Okay, I stand corrected. Forgive my defensiveness, you know it's not without reason, but I apologize.

The first SMB was released when there were not many alternatives, that does not apply to the other 2D Marios, so what is your point?

How can you say that games made Mario sell poorly when SMB never sold poorly?

Only Nintendo themselves would consider Yoshi's Island a sucessor to SMW. The market obviously didn't, the game didn't meet expectations and damaged the Mario brand by rewriting part of its universe and fueling the kiddy stigma of Nintendo, it was a waste of dev recources. It does, however not count for a reason and does not strenghten your point.

First, you have to accept that it was stagnating very slowly, and that SMW was considered to be uninspired by many, which could have prevented a small growth from SMB3 to SMW. Second, you have to accept that SM64 did nothing to help battle stagnation. SMB stabilized sround the levels of SMB3/SMW.

Don't lower the level of discussion by putting words in my mouth. There is a big difference from a game series evolving naturally (Like Warcraft 2 --> Warcraft 3) and mutating unnaturally. I also agreed that SM64 should have been made, but it should also have been followed up by an SMB game, as a safety net for Nintendo.

I can't say I agree completely with this line of thought, especially for a hardware company that has an acute need to sell as much hardware by pushing software with broad appeal. 2D Mario is Nintendo's ace in the hole, but if it wants to keep selling its systems it will need to offer additional compelling games beyond just those platformers. 2D Mario makes a fantastic cornerstone, but you need more than just a cornerstone to build a structure.

Put alternatively, players can not live on Mario alone. That's why other series, like Kart, are invaluable in sustaining a platform.

Additionally, damned few series can do as well as Mario, and certainly not with the same consistency. The Kart games are big, but until the Wii they did not sell as well as their platformer counterparts. Even MK 64 sold worse than Mario 64 (the same doesn't hold true of the GC games, though). I expect the Wii's going to continue being the anamoly, and that it's because Mario Kart Wii launched at the height of Wii Mania in addition to having had an extra 18 months of sales time over NSMBWii.

With all that in mind, do you see why the question you pose is hard to answer with the data provided, and why isn't as important as it seemed at first?

Leaving aside how their actions and statements at the time implied that they thought otherwise, what preparations should they have made to make the 3DS the success they were aiming for?

I understand that games can sell on their own, but gain much more of an advantage when coupled with a game of the same of likely caliber. It's what we call a one-two punch. We're both familiar with the phenomenon, so I do see where you're coming from.

But having said all that, I still fail to see how, while DS Mario challenging 3DS 3D Mario is relevant, the standard can't be held when it comes to Mario Kart...

I understand that MK takes its strength from its peers, but the same can clearly be said for 2D Mario. It's the one-two punch. Maybe you can argue that 2D Mario is more self-sufficient, but to what extent? Even so, whether dependent on peers or not, there is no doubt that Mario Kart is a powerful franchise ever since gen 7, and went viral even before NSMB came out on the Wii, like you said. It is strong on its own, but certainly the Wii series helped to propel it, there's no doubt about that.

I'm not sure I understand your PoV. Maybe what you're trying to say is that MK7 is challenged by NSMB DS precisely because 2D Mario was not there to give it wind in its sails. I can understand that. So you're saying that SMB3DL was not the answer that would give MK7 wind in its sails, and hence MK7, as an entry in the series, is struggling to fly past NSMB DS.

Am I understanding you right?

Sorry Malstrom and rol, Nintendo is going hardcore and they have better analysts than on here. It seems arrogance has gone to your head since you won user of the year Rol. Thankfully, I am not that interested in Nintendo, but even with the interest in gaming I have I could give a rats what company does the best as long as they make capital to keep making profit. The fallacy in many of the sales people's thinking is that the companies profit and domination is more important than the games you care about. *rolls eyes*

I'm afraid not. What I'm saying there's far less value in comparing NSMB to MK7 than there is in comparing NSMB to SM3DL. The latter is a useful insight for gauging which flavor of Mario platformers the market prefers, which is part of what this topic is about. The former is a cross-comparison between two games in unrelated genres. That is much less useful.

If what you're asking is "is a 2D Mario platformer  bigger money maker than a Mario Kart," then the answer is "yes." The follow up answer is "so what?" It's not only a different topic than the one in this thread, it's largely irrelevant because each of them is quite valuable to their systems, and deciding to omit either is a dumb idea.

