I think you did miss the point, because this isn't about how right you are or aren't. It's about how you treat the values of others.

Though for the record, the objective criteria that you choose are still based on your subjective values, so nothing you're saying is really objective in and of itself.

Not in ontology, no.

This varies depending on what we're talking about. In a broader sense, things we define as, say, video games are classified the way they are so that communication is easier between people. This works for most things. When you say "I am going to the cinema to watch a movie", most people will understand what you mean.

The more specific and esoteric the definition and classification, though, the less it supports communication. If I speak to EBGames customers about "Mario games" they can intuit what I'm talking about if they have any experience in video games whatsoever. If I say "real Mario games" they would give me a blank stare. My coworkers don't even really acknowledge the fundamental differences between 2D and 3D Mario. To them, they are all just Mario games.

I didn't know what I was getting into until I said I didn't really have a favorite Zelda game (I really don't expect people to see different schools of Zelda), and then they asked me what my favorite Mario was.

"What kind of Mario?"

"Any Mario!"

"Well I mean, 2D and 3D Mario are really different-"

"No, any Mario"

"What about Mario Kart?"

"Yes that counts too."

"But-"

"Listen, Link to the Past is the best Zelda and Super Mario World is the best Mario. That is the right answer."

this this this

This thread was not funny or amusing

Go back and study a few old Rol threads - Don't come back until you're better at this!

I think the distinctions here are pretty arbitrary. It is difficult to define "gimmicky" from the OP. I would say SMW is definitely true to the spirit of SMB and SMB3, in that it is a 2D platformer, uses powerups, has the same standard mechanic. To call Yoshi an "expansion pack" is too limited here. The game adds much more than that!

I would also like to say that I think Super Mario 3D Land is definitely in this same spirit. Linear, action, platformer, powerups. The only thing different is that it melds 2D and 3D styles. However, the game is very much in the exact same style of all Marios preceding it. Definitely in the same genre/game mechanic of SMB,SMB3,SMW, and NSMBWii. The only difference is that sometimes it adds an extra dimension. To dismiss this as "gimmick" or a "spin-off" is way too limited in its view. I assure you, this game could easily be one of the best, most loved Mario games to come. It brings together all the best elements from games past.

Therefore, after reconsidering the OP's definitions,of "real super mario", I would say the next one will be here Nov 13th.

This, IMO, proves that your attitude is "fit the facts to the theory" and not the other way around.  But you seem to have admitted SMW into the company of SMB3 etc. so I won't do the rant I initially planned upon reading this. 

Rol, I don't know if I can back you on this point.  It seemed to me that the argument you were presenting ought to hold up to his hypothetical example, despite that it is completely ridiculous.  In some cases, pulling the "reductio ad absurdum" trick is just a stupid trick that shouldn't be answered because it has no probative value.  But in the case of your argument, it seems to me that it might deserve an answer. 

Do you think that what you call the "main line" Mario games developed their lore and framework and now it's set in stone, so that 2D is forevermore the main Mario series?  Or -- for a less ridiculous example than Porn Mario -- let's say that in the future 3D Mario becomes much more popular and becomes the center of gravity for Mario spinoffs etc.?  Would 2D still be the "real" Mario, or would 3D Mario have taken its place? 

@ Khuutra:  I think Rol now deserves an answer to his Final Fantasy / Mega Man question. 

That's right, I forgot.

Basically, his position (as I see it) is that these classifications don't objectively exist at all, but broad categories that just about everyone agrees on are necessary/useful for daily life, and that it's pointless to have categories that people disagree about because they don't exist anyway.

I think that papers over the fact that clearly categorization has utility or there wouldn't be a need for them at the broader level either.

The "real Mario" you proposed has enough merit that as soon as you laid out the timeline you got a convert. Just because Random Gamestop Guy doesn't differentiate between Mario Party and Mario Kart doesn't mean it's useless to have these subcategories. Plenty of fields find use in differentiating things the uninitiated would see as pretty much the same; I don't see why this can't be the same thing.