What?
First of all, Super Mario Galaxy was an incredible game that met with huge critical acclaim and sold nearly 8 million units already.

Second of all, there was TONS of innovation in the NES days.
Super Mario Bros practically defined the side scroller.
Zelda invented the save game, for crying out loud!

A collective yawn on Super Mario Galaxy's release? 8 million sales and almost universal good reviews say otherwise...

That's what I was about to say.  Maybe he meant critically?  If so, then I would direct him to the 97% average on Gamerankings.

WTF, Malstrom?

Here's the answer to this question: I like to play on pc not so much on wii so I don't buy many games for wii.

Ehh, he tends to twist the truth to suit his point, but generally his point is solid enough that that can be overlooked. In this case, i think it's neither. I don't think Nintendo has ever quite lost the touch of the NES/SNES era games, which is why they've stayed true to their roots. They occasionally experiment a little, but it doesn't really alter the core concept at all

Super mario galaxy sold very well, but it was nothing compared to the sales of all the super mario brothers. New super mario brothers has sold 18 (or was it 19?) million on the DS. Just consider how much a super mario bros could sell on the wii.

Exactly. Malstrom isn't calling SMG a failure because it sold poorly, he's calling it a failure for not growing the popularity of the franchise, which is something NSMB, MK DS, and MK Wii managed to do. And he's trying to figure out what the secret formula is which grows the popularity of a franchise which is already hugely popular.

I'm not sure he's right, but it is a question worth pondering. How do you take a franchise from 10 million sales per iteration to 20 million? Nintendo did it with Mario Kart Wii, can they do it with Zelda?

I don't know the proper way to say this...
But they made Mario Kart Wii a game my parents can play.

That's the blue ocean, right there.  Can't say the same for Mario Galaxy, or Zelda.

That makes sense, but I think he failed and somehow headed off in the wrong direction.

He says that Mario Kart Wii is more like Super Mario Kart than 64 or DD.  I have no clue why he thinks this because he doesn't explain it.  I would disagree with him, but I can't really argue because there is nothing to argue against.  So I guess I'll just say he is wrong and leave it at that.  It is as much evidence as he provides.

He says that Mario Kart Wii had more content than DD, which is true.  It has more content than any Mario Kart to date.  He then claims that the NES/SNES games were based on content, but Super Mario Kart didn't have any more content than 64 or DD and I would say it had less.  What I remember about games from that era is that there was not much content, but the games were really hard to make them play longer.  You were forced to play the same thing over and over until you got it right.

@Liquid - Didnt Zelda:TP sell a few mil units on the Wii? Keep in mind that its a core game that was released at launch. Lots of people were infatuated with Wii Sports at the time, and in general, Zelda games take a lot of "sit down and hear a story" time. This is something a lot of newcomers to gaming aren't used to.

As for Malestrom's points, what does he consider "hitting the mark"? In the industry, selling over 1 mil units is pretty successful. Here's a question on his thought process - If FF7 stayed in the same format at FF6 (FF3 US) would it still be heralded the same way? No FMV, minimal cutscenes, etc?