That's fair. My apologies for becoming impatient.

I don't agree with either of those conclusions, because each is based on irrelevant data points. The chart is relevant to show that a recently released 3D Mario platformer is only doing marginally better in 2012 than a 2D Mario platformer from 2006. This is, if not an apple-to-apple comparison, then at least an apple-to-pear comparison (or whatever fruit is the apple's close relative. I'm not a botanist).

You're asking what it means about the healthiness of a game in a completely different genre. This is an apple-to-broccoli (sic) comparison; the two in completely different genres, with nothing in common beyond a theme. It's an especially flawed comparison when Mario Kart 7 already has a DS counterpart that launched somewhat around the same time as NSMB.

Basically, the reason I didn't answer your question is because, based on the data presented, I could draw no real conclusion. For a VERY imperfect, off the cuff analogy,  think of someone saying that "the top 100m sprinter in the 2000 Olympics had a best time of 10 seconds. The top 100m sprinter in the tryouts for the 2012 Olympics had a top time of 12 seconds. From this, what can we conclude about the state of the Hammer Throw event at the 2012 Olympics?"

You begin to understand the frustration!

For what it's worth, I've grown increasingly convinced that the DS and especially the Wii were both happy accidents, rather than perfectly executed stages of a master plan.

But that's not a fair and consistent PoV. Rol has said time and time again that 3D Mario and 2D Mario are separate series. So how is that apples to apples, and not MK to 2D Mario?

This just seems like you're putting the argument on your side to win and it's not about that, it's about being intellectually honest and making progress in the debate. I hope it won't end up like this for other topics. That would suck alot, because you and Rol are very smart guys. I'd hate to not be able to pick your brains just because you want to keep the argument on your end. I can concede points, I am able to do that, ask Rol.

"Nintendo is not asking, “How do we make games for the masses?” Nintendo is asking, “How do we get the masses to like the games we want to make?” The latter causes harm to the cause of gaming."

...this makes no sense. His big insult is nintendo does what they want? Isn't that the point of the kickstarter revolution and the main concept behind indie games? Giving the developers power to make the games they want enables creative freedom. Making games for the sake of selling them (making games for the masses) breeds Call of Duty. Is that what people want nintendo do become?

this is pretty much the explanation to what he said:
"Why is Nintendo pushing 3d when the market doesn’t want it? Why are Nintendo developers making creative decisions with established franchises they know the market hates? The only answer is that Nintendo now believes the purpose of entertainment is to entertain the entertainers…. themselves."

I personally don't see what he is talking about. First of all, nintendo has a 3D capable handheld...it is capable of being turned off (which doesnt really hinder the experience). "There is a longterm 3d destination Nintendo has in mind" is what maelstrom says but i dont see the evidence. Sure, nintendo wants 3D and the 3DS to go somewhere but they arent pushing it as the end-all reason to own a 3DS and they aren't even trying to dominate the 3D market. 3D is just another thing that can improve the experience and improve immersion. It may not have worked out exactly as hoped due to certain limitations but that isn't the point.

I vehemently disagree with him when he says the devs make decisions the market hates...what is he talking about? Motion controls (skyward sword) are obviously popular (see sales of wii on vgchartz homepage), i really dont see anything this can be used for with mario, same with kirby...and donkey kong. Exposition and story (other m) arent hated by the market and they could have been a great addition to the game...unfortunately the execution wasn't up to par.


In conclusion, maelstrom is complaining that nintendo do what they want but i think that him and gamers and nintendo fans should be celebrating the fact that nintendo isn't a company who strives for money at all costs (increased ad presence on xbox live gold, on disc dlc, online passes, call of duty/guitar hero syndrome)

EDIT: i didnt really read the rest of the thread btw...it was much too large

not the vibe I was getting from the article

"Nintendo is not asking, “How do we make games for the masses?” Nintendo is asking, “How do we get the masses to like the games we want to make?” The latter causes harm to the cause of gaming"

unless I'm misunderstanding something

and didn't Mario Galaxy do really well?

There's a reason I deliberately said "apples to pears" rather than apples to apples!

Seriously though, there's no disingenuity going on here. 2D Mario platofrmers and 3D Mario platformers are both in the same genre, i.e. platformers. They're extremely different from one another, to the point where they basically are different series entirely, but they're both in the same genre, and in point of fact Nintendo has publicly stated that it wants fans of the 2D games to migrate to the 3D ones.

Neither 2D Mario platformers nor 3D Mario platformers are in the racing genre. Everyone treats them as being completely separate from the Kart series.* Why stop that now?

*Except for folks who like to argue that Mario gets milked, and then treat all the games with him in it as being one and the same.

Okay, at least it's consistent.

In that case I'll progress to the actual counter-argument. So, if a DS Platformer from 2006 does a better job selling than a 2012 3DS Racer, how would you interpret the data? (I'm using the hypothetical better to accentuate my point )

I know, I know,I know!

2D platformers are more popular than Racers!

Super Mario 3D land has sold 5m, the 3DS has sold 17m
NSMB sold 25m, DS sold 151m
do the maths.

Mario 3DS land is more successful.

Almost!

It would mean that that specific 2D platformer would be better than that specific Racer. (the metric being sales, i.e. appeal)

If you extrapolate the racer within its series, you could conclude that that specific 2D platformer was better than that racer series (in this occurrence Mario Kart). If you go one step further still and extrapolate the sales of this 2D platformer to its series (2D Mario in this occurrence), you could conclude that 2D Mario games sell more than Mario Kart games.

But we know that isn't true.

Hence, the argument is invalid.

This invalid argument also applies to 3D Mario (in lieu of Mario Kart) and fails to prove a point.  That's all I was trying to say.

It doesn't mean his point is untrue, it just means that the argument he used to get there was not valid.