Wasn't really responding to you, was making a point Rol made stand out more.

Not, when a game is good it will sell. The games that sell IS the only decent measure of quality (obviously you can hold a subjective ranking but it's not worth discussing on the internet as your preferences are your own). Plenty of quality games that I like haven't sold, and they didn't deserve to sell either.

Galaxy had higher production values, yes. Was it doing the job the market needed it to do, not really. Nintendo put no effort into NSMB Wii (recycle art, sound and level design) and yet it sold more. If Nintendo had put NSMB Wii on an equal pedestal development wise we wouldn't need to have this debate, it would just be so high that Nintendo couldn't continue to be in denial about what they need to spend money on.

I disagree with Rol if that's what he said, I believe sales are the important thing. I desire Nintendo to do well because they will then have enough money to do projects that don't make sense - the games I like e.g. Galaxy.

"not a real Mario" is Malstrom shorthand for "a sequel to the original Marios that people who liked those would want to buy, and that new gamers can experience the same as what SMB did for 80s gamers".

Isn't 2.5 just a term used to describe 3D games that play in 2 dimensions?

Well they haven't been as successful as the man especially in terms of software sold so I suppose they still are. Honestly who is? The man has created more sales in more types of genres than most developers will ever see.  Of course they will be chasing that kind of success.  

We are mostly on the same page with the other things, so I cut them out.

In the other part that relates to this quote you said that I need to disprove the PS2. What exactly do you mean by that?

I don't disagree that people need new hardware eventually, I said as much above (see bolded). But since people all have their individual value metrics, some (like technophiles) wish to move on sooner while most others are still happy for another couple of years and are perfectly content with waiting until the price of new hardware comes down or until games that really justify to purchase the new system come out. Simply because the current system continues to enjoy good support and thus sees steady releases.

@bold. It's all very ambiguous. Malstrom seems to be saying that, since 2D Mario created a market for such great games, then we need to encourage 2D Mario, his point is founded on awesomeness. But then, at other times, the argument is that, since Nintendo makes more money with NSMB, then that's what matters since that will fuel higher quality games. Yet when said higher quality games are released, people are upset, so what's the dealio?

Well, I think they should make up their minds. If it's Mario that creates a market for awesome games, then so be it, but if it creates a market for cheap revivals yet makes loads of cash, then nobody's happy.

Also, sales are not a measure of quality, they're a measure of appeal. What is a measure of quality is objective: time spent on the project, talent working on the project (which teams), the ultimate score (reviews, metascore), the longevity (is it a classic?). All these points taken TOGETHER are the right metrics for quality, sales is not. It's a measure of a baseline quality, enough so as to not be put in the shovelware category, but sales generally measures appeal, not quality, and appeal requires a baseline of quality, not much more. As for the rest, as we all know, appeal requires certain themes or dynamics that people like, and that's about all there is to the secret recipe.

I have no problem with those games being made. Nintendo just needs to not make them the focus of a year's lineup and expect them to sell. Fire Emblem is a great series and leading its genre but no one would expect it to sell a 3DS on its own at Christmas. Yet this is exactly what Nintendo hoped for with Galaxy 2, and then with Skyward Sword.

Nintendo's executives main problem is that they do not understand the game market. It would be fine if they said, we know X would sell better but we are doing Y, outright. But if you read the interviews it's more of a Reggie "what's wrong with you" when a Galaxy doesn't sell like a 2D Mario. They just don't know why.

The measure of quality you are describing is cool - for you. You can come to your own conclusions about which games are better and why, based on some combination of what you listed. Sales isn't the only thing, sure, but if we are talking about what Nintendo is doing wrong and how they could do it better, time, talent and metacritic score are not issues for them at the moment. NCL is a top tier studio. It is being misused. Longevity I left out because it is also a revenue issue, if games retain their value they can be selling at $30+ years after release and be earning. The existence of low priced used copies is actually a failure on the developer's part to make a profitable game.

That clarification helps alot, but even that doesn't really hold water. Check my retort here. It inspired a generation of games, but that generation of games appealed to only a very small fraction of Mario's initial market. So how is the result different from 3D Mario I just don't see it. Actually, 3D Mario launched more success, since games like uncharted sell at least 3M.

Which is why he called Reggie an idiot for not wanting to bring the Operation Rainfall games to America or Nintendo on the whole for keeping games like Zangeki No Reginleiv in Japan.

You people keep criticizing Malstrom for being closed-minded, yet none of you ever saw a problem with Super Mario Galaxy 2 which goes completely against the idea of a more diverse game lineup. Its changes to the previous game are minimal. It's just Yoshi and a couple of new power-ups. Likewise, apparently there's no real problem with the 3DS lineup even though it's one 3D gameplay title after another. Despite the fact that Nintendo are masters of 2D gameplay.