I'm talking about Nintendo own games that went from 2dto3d

Metroid Prime> metriod
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time> The Legend of Zelda, link to the past
Mario Kart Wii,Mario Kart DS, Mario Kart 64>Super Mario Kart.

If you go into third party stuff like Final Fantasy and Grand Theft Auto, things get ugly.

Games that goes into 3d and still retains the games fundamentals and quality, will sell more. Are there exceptions? I don't know.

^Yes, Mario 64. But there are important extra-game reasons for it I believe.

He talked about Call of Duty, citing it's fast arcade-esque gameplay as a factor in its success, and saying that usually, cult classics are games that can potentially explode into huge series, if something that is holding the masses away is changed, in this case, the swapping of WWII for modern war.

If you're gonna critisize malstrom, at least read what he writes.

Nintendo has already proven that their own games determine the fate of their console.

Devs were migrating to 3D and the Playstation, the market's tastes didn't migrate. 2D games still did well when they were made since there is a lot of 2D classics from that era that sold well. A SMB game released before the PS1 reached critical mass (And Sega following suit with Sonic) could potentially have changed the course of history.

I'm not sure I can agree with him, but he brings up some interesting points.

Here are my thoughts why the 3DS probably didn't get great initial sales:
1. The devise came too late to rely on 3D - The 3DS would have probably sold better at $250 a couple of years earlier, but a large portion of consumers have tired of 3D. With Hollywood putting out so many poorly done 3D conversion movies, consumers have come to think of 3D as a bad gimmick. Avatar made many people fall in love with 3D again, but many other movies soured consumers, including me. If the system hit right after Avatar there is a possibility they would have sold 3DS' like gangbusters.

2. Touch phones, tablet computers and touch based mp3 players eating up audience. Many handheld gamers like to play short session games while they are commuting, waiting in line, etc. Unfortunately for Nintendo these other touch based devises with a glut of games have stolen a lot of potential customers away. How often do you hear a kid crying for a DS/3DS to play Mario vs them begging for an iPhone/iPod touch/iPad to play Angry Birds or Cut the Rope. Recently the kids in my family and their friends just want an iDevise to play those popular games.

3. Economy. Though spending $250 for a handheld gaming(only) devise has always been considered pricy by the masses, now with the economy in the can a lot of people are not willing to spend extra cash on a new dedicated handheld gaming devise. Why spend $250 on 3DS when you can get a Lumia 900 which can play games, music, text, give you directions, etc? Yes you will be paying $80+ a month having a smart phone, but a lot of consumers think in the short term. Or why not get an iPod touch for your kid? They can play games on it, put their music on it and the games are a hell of a lot cheaper. (Sure many don't have the same production value, but in this economy why not get something that is cheaper that is still fun?)

A somewhat significant portion may have bought off of brand it at the first week, but since when did huge first week sales affect the momentum of a game? Have you been paying attention to HD twin software trends at all?

Most of those sales comes from the japanese markets appetite for a Mario-style game, which the japanese market never lost, be it from old people, or children, or new gamers, or old gamers, or every one in between. Maro's gamplay was addictive and fun then, and it is addictive and fun now, it sells for the exact same reasons now that made the very first SMB sell.

Extremely doubtful.

One game would not have stopped the migration.

You're saying another super mario brothers in 2d would have been able to hold the n64 steady... There is absolutely no way. The move to 3d was an explosion which created dozens of new game styles and genres. Staying in 2d would have continued stagnating. People just didn't want mario anymore in the n64 era. Not when we had 100 other great IPs that everyone wanted to play. Mario in 2d was only successful in a barren market.

It's revival sales are so much in reliance upon the nostalgia crowd hipsters.

But perhaps you're right and that Mario just simply isn't good in a 3d setting. Then what do we make of every other franchise that has seen success in movign to 3d? Are we to assume that mario can ONLY be a 2d platformer? What then is to be said about Mario itself? That it is typecast? Regardless of what it was, smb would not have prevented the move to 3d.

What Malstroms even after reading this thread i still have no ideal, is it some whiny kids talking on Youtube?

One game rocketed the NES to prominence, same for Wii and Megadrive. Don't underrestimate the momentum-changing power of one game.

As I said, selling on the level of SMB3 or SMW (which is where the series stabilized) would have done more for the N64 sales than SM64 did.

You overrestimate the number of new genres that 3D gave birth to (but that doesn't matter to my point anyways).

Calling the market 2D Mario suceeded in barren is both wrong and an insult to all the brilliant games that were out there. 2D Mario competed against much, much more, and better designed competitors than 3D Mario.

@ Bold, I already adressed that in an earlier post. That is just venomous dogma that needs to go if we are to have a serious discussion.

Mario is good in a 3D setting, just not as good as 2D Mario. SM64 had its place, and made gaming better through its innovations, but sales wise, it is a weaker series than 2D Mario, and therefore 2D Mario is more important. Both can be made, SM64 should definately have been made, but so should SMB5 and both can have the production values to make them awesome, but Nintendo obviously has priorities wrong.

When has Nintendo failed?