There is a difference between  a casual and a hardcore gamer. Super Mario is a pick up and play game that doesnt involve control scheme difficulty but rather the difficulty is based on the course you are to walk through. Depending on the difficulty you choose is the level at which you will play. Easy is generally the casual setting. Most games now have a casual setting because casuals in most cases just want an experience and not an overcomplicated challenge. They want a slight challenge if one at all. A hardcore gamer will play mario to death on the hardest setting finding the ins and outs of the game. Mario was not created to attract hardcore gamers, but I am sure there are setting the core gamer can set to play a harder setting. Mario attracts mostly women/children and alot of people grew up with it. What game do you think my mother thought was the only acceptable game to buy for me with the Nintendo when I was really young? Mario. Would she have bought me any of the Sony exclusives? Hell no, unless it was Crash or Spyro. The only chracters my mother knew about were Mario, Donkey Kong and Sonic the Hedgehog. I dont disagree that a hardcore gamer will play any game at all, theres no doubt about that, but hardcore gamers are more defined by the way they play games rather than just their voice in variety. If they are passionate gamers variety is a given. Theres a reason Nintendo is after the PS3/360 crowd and its because they offer something Nintendo doesn't in their games. Even after selling nearly 100 million consoles they still lacked a proper core fanbase. They could sell their third party core titles for anything.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But don't you think you're sliding dangerously into elitism with these definitions? Control scheme difficulty seems like an arbitrary criterion for "hardcore." As does an audience made up of women and children for "casual."

It seems like your definition of hardcore gamer is one who plays serious games in a serious way. I guess my definition of a hardcore gamer is one who knows the industry, plays all the games, can write and speak about video games with authority, and makes video games his or her hobby. Casual video gamers are those who enjoy playing games, but know less about who made the game, less about genres and sub-genres, spend less money and energy looking for and buying games.

But I don't think someone who elects "normal" over "hard" difficulty is precluded from the hardcore community. Video game investment is not the same as video game skill.

Its not elitism. It's like calling someone a hobbyist gamer. Casual gamers aren't hobbyists, but rather they play games for its novelty. Some play only a couple games a year IE: Madden,FiFA, COD and call it a day (those I would consider moderate gamers). The hardcore are the technical, experienced gamers who can and will play everything. Give Demon Souls to a casual and see if he/she doesnt snap. Hell....let a casual play UFC online and see if they dont get frustrated by the control scheme before  the asswhipping them will endure online. Casuals like COD because its pick up and play. Have those same casuals play Battlefield...get ready for tears. Look at Tekken Tag 2's review on IGN and watch how they screwed up the games score because the fight lab wasnt casual friendly. In my school they train me to illustrate to satisfy various audiences. I can break down exactly why Mario is for children simply based on art direction. I dont even need to get to the details of the game.

I'd just wish you would not participate in the thread sometimes. You have no idea what you're talking about. The sales performance of the Playstation in the past years is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about brand perception, and despite the big mistakes Sony made this gen, it is still WAY better than Nintendo (the previous market Goliath) did with the Gamecube. Even the Wii had difficulty achieving what the PS2 did. So yes, Nintendo still has a long way to go.

So lol to you bro, a big fat fucking lol right in your phenom face. Enjoy every surface of it, because I'm going to rub it long and hard all over you.

I'd just wish you would not participate in the thread sometimes. You have no idea what you're talking about. The sales performance of the Playstation in the past years is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about brand perception, and despite the big mistakes Sony made this gen, it is still WAY better than Nintendo (the previous market Goliath) did with the Gamecube. Even the Wii had difficulty achieving what the PS2 did. So yes, Nintendo still has a long way to go.

So lol to you bro, a big fat fucking lol right in your phenom face. Enjoy every surface of it, because I'm going to rub it long and hard all over you.

I'd just wish you would not participate in the thread sometimes. You have no idea what you're talking about. The sales performance of the Playstation in the past years is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about brand perception, and despite the big mistakes Sony made this gen, it is still WAY better than Nintendo (the previous market Goliath) did with the Gamecube. Even the Wii had difficulty achieving what the PS2 did. So yes, Nintendo still has a long way to go.

So lol to you bro, a big fat fucking lol right in your phenom face. Enjoy every surface of it, because I'm going to rub it long and hard all over you.

The Gamecube wasn't Nintendo's only platform lol. The Vita isn't exactly selling like hotcakes. So why are you so stuck on the past, and why are you constantly ignoring handhelds? I know, because you are cherry picking. The PS3 is a failure no matter how you slice it. What makes things even worse is how Ninty brand is clearly on a rise while Sony's is clearly in a decline. Sony has also been losing money nearly every year and you still are in denial. The Wii doesn't need to achieve what the PS2 did because the DS did. The Wii achieved what the PS1 did. How about this, once Sony achieves what their past platforms did, then you will have an argument. You don't have one now because Sony's brand is clearly slipping, Vita is selling as bad as the Gamecube and the PS3 is still in 3rd place. Without that price cut every Sony fan was begging for this holiday along side the Super Slim, the PS3 has no chance in hell at catching the Wii. It had a price increase instead of a decrease and has no major exclusive, the 360 is going to rape it lol, and things just got alot easier for the WiiU.

No...technically Sony is for everyone. Theres mature games, sports, casual, platform and all under one brand. No other brand has been that comprehensive since Sega. Like it or not Mario is a casual platformer, Zelda and Metroid are the true standout titles when taking a step up, which is why they dont sell as much as Mario (outside of bundles). Nintendo is commercially more of a family friendly brand. Sony console are generally purchased by teen males to age 40 which means people upgraded to Sony. All Sony needs to do is get a commercial hit of a title and theres always next gen.

The point, my friend, is simple.

When the Playstation home console is at its worst, it sells 67M units, when it's at its best, it sells 150M units.

When the Nintendo home console is at its worst, it sells 20M units, when it's at its best, it sells 96M units.

DO THE MATH.

Here I'll fix it for you.

When the Playstation home console has real competition, it comes in 3rd, when it has advantages that is out of their control, it luckily sells 150M.

When Ninty releases 2D Mario for their home consoles, they win the gen, when Ninty doesn't release 2D Mario, they come in 3rd like the PS3.

Deal with it.