and white to judge a titles legitimacy based on software sales that fluctuated directly related to hardware.

P.S- just because you always call me on mistakes I want to make it clear Metal Gear was released on NES even though you clearly stated "Metal Gear Solid was not on the NES"

the only things I can say (from friends/family experience) is that 2D Mario games are easily digest by the mass market.

My sister is happily playing New Super Mario Bros Wii with the only aim to (side scrolling) get to the flag pole.
She has no clue on how to play Galaxy, she did give up after the first 20 minutes however, 2 years later she still playing MARIOBROSWii.

this may be the only explenation on the difference of sales.

If Mario Galaxy it is or not a real Mario Game, i do not know!

But if this guy is stated that is considering an hardcore Mario game only a 2D game than we must apply to his rules in his topic.

Absolutely I never denied that. Its no different then Metroid and Metroid Prime. Metroid Prime is still Metroid I'm not sure I would call it a spin-off personally I would not but I do know some might suggest that.

Umm yes you should understand attach ratios and hardware rates. To deny that hardware played a role in the lower sales of 3D Mario titles would be illogical. It is obvious that hardware played a very big role in Mario titles declining in fact even the 2D Mario titles steadily declined up until NSMBW. If you talk attach ratios you see that Mario didn't really lose its core fan base that bought Nintendo systems. Mario titles consistently sell well whether they are 3D or not.

As for this catering to the hardcore, you are mixing my statement with older ones. Simply put as another user stated 2D Mario is so uncomplicated a young child can play, heck I beat my first Mario when I was three. A lot of gamers who don't devote a shit load of time to video games would be interested in such a product.

Miyamoto explains your lack of sales perfectly. "Anyone could pick it up and play [Super Mario Bros.] And everyone knew what they were getting into. But, when it moved into the 3D realm, of course, the perception was that things had changed and that it might be difficult to play. And so, it seemed that we were going to lose some customers who might just think, “I don’t know what that is.” That was too much for me to bear."  followed by his internal product testing  "Even working with some of the younger staff at Nintendo on a sample of New Super Mario Bros Wii., a lot of them, unsolicited, were saying, ‘One of the important things is that we can’t change this element. This is what makes this game.’ So, they understand that some of that familiarity and simplicity is very important, and is excellent to see.”

Obviously Nintendo realized that 3D was viewed as too complicated for new gamers. Miyamoto constantly talked about how Pick up and Play games would appeal to gamers who didn't want to dedicate the time into the game that so called hardcore did. This perfectly explains the market on the Wii and how it was different then past Nintendo platforms.

You may call this hardcore or casual and you already know I take Nintendo's position on that matter. You also know I believe in a mix of Blue and Red Ocean rather then one strategy without the other.

Fact is Wii is not like Nintendo's past consoles. It had a larger user base then any past home platform from Nintendo. With that comes new consumers unfamiliar with Nintendo's franchises. Including consumers who don't play games very often these consumers don't care for a huge plot line with great depth perception and 3D effects they want a simple game where you go from one side of a room to another alternating between two buttons.

So no my argument does not fall apart and is not stretched. Up until Wii 3D games sold consistently with their 2D counter parts as far as attach rates are concerned. You can't deem a game bad or a failure or illegit just because the hardware didn't have the numbers to support higher software sales!

I LOLed at so many points in this thread. I hope Pyro never stops cause i wanna keep on laughing. But how are the handhelds not considered real Mario games. There 2d, you play as Mario. Sounds like a "Real" Mario game to me, not there fault they are on limited hardware

Mobile Mario works just fine when Nintendo are porting/updating a last gen real Mario. The rest are are poor imitations of their home console counterpart.

SMB on the GBA? Fine. Green and dark green Mario Land at the same time as SMB3? Should have used a new IP.

@Joel "the hardware didn't have the numbers to support higher software sales!"

That's not how it works.

Software sells hardware, not the other way round. DVDs sell DVD players. Office software, the Internet and Facebook sell PCs.

The hardware couldn't sell any more because it didn't have enough system selling games. 3D Mario sells systems but real Mario games sell more. Real Mario is more than a 'system seller', it's a 'generation winner'.

Imagine if Sony dropped Gran Torino and told everyone that Wipeismo is the natural progression, nay the evolution, of GT. Imagine if MS dropped Halo and told everyone Halo Wars is the evolution of Halo. Would it be suprising if those consoles didn't sell as many as their predecessors?

Yes, software sells hardware, so you're right about that.

Now, do you still believe SMW isn't a real Mario game?

This is totally off topic, but I'm a bit confused here. I've read some of this thread & another by Pyro Bill involving the difference between toys & games. Now I could have sworn you said single player games are toys because there isn't competition. There can be challenges in single player games, but it doesn't make it a game according to you. There are those that mentioned co-op, but you had an defense for that. My question is why did you say 4th REAL Mario "game"? There's no competition to be had in the REAL Mario series.

No but still think there is something 'off' about Mario World. Maybe it's Dinosaur Land, maybe it's because it was rushed, maybe it's because Nintendo knew Yoshi would be carrying the 2D torch w/DK from then on, maybe it's because blocks only smash with spin attacks, maybe it's because the Mushroom Kingdom is the real star.

Games are multiplayer. Toys are singleplayer. (in general)

All the real Mario games have multiplayer.

It's good that you were paying attention though.