Nuh-uh pal, no changing the final metric, else the analogy doesn't work, and the explanation is pointless!

Remember, I'm not spewing all this to try to convince you that one answer or the other is correct. I'm spewing all this to try to explain why the question you're posing should not be answered using the data you're attempting to use.

Then your analysis is flawed. Why are you discarding useful data? Especially when you're beginning with the outlier generation? That's how we get Michael Pachters.

If we compare the sales of any JRPG ever to just about any 2D Mario game, it demonstrates that every JRPG ever made is in trouble.

This argument is flawed, in spite of because its (mis)using sales data. Explain why.

I love how analyst make up thousands of excuses for the losses Sony and Microsoft encounter every year in their Game divisions, yet Nintendo has one bad year (mind you it was during the release of a new handheld, and their old one was dying off) and everyone starts putting their piece in on how Nintendo is a dismal failure of a company.

Sorry, I'll answer these in reverse order as that's the way I feel more cumfy answering them.

Since the bottom line is the heart of the issue, imagine this. Imagine you were head of video game console manufacturing company trying to ensure momentum and a bottom line, then if you were to choose between releasing a JRPG or a 2D Mario game at a crucial point in time to drive momentum, then choosing a JRPG you would be in trouble.

As for your 2nd question, we fall back on the analogy.

Then I'll trust your honesty. In that case, what was the initial metric, and what was the heart of the issue? As far as I knew, we were talking about sales strength to compare the frugality of one series over another. Where was I wrong?

ADDED: Keep in mind the analogy is there to support the point, and not the other way around. If the analogy fails by not being the right mapping, replacing it with something more mappable is the way to go.

I understand what you're saying. I'd be glad to concede this point after looking into it a little more. What I'd like to see first is how it's trending in Japan as compared to gen 7, and if its weakening is due to other more regional factors (lack of other support software, market penetration of the platform, etc.). If it is trending poorly in japan in gen 7, then that would be a fair conclusion, that Mario Kart in and of itself can't drive a platform. Would that be a fair way to go about it?

ADDED: Also, by the same fact, keep in mind. If Mario kart was able to break out of core sales into evergreen pastures, then I believe the same is possible for 3D Mario. It's what I would call untapped potential. I just wanted to slide it in there while we were on the topic of the MK trend. Let's not dwell on it.

I thought you would be grateful Nintendo has not developed the mindset of Activision and Ubisoft by creating their top franchises yearly with little change. I know having two NSB games on one system is far from that attitude. The real question is whether the 2nd game would even be a system seller as compared the first NSMB. Judging by what games like halo and cod continue to do for console sales on the 360 I will agree with you that it was a failure. My main point is you cannot complain about variety, not every game can be a system seller, but they still make profit and that not all is lost just because Nintendo stock is temporarily in the tank along with many other companies.

And yes I give you a lot of credit as being one Nintendo fan that is willing to admit Nintendo in not infallible. That is an even worse attitude towards having discussions in which any value can be gained from it. I wont name names, but there are a lot of posters like that.

Mario Kart's always been an evergreen with wide appeal, from the first game in the series. It never "broke out." What made you believe otherwise?

And I'm not even trying to make a point here. I'm just observing that you're discarding useful data, starting with the anamolous point rather than the norm, and proceeding to analyze from there. This strikes me as flawed. Is it any surprise that a flawed analysis will spit out a flawed conclusion?

No. You've lost track of what we're talking about. Or rather, you've stayed on your initial point when I've been trying to break it down to why you shouldn't try to draw a conclusion with that data. My past several posts have not been "you're wrong, and here's why!" They've been, and I quote:

"What I'm saying there's far less value in comparing NSMB to MK7 than there is in comparing NSMB to SM3DL. "

That's pretty much it. Everything else is simply explaining why that is the case. Again, if you want to have a discussion about what's the best course of action for individual games' bottom lines, you're welcome to start a thread. But 1) that's not what this thread is about, and 2) don't use the data point you've been fixated on to prove any point vis-a-vis MK7. If you want an explanation for why you shouldn't do "2)", that's what all the gibberish about broccoli and bikes was about.

I'm honestly not sure what data you're referring to. Historical sales data of MK since inception, as provided by VGChartz, or the chart Rol was pointing to. I don't remember discarding anything.

What I meant by breaking out was, above and beyond its certain intrinsic appeal to all audiences, it managed to break out of being visible by a minority (the core), and ultimately having the exposure needed to end up selling in the 30Millions (the mainstream).

I don't see the flaw in that really. From 8.8M (SNES) to 31.92M (Wii). That's what I was refering to.

And I really wasn't saying that to counter you, I was saying that more in line with you, but for some reason you saw that term I used as a retort.

We should put this point aside though, as I said it was an aside. It was just a misunderstanding.

I offered a simple scenario, it doesn't require much more than simple feedback tbh.

