Mario Galaxy is not on your list....

"We both walk away now"

This was your option, right?

Rol, you are normally a reasonable enough poster that I feel I can communicate anything I need to with effort.

I have spent considerable effort trying to communicate why the definite and universal identification of certain 2-D console-based Mario platformers as the "main" or "real" Marios is not ontologically valid, specifically as it relates to the dependency on the perspectives of other people. This is very much the point of the topic, it is the entire point on which all of this discussion hinges, but you insist I'm "missing the point". I find this frustrating, but acceptable, and am ready to chalk that up to an inability to communicate the point on my part. Fine, you know: whatever. My fault, probably.

I am not, on the other hand, of a mind to sit and take the tone on display here. I find that considerably more frustrating. Infuriating, really. I tried to talk to you about this because I thought I would communicate something that's important to the discussion here, in hopes of building mutual understanding and contribute to the culture of respect that this site has cultivated (on some level).

If that's not going to happen then I want no part of this.

I've always seen the "Super Mario Bros." series (2D Games) and the "Super Mario" series (3D Games) to be brothers under the Mario family tree. Each brother has similar traits but is also unique from the other, but in the end I see each release as a new "real" Mario game. (For example, when NSMBWii released in late 2009 and SMG2 released in early 2010, I saw it as two Mario games releasing very close to one another... and I was very happy. )

So when the OP asks, "When will the next real Mario game release?" I'd answer, November 13th when Super Mario 3D Land releases. If he asked "when will the next 'Super Mario Bros.' game release?", then I'd have an entirely different answer for him (hopefully when the Wii U launches... I wanna see New Super Mario Bros. Mii!)

That is only true in some cases or to a limited extent. Hardware development costs effect whether third parties produce software for your system, so yah in that case hardware leads to software which leads to more sales. Secondly cost to consumer, expensive hardware doesn't sell even if it has the games PS3 proved you wrong, Sony thought because they had all the third party support from the last two generations and their outstanding first party software that the expensive hardware would sell. They were mistaken. Thirdly innovative hardware sells over regular hardware PSOne brought in CD which was not only cheaper for developers and consumers but was more conveniant. Then Sony adapted Rubmble and every peice of technology they could to keep their product in line with Nintendo.

Without good hardware that is cost effective and innovative you won't get the software. It is hardware that sells software because without the good hardware their wouldn't be any software.

Also the PSOne had amazing software from both Sony's first parties and third party studios. Fact is with a limited growing market Sony's growth had to come out of someone's market share. Its not like Sony could sell 100-million units without damaging Nintendo's hardware numbers.

According to VGChartz data PSOne had 458 titles for the console while Nintendo 64 had onl 322. Thats over a hundred fewer games. By yolur argument that software sells hardware it is very clear Nintendo was at a huge disadvantage. Now you accuse Mario of being responsable for this downfall correct? Yet Mario games sold consistently to a similar number of Nintendo consumers during the Nintendo64 days.

As I said the hardware, N64 limited the softwares sales capabilities. No matter how you look at it no matter how good the Mario game was it alone couldn't have taken on PSOne, in fact Nintendo's first party software alone couldn't take down Sony.

Now Rol has made a very good point in saying that all of the GameCube games have made it back for the Wii. Yet GameCube was one of the least successful consoles in Nintendo's history. Wii was also selling its best during that era and shortly after NSMBW and DonkeyKong:CountryReturns launched their hardware sales began a free fall.

What limited Mario's sales , Hardware, not enough hardware units in people's hands (Caused by countless reasons)

I was pointing out the fact that Wii sold strongest before these titles launched, not suggesting the release of these titles damaged Wii in any way. Just the fact that all those strong GameCube titles had kept hardware sales strong for years without these classic titles. I am not denying the huge boost both games gave to hardware sales but those boosts were short lived and the console sales did continue to drop. Saying NSMBW and DKC:R are the reasons Wii was successful is foolish. Yes both games sold very well and pushed hardware but they are not the reason Wii was a success!

Everybody puts all the emphasis on a few key titles as the reason for Wii's success while ignoring the WiiFit's of Nintendo Wii. Nintendo's newer IP's and 3D games and GameCube sequels kept the Wii afloat for years and it was doing very very well. NSMBW and DKC:R added to the legacy and were responsable for the Wii's slow fall rather then a quick plunge. But these classic titles did not sell Wii!

The 'nostalgic', 'retrocore', 'unartistic', 'de-evolved/unevolved' Mario games.

The one's that could be described as fast paced, sidescrolling, precision platforming where jumping on enemies heads and hitting blocks isn't a pita. The one's where I can get a 1-up by throwing a shell into a line of 8 enemies.

All right, Rol, if that's how it needs to be, that's how it will be: I will do what I have to in order to communicate my ideas. I apologize for flying off the handle, but I want you to know it was because of you, not Pyro. That's not a negative thing: I don't care what Pyro thinks, but I do care about being able to communicating myself clearly and getting your opinion, so it's easier for my feelings to get hurt when dealing with you than with him.

Now to do this for real

But first:

The intent of this topic hasn't been "When is the next 2D Mario coming out?" since the OP decided to make the title what it is, or to insist on dragging out his argument with other members with the tone he's been using.

Now. Now.

Listen. You say that Super Mario Bros. is the "main" Mario series. Now, Super Mario Bros. is a spinoff of Mario Bros., which is a spinoff of Donkey Kong. Neither of those is the "main" Mario series in this discussion, so being a spinoff isn't the really important point here. Right? (this isn't a set-up, I'm trying to clear the air)

You convinced me, however, i have now confusion with New Super Mario Bros ds. According to your explaination this is the 3rd mario game?

Rol I can't accept the point about Mario Bros. at face value, because it implies that if they made sequels then that would become the main series.