If we're going to keep on our food analogy, apples (fruit) and broccoli (vegetable) offer quite different nutritional value, and you're supposed to eat some of each every day anyways, so comparing the two is less valuable than comparing them to other fruits/veggies.

This isn't working for me noname. Not only is the fruit analogy failing, but the true issue is being lost.

Regarding the fruit analogy:

True, different nutritional values for different purposes. It fails as an analogy because, sales is the bottom line, irrespective of how it managed to produce said sales (nutritional value, shape, color, texture, etc.)

The argument and where it doesn't work (doesn't convince me):

The issue is, yes, "is 2D Mario greater than 3D Mario?". But the instrument he used to argue it was based on a metric, in this occurrence: sales.

Sales can be applied as a metric of success and popularity, irrespective of the genre or platform, or any variety you could mention. The variety will tell you the why, the sales will tell you the results.

Having said that, let me explain...

The way he measured it in his argument (the one with the sales chart) was by measuring sales. Sales of one thing versus sales of another.

What I was trying to say, using proof by contradiction, is that the same measure (sales) could be used against Mario Kart. If Mario Kart is undeniably of the same caliber (or very likely) as compared to 2D Mario, then how can this argument stand, if it's contradicting that basic fact (that 2D Mario and Mario Kart are comparable in terms of market power).

Was I more clear this time?

I mean that even if they do not expand the market and control the industry they are in no danger of stopping producing the games you love. Most of us know they have enough money in the bank to withstand many losses for years. So I am saying you are going to see the games you love for a long time whether or not they are the market leader and making profits every quarter. I am just saying you are blowing the recent economic failures out of proportion. The company is in no danger. They are in fact very secure and to moan about one trip in a long record of continued success is unrealistic as nothing stays the same. Just compare it to the rise in fall of empires or leaders. Nintendo will keep making many variety of Mario games and be the better for it.

Okay, yes you were arrogant before, but perhaps I just noticed it more lately in the pointless ongoing arguments between you and padib. Either way, I am never one to get big on speculation, so do not expect a million replies, but it is worth putting in the opinion of a Nintendo fan that does not look at Nintendo as the center of the universe. Josh out, peace.

*shrug*

No analogy is perfect!

So let's try another one!

The bottom line in nearly every race is the same metric, in this case 'final time.'

Three separate events are running a marathon-length race. One is running the marathon on foot via undeveloped trails someplace mountainous. The second is running the marathon on foot in an urban environment. The third is a bike race.

If the question is "what environment is most conducive to running a fast time in a marathon?", why is the third race irrelevant?

Don't expect this to be a perfect analogy, because it's not perfect. Just use it to understand why using the same comparative metric does not lead yield equally useful information.

With that in mind, the flaw that you're making is in thinking that 2D Mario is comparable to Mario Kart. They are not. They are in different genres, attempting to reach different audiences, and made to scratch different itches. This is why a direct comparison between the two is not as important as you're making it out to be.

And if you can't accept why that's relevant to the question at hand, then accept that the two are not comparable in market power. Again, with the exception of the Wii version, MK has consistently sold millions less than its contemporary 2D Mario counterpart.

And if you can't accept THAT, then please accept the idea that you should start a new thread to decide if MK7 not blazing past NSMB in 2012 is indicative that the former is in trouble. Hopefully, the weight of responses will do what a single person has thus far failed to do!

Please don't get impatient.

In your analogy of a race, liken video game sales to the amount of people said race attracts in the stands. From that metric, you can say for instance if one event, no matter the details, attracts more of a crowd than another, then it is the more popular event, regardless of the nature of the attendants. The same can be said for Mario Kart vs 2D Mario, the metric in this occurence being sales. This ultimately translates into bottom line, for Nintendo, which is the heart of this issue after all.

How can I disagree with this? I was running from the track record of gen 7 onwards. That's all... For both instances (portable and home flavors), it was a record-breaking seller. In one case with the peer help of Wii Sports, in the other with the help of games such as Brain Age and Nintendogs (before NSMB was able to help propel things further).

But I never disagreed with this. I just said that if this were true for Mario Kart (that it's in trouble, which it is), then the argument stands for both Mario Kart and 3D Mario. I was just asking for consistency. If you see it that way, then we don't disagree.

I was just saying that in the case where someone said that Mario Kart was leaps and bounds more potent than 3D Mario (which it also is), then applying the Europe 2D Mario chart argument only to one and not to the other was inconsistent.

That's all I was trying to say.