When I say remake I mean in the way Resident Evil was remade for the cube. Hell they could even do a Mario All-Stars with added online co-op where Marios 1-World are redone, just to get the ball rolling.

The message is clear though, fans DO care. I think the half assed efforts of the past two 2D Mario games has a direct impact on the hardware sales of Wii U. Look at the facts, the market has never taken to 3D Mario as they have 2D Mario. Its not a matter of being 'casual' (hate that word) Or complex. It's a matter of Mario being born in 2D and with the shift to 3D, there are certain fundementals of Mario that are lost. As I've said look at Pac Man, is the 3D Pac-Mans seen by the market as really being PacMan? or do they see it as some warped perversion?

Some games work in 3D, absolutely, Zelda, GTA, Metal Gear Solid, Metroid etc. But others don't fair as well.

Nintendo is fighting against their own interests. Instead of putting the proper resources towards the games that sell they would rather have fun making the games they want to make. Isn't it ridiculous? 2D Mario sells so much better than 3D iterations, yet 3D gets the music, the production values, the new content, etc. And despite all of this, 2D Mario sells better. But eventually, you will piss off your base and when that happens, you get a cold reception, much like Wii U is experiencing now.

The same question could be asked to you... 

3D Mario not as popular as 2D Mario, eh?

It's hard to say, really. I have played both types of Mario games over the years and  the two seem to always find their way to get the smiles to the people. Nevertheless, they never cease to amaze me with such fluid controls and easy-to-learn schematics that have survived over the course of so many years.

Though I must say that New Super Mario Bros. series has really made the 2D Mario popularity skyrocket with it's competitive-cooperative gameplay.

So... basically what you've done is taken two variables (one of whose definitions is very poorly defined. Why is running away from an enemy not a confrontation, and jumping over it is, particularly when some enemies in 3D games will chase you? And, unless you happen to know the layout before hand, you're pretty likely to run into more than 2 enemies in Bobomb Battlefield. Not to mention that defining the game's difficulty based on one level which is quite silly...) and listed them.

So... 2D Mario has higher sales, and more hazards (by your definition). And how do you prove that these two variables are in any way linked? By ummmmmmm... just saying they are? You really give no evidence that these two variables are linked beyond "hey I think this is why". You have data, and you have a hypothesis... but nothing more. You need some sort of test. If what you say is true, then Galaxy, by your data, should have sold WAY better than Sunshine and 64, right?

And your data is very very incomplete and cherry picked or in some cases wrong. What about Super Mario World? There are 5 enemies that are in your direct path, and 0 pits. So, I'm guessing that sold really poorly? What about Galaxy 2? There are at least a dozen opportunities to fall into a black hole, about 12 enemies located in such locations that they're basically necessary to confront, and a boss. Oh, and by the way, your data for galaxy is wrong. There are about 5 places to plummet to your death (one swiss cheezy planetoid that has five gaps leading to one black whole. You also conveniently ignore the asteroids, and electric thingamabobs. If they can hurt you and they move, why shouldn't they be counted as enemies?

Based on your theory, I would expect Galaxy 2 to be the best selling game of the series. But... it isn't. Now, before you go on talking about other factors (timing, sequels, etc), that just means you've done a crap job of isolating your variable.

So... uhhhhh... you've really got nothing here. You have a woefully incomplete set of data (that arbitrarily ignores half the series and focuses on one level), and you have no sort of evidence to show that your independent variable (number of hazards) and dependent variable (sales) are in any way linked. Your argument is in another castle.

I don't have access to this data, for some reason. Only the first 10 weeks... 

I'd love to see anyone argue against this.

The ironic thing is, as Miyamoto continues to try and fuse 2D & 3D, he actually repulses fans of both. It is futile to continue this endeavor. I'd like to know why Miyamoto feels so strongly about destroying the game that created him.

That's utter bull. SM3DW blends the 2 styles very well and it's critically acclaimed everywhere you look at. 

Well who does not know that.

Also since you did not respond to my last post I will take that as your fear of being proven wrong.

Critically acclaimed, and selling like Pikmin.

besides, who is still relying on media outlets like IGN, Gamespot and the like for reviews? I thought it was common knowledge that these outlets are bribed and coersed into scores. Skyward Sword a 10? Really? GTA4? C'mon.

