Because this is your thread, Rol, and I know you have an affinity for Malstrom, I'll hold my tongue regarding my opinion of him. I will say, however, that in typical Malstrom fashion, he again proves why he's like the worst kind of politician: Off to one side with ridiculously extreme views.

First, what I agree with: Pretty much everything he says about Super Mario Bros and the influence it has had on all of gaming, just as Pac Man did before it and Wii Sports did after it.

What is completely biased and one sided, however, is that he refuses to give 3D Mario, particularly Super Mario 64, its due credit with how much it too has influenced gaming. Mario 64 obviously wasn't the very first 3D platform game ever created (Jumping Flash, anyone?), same way SMB wasn't the very first 2D platformer, either (that would be Pitfall). What both of those Mario games in fact did, was show us how these genres could be incredibly fun and amazingly well done. And while I will be the first to agree that SMB has had more influence on gaming than SM64, there are plenty of examples, from basic clones like Banjo Kazooie and Conker's Bad Fur Day, all the way to other 3rd person, camera controlled games like Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid and Assassin's Creed, that have come to be simply because of how successful an endeavor SM64 was in 3D game design.

Basically, it just comes down to the fact that Malstrom prefers 2D Mario to 3D Mario, and continues to quickly point to sales every time to back up his argument of why one is right and the other is wrong. If it came down to it, I'd side with 2D Mario as well, as SMW 1 & 2 and SMB 1-3 are my favorite platformers of all time. But as long as Nintendo continues to give us excellent entries like the Galaxy games (both of which I prefer to NSMB Wii, by the way), there is no reason why we can't have both.

I agree with him in terms of Nintendo not having their priorities straight.
The fact that there were 2 Galaxy games was proof of that.

In the 3DS' case, not starting off with a 2D Mario is almost insane considering the last NSMB sold more than 26 million copies. Any other company would have made that a launch title if given the chance. NSMB vaulted Wii sales into the stratosphere and sold boatloads.

No one is denying 3D Mario's influence on gaming...but in a business sense they should never make one of those before a 2D game. A 2D Mario at launch (2012) and then another one 3-4 years later would keep Wii U sales from the vicious decline that the Wii saw after 2010.

SM64 was an excellent game, as was Ocarina of Time. Notice though that no 3D Mario has been able to touch the sales of SM64 since...For Zelda, OOT was only recently beaten due to Twilight Princess being released on 2 systems. Something is up with the 3D.

i prefer mario in 3d than in 2d, mario 2d is more arcade fast action, while 3d is more about exploration, deeper experience imo
just cause it sellls more doesnt mean its better

N64 and the gamecube X No 2D super mario bros = Sales failure.
Nintendo's priority on a new console should be a new 2d super mario bros.
I don't care if miyamoto is bored of developing them. It's people like me who are important. While nintendo is at it make a 2D zelda game like the very first one. And don't make another MOM

Malestrom, this guy is an extremist in most cases.
Anyway i kinda agree with him in here. A really succesful games will spawn similar ones. But 2d platformer genre isnt that great anymore, or not to developers, in mostly of the cases only coming in the form of small games and Ninty itself, so even if we did have a new SMB i doubt we would see Ninja Gaiden backing to its roots, capcom giving another megaman, another rayman game or Contra making a Big comeback. But might had influence in the return and spawn of some platformes on the wii.

Yet i dont agree with his 2d-3d mario argument. It sold well, it moved systems, but theirs a limit of what you can gain when you make a big pricecut like that so suddenly.

With "same threatment" what do you mean time, number of releases, graphics?

I'm not sure the sales would be as amplified as you believe they would be by a bi-annual release system for both machines. if NSMB DS had had a sequel released 2 years after it, NSMB DS would have nearly stopped selling at that point. After 2 years on the market, it had sold between 13 million and 14 million. Say the total for the game would be 17 million when all is said and done. That's a bit over half of what NSMB DS seems to end up with.

Now, is it likely to assume that as many people would purchase the sequel? If Nintendo's other franchises are anything to go by, no, it isn't. Every single main-line sequel on a system has sold less than the previous one did in their main franchises. It's true for 3D Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Metroid and Big Brain Academy, as well as sort of for Wii Fit and Kirby. Nintendo's sequels on the same system simply don't sell as much as the first one did.

Which means you're looking at lower sales for the two 2D Super Marios you're going to release on the system. Possibly a lot lower, possibly a bit. Still, you're not going to end anywhere near having 3 30-million selling 2D Marios. The grand total of the 3 wll obviously exceed 30 million - and probably 40 -  but I seriously doubt  it's going to be the gigantic increase over a single release you're making it out to be.

One of the things that we've seen very clearly with the 7th gen, is that Nintendo sequels on the same system are sales-wise misses.

The crash games where 2.5 rather than 3D , also there was an interview , about the time the crash series was having great succes in Japan , and co founders  , Andy Gavin and Jason Rubin said no matter their success , they would all ways be chasing Miyamoto .

Really that seems to apply to any same-franchise release on Wii, except Call of Duty (see NMH1 vs NMH2, Red Steel vs Red Steel 2)

True, though first party 3D Platformers are good. SMG for a perfect example.