What a cheap weasel cop out but expected from you though.

Now I would have to actually provide the evidence ugghhh here it goes.

Twilight princess about 7m sold

Mario galaxy about 10m sold

metriod about 1m

NSMBwii from your own admission before it was bundled about 15m sold.

Now this fis perfectly with what I saidn an earlier post: "So what you end up with is a zelda fan buying a nintendo console and picks up 2d mario btw, a metriod fan buying a nintendo console and gets 2d mario btw and a 3d mario fan picking up 2d mario btw, increasing the sales of 2d mario by 3x." counting overlap and whatnot.

Hmmm, it is an interesting theory, but I am not sure I buy it. Nintendo has done better at tightening up the action in the 3D Mario games lately, but they still are not selling at the level that the 2D games do.

I really do think it comes down to accessibility. A d-pad, two buttons, and a simple goal are just so easy to understand. For whatever reason, if you add an analog stick and it just kills your potential audience.

Yeah, I expected you to understand it this way. Whatever suit your argument.

Let me rephrase is: Acclaimed by both gamers and game critics. 

And it's way too early to say if it will sell well or not. As of right now, the attach rate is quite good. Considering the Wii U install base.

Anyway, since I'm bored, I can pretty much prove 2D Mario takes less skill than 3D.

Simply imagine a computer program. The function of the computer program is simply to play Mario games. The computer program is completely unskilled. By this, I mean it will randomly enter inputs. It will press right, down, left (we'll ignore up as it is functionless. You can keep up if you like though), B, and will jump in NSMB. To keep things simple, we'll assume each move input (left right or down is held for one second).

For Mario 64, the program will enter one of 8 directions (to keep things simple). Punch the air, crouch, jump, or do some sort of combination of those activities. (Kick, ground pound, backflip, etc). Again, move inputs are held to a second.

So, the program, working with no skill i.e. completely randomly. Tries to play both levels. Which one will he complete first?

In the case of NSMBWii, the program eventually will solve the level. Assuming the computer randomly selects more right inputs than left (by quite a significant amount), and jumps at the 29 appropriate times (your counts of hazards + flagpole) and does so within the time limit, he will reach the end of the level and win. The program will fail on most occasions, but eventually due to dumb luck (meaning no skill) the computer program will get to the end. It will certainly take a long time, but eventually it will happen. There are only really 29 points in the level which it could fail.

((((((As an aside, lets assume a level will take 100 right inputs (as in inputs to the right not correct inputs) to cross the level, and 29 correct jumps. The odds of a correct input at any time is 1/5. So, the odds of completing the level should be 1/5^130. Or something like that. So the odds of a successful run with 0 skill relying solely on dumb luck is 1/7x10^89 or seven with 89 zeroes after it. Of course, my math may be off.)))))))))

In the other case, we have level one of bobomb battlefield. If we use the same rules (random inputs). The computer program is going to have to randomly input a series of commands that takes him from the beginning to the level, to the top of the level, while avoiding taking damage. Once he gets to the boss, a random series of inputs will have to be entered that takes the player behind the King Bobomb, hits the punch button, and throws him in the ring three times in a row, without stepping off of the platform once.

Obviously, this is a far more complex sequence of events that would have to occur to reach a successful outcome. If we take out every enemy from the equation, how many random inputs would it take to get to the top of the battlefield? If we estimate it will take 150 correct inputs to reach the top, then at best out odds are 1/11^15. 1/1 with about 150 zeroes. That's not counting the enemies that can stop you, the need to get right behind king bobomb and throw him in the ring, the need to stay in the ring, and the need to not fall off any structures that send you to the beginning, and the need to grab the actual star.

If we estimate 150 correct inputs to reach the top, 45 correct inputs to defeat King Bobomb, and another 5 inputs to get to the star, then our odds of succeeding with no skill in 3D Mario are...

1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000

compared to

1/7000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in 2D Mario.

And the gap is actually far greater, I just underestimated the complexity of getting the first star in Mario 64.

TL:DR or WTF Numbers is those version: Of course those are estimates, but any idiot can see that succeeding in Mario 64 (for instance) takes a much longer and more specific series of commands. Therefore, the odds of succeeding without any skill (through button mashing) in 2D Mario is significantly less than succeeding in 3D Mario. The math stuff was for my own amusement but it's self evident.

To dumb it down even more.  Asking a player to complete a series of relatively complex objectives is obviously more difficult than asking them to complete one objective.

Askin someone, go to the right and jump over these 29 things, is far less complex than asking someone "Go into this house.  In the house, go to the room on the left.  Jump up, get a red coin from the book shelf, lure this piano monster out of the way, get the red coin, go to the top floor, cross the grating full of holes, get another coin, etx etc."

To dumb it down even further more options, more specific needs=more complex=duh=really?=comeonyougottabekiddingmewith3dgamingissimpler=

giveonefiveyearoldmario64andanothernsmbandseewhathappens

/thread

How else was I to understand it? If the game was truly wanted people would buy the hardware to get it.

I don't really have an argument. Just a statement, that with the jump to 3D fundementals of 2D Mario are lost. Without those fundementals it ceases to be a true Mario game. Since Mario Mania was birthed in 2D 3D will never be able to match or surpass it. Nintendo's efforts to fight the market has consequences, and you are seeing it now with Wii U.

the comparison isnt really that cut and dry. The 3DS and Wii U 2d Marios were released very early in the console's life cycle, so we cant say for sure that either of those will or wont reach the DS/Wii games.  As for not moving hardware, there are other factors why hardware didnt move as much. Price for one, if the console itself is too expensive it doesnt matter what gets released it wont move as much. DS and WIi were both cheaper than 3DS and Wii U respectively when they got their Marios. Do you really think a high produced 2d Mario would have moved some units? I doubt that since you yourself said both systems(especially WiiU) has flawed hardware design so i dont think it would have made much difference.

Im sure Nintendo had much higher expectations for 3DS and Wii U period. Maybe they had higher sales expectations for NSMBWU since that was supposed to help move hardware and didnt, nto sure that really means the game though. IMHO after playing NSMB2 for 3DS that game seemed to exist soley to move hardware and in that regard it was more sucessful, i think its selling within Ninty's target, especially since it was made in a hurry anyway. I dont think they will do the latter, i kind of hope they do, because I was never a huge fan of the NSMB series as a whole, but now it seems it has long overstayed its welcome and the "New" part is a joke. THey wont do it, cause frankly its easier to just recycle engine assets like they have been doing.

3D Land? seems to be on track to be the best sellign 3d iteration, how do you explain that if the style so repulses people

You can't actually believe that SM3DW won't outsell Pikmin 3 by a insanely large margin.

Really Rol, I hope this thread was a joke. Such shitty logic, the data doesn't necessarily support your conclusion, and could in fact even support the opposite conclusion.

The reason is because they are not as good (but then again, still better than most shit the industry cranks out these days)