So basically you're admitting that your original comment is extraordinarily superficial in how it draws parallels and conclusions, and that said conclusions and parallels don't really rule out an Odyssey 2? Nice.
No, I don't, it makes way more sense than "SM64 was about to get a sequel, that's why Odyssey 2 makes total sense"
Right, but that wasn't the point I was making, that's just a fallacious way of simplifying it. My point wasn't just that Super Mario 64 2 was originally planned, but also that the lack of sequels to 3D Mario games have a lot to do with the success of the devices they were on (Mario 64 2 was developed for the failed disk drive expansion). Even then, I don't understand why you're making fun of that characterization, because your logic was basically to create as simplistic of a parallel as possible, which is ironically what you're making fun of. If you list 3 3D Mario games that didn't get sequels, and then someone specifies that one of them was itself a sequel to a 3D Mario game, and another one of them had a sequel planned, does that not discredit a large chunk of the simplistic parallel made? Sure, you have a pattern of Mario games not getting sequels, but without explaining that pattern it doesn't mean much. Which is the point I was making. I gave you an entire host of reasons why none of those examples are applicable - I was even fair enough to discredit my own point about Super Mario World 2 because you didn't discredit it in a substantive way.
It doesn't take that long to read, but if you're that lazy then I suggest not making some really simplistic and poorly thought-out parallels, especially if you aren't going to justify them well.
Odyssey's situation has a much stronger parallel to Mario Galaxy than any of those games, but to be fair I'm not saying it's guaranteed to happen either. I'm just disappointed that I tried to be reasonable and what I get is a lazy mischaracterization as a response.
Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 16 June 2019