"Imagine you were head of video game console manufacturing company trying to ensure momentum and a bottom line, then if you were to choose between releasing a JRPG or a 2D Mario game at a crucial point in time to drive momentum, then choosing a JRPG you would be in trouble."

What I'm trying to say is that, when judging the frugality of a title, you go by sales. But for a reason that's unclear to me, you want to compare the series in terms of their attributes . But it's irrelevant, since what ultimately matters is the frugality itself.

If this were a case where a specific title performs better in specific circumstances, affected by the attributes of these titles (due to genre for example), then I would understand you position. But as it is, there has been none of that in the debate. The only factor considered thus far is "Ability to sell".

So ultimately, this is false in the context of our quest for answers, currently: "What I'm saying there's far less value in comparing NSMB to MK7 than there is in comparing NSMB to SM3DL. "

Even though in the end the conclusions brought from the sales study will ultimately tie back into the debate about 2D Mario vs 3D Mario in terms of potency, the tool used in that instance is genre-agnostic.

I gave you the simple feedback. You asked a "yes or no" question waaaaaaay back, which is what got us started on this tangent. The simple answer, repeatedly offered by me and others, was "neither." Most of the past page has been me unsuccessfully attempting to explain why it's "neither." The part you're quoting here was an unsuccessful attempt on my part to get you to understand why, but since you didn't answer it that approach was equally futile as my other attempts. Even in this new hypothetical you're asking, the correct answer isn't "yes" or "no," it's "need more data."

On the theory that there are no bad students, only bad teachers, I'll go ahead and accept the blame for this one. But you'll have to forgive me if I'm going to drop the subject entirely now.

I get it right?

- 2D-Marios have better sales than 3D-Marios
- Because of that Nintendo should only make 2D games from now on because more people like 2D-Marios
- The people that like 3D-Marios doesn't count
- Nintendo should not try to make some fresh or deeper games, like Other M or Xenoblade, because the majority of gamers like 2D-Marios more.

That whole thing sounds incredible stupid to me.

I understand.

To be honest with you, there was a moment where I wanted to abandon, but I realized this isn't an argument, and we're adults, we should be able to overcome the roadblocks.

I understand you want to leave and that's okay.

I'll just say this, we may have been asking the wrong questions. We are coming from two different viewpoints and there are loose ends. What are the loose ends, and how can we tie them whole again?

This is where things actually get fruitful, but for some reason we fall short before making it to the next level.

You don't need to answer these, but here was the next question set I was going to ask you.

What was the original purpose of Rol's argument? How is genre relevant to his argument, apart from the ultimate tie-in (all things said)? In and of itself how was genre so fundamental to the metric? We understand that the genre and intrinsic quality is the how (as to how the sales happened), but the sales are the end result, they can be compared independently of genre, one level higher in abstraction. In other words, the level of abstraction was visible to all of us to see. So, how did you see genre as being so fundamental in the metric, when the metric was self-sustained without it?

I would prefer you not consider me a student, for the simple reason that, though I have been on the forums for only 3 years now, I have been following gaming news related to business, especially Nintendo, ever since I was 14, it was a dedicated hobby. I have reasons for that I can share with you another time.

If instead of seeing me as your lesser, you could see me as your peer, you would be able to see that it's not about you having something to teach me, but about us learning from each other.

That's where the relationship between you and I, Rol and I, that's where it breaks down.

I'm 27, I'm a graduated software engineer, I have a background in concepts, my father is a businessman, has been ever since I'm born. I have 5 siblings with who I debated and argued on many occasions, I've been a dedicated gamer for a large portion of my life. So the fact that you, Amp and Rol think that you can put yourselves on a step above me just because you were registered on VGchartz 1 or 2 years before me is a real pity in comparison with what I am worth in the debate.

I wish it could go beyond this level, but what you do and your attitude I cannot control. I can control mine, and I realize my shortcomings, but the way you perceive me and in turn behave with me, I have no control over it. I can only plea repeatedly, but after a certain number of times, there's just nothing more I can do. (this has less to do with you noname, but more with those who have a habit of patronizing with me)

I hope that helps clear things out a little.

Show me when and where I have ever done this?  You can't because I haven't.  Please.  I implore you to find anything anywhere that I treated you like a lesser person and quote it.  Don't spread things around about me being a condescending bully when they simply are not true.  Yes, it's true that you I have disagreed about certain things, but that doesn't make it an attack on you personally.  Heck, Rol and I have had several disagreements on things.  That's life.  No two people agree on everything.  It's not like we're some kind of gang that's out to get you.  This is the second thread whrere you have mentioned me in a negative light when I'm not even around and that's not too cool.  Especially since you are trying to make me look like the bad guy.

You are an intelligent guy, no doubt about that.  But recently it looks like you disagree with people just to disagree with people and your recent threads have appeared to be attention grabbing, to put it mildly.