Yeah ... I think at this point the discussion is done. You're just not representing what you're trying to say well at all. Not only that but I think you're losing track of the conversation ... I didn't say Galaxy was a top-down game (???), I said it was top-down at parts, but even then we already agreed that the camera point was mostly moot a few replies ago ... so why even keep bringing it up? I thought that when you conceded that Galaxy was linear, that you were more or less admitting that Galaxy is more similar in design to the 3D Land/3D World games then the other titles. Apparently, you weren't conceding that, but you really haven't brought up anything against that since, so I'm not sure where you want the discussion to go ... it's actually somewhat ironic, you're criticizing me for using the linearity of course design as my main point because it's "just" one element of game design (nevermind the fact that it's one of the biggest distinguishing factors in game design for 3D Platformers) but you aren't bringing up any substantial arguments from a game design standpoint that would make Galaxy more similar to the other lineage of exploration-based 3D Mario titles. You seem to really want to say that these games are completely different and that Galaxy is more similar to the other games then it is to 3D World, but the only point you're repeating is that I shouldn't take what Nintendo has to say at face value just because it comes from a position of authority, even though that's not what I'm doing ... and you already agreed with Nintendo's assessment on the course layout? Again, stop being lazy. Don't just keep repeating the same thing over and over again. No one is shilling Nintendo and saying that consumers should just listen to what companies have to say all the time and agree with it. That's ridiculous. Making a point out of that isn't constructive because it's so out of reality with the conversation, and it's already been corrected many times.

The irony here is that if you just said that what made Odyssey more like the other 3D games was that it was more creative, or adventurous, or innovative, I would have agreed with you. In fact, I was the one who brought that point up first! I did the work for you! But instead you mostly decided to continue arguing about pointless things. My main point all along was about course design and linearity, because it's one of the biggest facets of 3D platformers. I think an argument can genuinely be made that Galaxy is more similar to the 3D series, even if the 3D series is a gross oversimplification. You kept arguing on these grounds, which looking back on it - I think is the problem. At any moment you could have said "I agree with that but what makes Galaxy more like these games is x, y, and z" but for the most part you didn't do that. I mean, to be fair you almost did, you agreed with me when I said the other titles were more creative than the 3D Series, and that Galaxy was more similar to the other titles in that regard, but you didn't use that opportunity to redirect the discussion ... you continued arguing over points that truthfully I don't think you have much of a counter to. That's fine, but the only reason I kept engaging in discussion on those points is because I assumed you had a counter for them ... but it doesn't seem like you do. It's kind of frustrating because it was such a waste of time. Oh well, guess it was my decision to waste it.

Either way, no harm done. I was genuinely getting pretty mad for a minute there because I felt like my stances were being completely misinterpreted, and truthfully you still misinterpreted them in your last reply ... but I think that comes more from confusion than anything, so it's fine, even if frustrating. Wish you a good day and happy platforming!

By the way ... errr ... I see your thread with the poll. Cheeky Just to be clear, I definitely think 3D World is closer to the 2D games than they are even to Galaxy. Also ... I would argue the vast majority of moons in Mario Odyssey are just awful. Most of them. So while I can understand your argument about extra content being extra ... most of the main ones aren't riveting either. 

This.

I've had my Switch for 10 months and have more games for it than I do for my WiiU, which I've had since 2014. For me, there's just a lot more compelling software on the NS than there was on the WiiU.

It uses cartridges and that's just fun. :)

A lot of people forget that download exclusives are not counted in this number. Download exclusive sales seem pretty high on switch with so many indie games selling like crazy.

Several factors: The melding together of Nintendo's home console and handheld console audiences, appeal to all regions, Wii U ports that a lot of people missed, more core titles than the Wii

There's still a lot they can improve, but they've done a lot towards profitable software.

Nintendo are just being Nintendo. Where Xbox and PlayStation have to force bundle to achieve greater sales and fluff there numbers, Nintendo tends to actually sell there software without or very little game bundling. That's what makes Nintendo software sales even more impressive.

Also there games are sold mainly to a bigger audience of gamers with there games normally for everyone. That does help also.

So all those DS and 3DS users, and the GBA users before. Those were all fake too?

Your graph fails to address the fact that N64, Gamecube, and Wii U all happen to be Nintendo’s poorer consoles, rife with problems, and lousy lineups. While the N64 had a few compelling games (Mario 64, GE 007, and Ocarina) it had few other games to go with it. The Gamecube and Wii U were both devoid of killer apps. N64 also suffered from extraordinarily high game prices, and a severe lack of selection (also a problem on Gamecube and Wii U which suffered massive droughts). The Wii has a compelling price point and new interface, and software was plentiful from launch: with Zelda Twilight Princess, Wii Sports, Metroid Prime 3, Fire Emblem, Super Paper Mario, Godfather, Scarface, Resident Evil 4, Wii Fit, Guitar Hero,  Umbrella Chronicles, Tiger Woods Golf, No More Heroes, Wario Ware Smooth Moves, Sonic, Sims, Virtual Console, Simpsons, Spyro, PES, Tomb Raider, DDR, Fifa, Endless Ocean, NiGHTS, Trauma Center, SSX, Call of Duty, Medal of Honour, Far Cry, Red Steel, Bully, Rayman, Need for Speed, and Okami all releasing in the first year. That first year is already stronger than Gamecube’s lifetime.

While it is true that Wii did attract a lot of women to the console, so has Switch, and in roughly the same ratios as the Wii.

Even if the primary age group happened to be children (teenagers were actually the largest demographic) that would have also been true with NES and SNES, are those fake sales too? 920 million pieces of software sold, the highest of any Nintendo console, was that fake too?

Some people...

I am not an english native, I just don't know which should be the best word to use and that's why I was using "fake". But it is not what I mean, I have never said that Nintendo delivered fake results during the Wii era or that all Wii scores was a conspiracy.

My guess is good marketing, good games and good hardware.

You're dismissing factual information to fit your fictional model. You're attempting to dismiss the fact that the Wii was a compelling and successful product with some weird diagram that does not fit the facts. You're also ignoring their handheld products that were similarly successful.