Running around an enemy takes no skill, that's why. Especially in the huge open areas in Super Mario 64. You have to seek the confrontation to make something happen, that's not the same as being forced to deal with it. Super Mario World's first level has more than a dozen enemies and two deadly pits on the way to the goal. If you complain about incomplete and wrong data, you shouldn't provide clearly wrong data yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfdUZWwG-D8

4 enemies.  There is no need to engage the koopas on the top of the platform.  Run forward and you'll go under them.  There is a red koopa in your path, there is a green koopa, there is a charging chuck, there is a pirahna plant.  Every other enemy can be avoided by running straight ahead.  There are no pits.  You could call the level on the left the first level, but you don't have to beat that level to progress.

Now, even if I did give wrong data, that doesn't somehow excuse your missing games, that doesn't somehow allow you to gloss over the pits in Super Mario Galaxy as though they didn't exist, or to ignore most of the Mario series in general.  Put good try on wiggling out of that one by casting blame on the other person.  Classic tactic.

And not a skill? Utterly ridiculous.  Navigating a character in 3D is most certainly a skill, and a more complex skill than jumping over an enemy.  Maybe not to someone who has been gaming their whole life, but to someone who never played a game?

What the comparison between pits and confrontations with enemies in various games was meant to show is that there is a much higher chance to lose in 2D Mario games. A fact that I expanded further on by pointing out how many hits it takes until the player dies and how long levels are. Super Mario Galaxy 2 may be more streamlined and thus more dangerous than previous 3D Mario games (you are exaggerating your numbers though), but

The numbers aren't exaggerated at all.  The only problem is since Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a 3D experience and more complex than 2D Mario it's hard to count.  In 2D Mario there are two ways to enter a pit.  In Mario Galaxy 2, you can enter it from numerous directions.  Throughout a great deal of Mario Galaxy you're surrounded by pits on all sides.  Plus, you can also drown, and the threat of drowning is literally everywhere in a water level.  Way more chances to fall in.

The problem is that your definition is very poor. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV4Ocsy812k

How many oppotunities do you have to die here?  The electric fence can kill you at any given moment, and any of the mines is instadeath. 

There are other factors that also make 2D Mario games more entertaining (like the physics), but I focused on disproving the initial and commonly voiced premise that 2D Mario sells more because it's easier.

Except, you didn't prove that.  You didn't disprove that 3D Mario games are harder.  You only judged one level of each game, and it doesn't logically follow that the games will end as hard as they began.  What if we compared Grand Master Galaxy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIJWYFCutL0

with the final level of NSMBU?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdWgrTv02eg

Follow That Shell has maybe... 12 enemies, and no pits in your immediate path.  I didn't count for Grand Master Galaxy, but it's A LOT more.  So, 3D Mario harder then 2D Mario confirmed? Well, no, because selecting the final level is just as arbitrary as selecting the last.

Of course, you didn't even prove that the first levels are harder in the first place.  Any pit or enemy in 2D Mario presents you with 3 options (assuming you don't have a power up).  Go left, go right, jump.  3D Mario gives you more options, so even with less enemies you have more choices, more room, and more complexity. On a floating platform in 2D Mario, there are 2 ways to die.  In a floating platform in 3D there are four.  This isn't mentioning the fact that 2D Mario games tend to shower you with power ups like the acorn or propeller hat that make it easier to jump (3D Land and World too).  While enemies kill you easier in 2D Marios, the power ups make falling into a pit less likely than it is in Galaxy.  Or the fact that it is impossible to fail a level in NSMBWii or U unless all players fail in unison (world as well).   So... you haven't proved that 2D Mario is harder, or that it would be harder even if your arbitrary data had any meaning. 

And you didn't prove that easiness is a factor in sales.  If your theory is correct, harder games, whether in 2D or 3D Mario, should sell better than easier ones.  Super Mario World should have flopped with its lack of level 1 hazards, and Lost Levels should have vastly outsold Mario Bros 3 in Japan.  Galaxy 2 should have outsold Galaxy 1.  New Super Mario Bros (11 enemies 3 pits) should have sold worse than NSMBWii.  So, even if we grant that your definition of difficulty is correct, you can't show that it impacts sales.

The conclusion of my post is that the overall feel of 2D Mario simply cannot be replicated in a 3D space, hence why 3D Mario will never reach the heights of popularity that 2D Mario achieved.

No, it wasn't.  Maybe it's what you meant, or maybe you're revising your argument now, but that's not what you said.  You very specifically, and very clearly focussed on the difficulty, and claimed that 2D Mario sells better than 3D Mario because it's more difficult, which is quite different than the bolded quote here.  That's your opinion, and you're free to hold any opinion you want, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.  That's fine.  That being said, you did not prove or disprove anything.  You presented two statistics (sales and number of hazards) and failed to establish any sort of link between them. This is a pretty classic example of people trying to dress up bad arguments with statistics, and it doesn't hold up.