At first, I felt like he really had a point and did his stuff well, but once we got to Super Mario Galaxy it felt more like he was trying to force his personal opinion down my throat than anything else. Personally, I think that Super Mario Galaxy is overrated. I think Super Mario 64 is way better. Sure, I think Galaxy is a fantastic game, but not as good as most people seem to think. Even so I got pissed when he pretty much outright said that it was a mess.

i cant believe he said SMW was generic :@ he complimented super mario bros 2(USA) more than SMW or SMG! although he started out well, the article was messy in the end

Malstrom works on business prospects, and that alone. He doesn't care if "core" gamers think it's a good game, only whether it sells and drives hardware momentum. And in that sense he's right: SMG2 will not sell new hardware and it will not draw in new customers (only those who buy SMG will buy SMG2 really). It is a waste of money when they could be using resources to target the Blue Ocean of non- or lapsed gamers which is the only way to keep your buisness sound.

1st : I think many of the images you set underneath some of the first images were unnecessary, like the kid playing or 'alice in wonderland'. From this point it was clear to me that through your glorification of the old mario games you may want to take a harsh criticism at the new ones. I didnt expect it to be Galaxy at that point, though.

2nd : @ all the jerks bashing the author for no reason : he just wrote a meter of text, so at least try to hold back your mario-fanboy screams a little bit and pay some tribute to the effort he made ( even if i think it's crazy investing so much time but ok, thats just me )

3rd : When I was halfway through galaxy, I understood why this game got the critics it did at this time, but i felt it was highly unmemorable, because the levels rested in my mind as a collection of many small planets, which on each you had to solve a little puzzle or taks ( f.ex. star pieces for the next star ring / cannon ).
When i think back to mario 64, i can remember EVERY single level, many of the tasks like building the snowman or the insane and awesome pipe level where you switch from tiny mario to normal mario ( think its name was anything with 'koopa', the level where u could choose from 3 pictures to jump in and would start at different size each ( side note : i even can remember the room with the pictures, wtf ))
, so it was highly memorable.
only thing that really STUCK in my mind from galaxy was the great piranha plant and the toy galaxy.
oh, and that insanely hard fight against that stone throwing boss with just 1 life ( comet level ).

so it had great gameplay for sure and awesome new elements ( bee suit, fire mario in 3D, ice skating ) but it definately lacks the memorizable effect of older games.

and this leads to what the author maybe wanted to emphasize : in galaxy I never felt so comfortable as in mario 64 or even in sunshine ( which, in my opinion, had not the better but the more memorizable moment, combined with a coherent city ).
It's a prize nintendo payed for having a broader variety of level, i mean you can have EVERYTHING if u travel to planets from a space station. but it lacks recognition, thats for sure.

I also think that if Galaxy swapped places with Sunshine in time of their respectable launches each game would have sold more, because Galaxy is a higher quality product, more valued by the hardcore fans who purchased the gamecube, whereas Sunshine is less quality but a more casual setting, appealing to the 'new audience'.

In the end you shouldnt give a damn where the stupid game is set in, just as long it#s quality. We're old enough glancing beyond commercial cover arts of shiny beaches and happy comic figures. just my thought

Here's my experience of Super Mario Galaxy, my first association:

Kinda agreed on NSMB, solid Mario platformer, but I never liked it that much, the reason why I'm not hyped about NSMB Wii.

He does have a point with one thing. Mario and Zelda both sell best when it concerns the main world.

The top 4 best selling Zeldas were set in Hyrule (and I believe that only 6 of the 14 are, but I may be wrong). And Mario also sells better in Mushroom Kingdom than outside it.

However! That's more of a "used to be" than how it actually is. The Wind Waker countries appear to be a success, and Galaxy also sold well for a non-Mushroom Kingdom game.

Yes, my reply is somewhat off topic, but it was directed at the only part I really cared about.

Malstrom's explanations of the disruption are very good.

However, his latest foray into discussions of content and quality show that he knows more about business than game design. (And I won't digress into psychology other than to say that he is painting what people think while playing a game with a very broad brush that is not always applicable or correct).

He put together a theory -- content sells games -- which seems to hold until he runs up against SMG. (However, he never really sites sales figures, which makes you wonder how true it really is). Then he misses an opportunity to reference back to the Blue Ocean disruption when discussing how the Wii sales don't follow the pattern because the console brought new players into the game.

Mike from Morgantown

I don't like how he bashed Galaxy. >_

I'm going to start out by saying that I like Malstrom, and I think he is one of the few who actually understand Nintendo's business strategy. However, the more I read about his specific game criticism, the more I think he is just trying to bend his theory to his own personal taste in games.

When Malstrom says 'content', he does not mean it in the same sense as the average gamer. The average gamer sees content as how many levels there are, how longer are the levels, how many characters there are, how many weapons there are, and so on. This is not what Malstrom means. He has used the word 'mythos' to describe the same thing he is talking about here.

King Kong is the mythos behind or content of Donkey Kong.

Alice in Wonder Land is the mythos behind or content of Super Mario Bros.

Malstrom's argument is that games with great new content are well received by gamers, and therefore sell better. Let's examine that a little closer.

I'm going to skip the two arcade games he mentions because I'm not old enough to know much about them, and we don't have data on them either.

Super Mario Bros. is praised by Malstrom has having great new content. It sold 40.24 million units worldwide, 6.81 million in Japan, 29.52 million in America, and 3.91 million in Others. It was a great success, although bundling pushed these numbers higher.

Super Mario Bros. 2 in Japan (or Lost Levels as it is known in America) is criticized by Malstrom for having no new content. I agree with that. It is basically the same game on hard mode. It sold 2.65 million in Japan. It was not released anywhere else.

Super Mario Bros. 2 in America is praised by Malstrom for being great new content. It sold 7.46 million worldwide, 0.7 million in Japan, 5.47 million in America, and 1.29 million in Others. The reason it sold so poorly in Japan was because it was released in 1992, four years after the release of Super Mario Bros. 3. But for all the praise that he gives this game, Malstrom does nothing to say why it sold so poorly in the other two regions compared to SMB. I think this is the first example of Malstrom trying to force his theory to fit his own personal taste.

Super Mario Bros. 3 is also praised by Malstrom for being great new content. In fact he calls it 'the zenith of Mario content'. In other posts, he also makes it clear that this is the best, most content rich Mario game. It sold 17.28 million worldwide, 3.84 million in Japan, 9.69 million in America, and 3.75 million in Others. If this is the best, most content rich Mario game, why does it outsell SMB 2 Japan (a game with no new content) by only 1.19 million units in Japan? That doesn't seem like that much. Again, I see this as Malstrom forcing his theory to fit his own personal taste. It misses SMB by almost 3 million units in Japan and almost 20 million units in America. Bundling is part of the reason, but those still seem like big gaps to me. This could be more of Malstrom's personal taste instead of objective theory.

Super Mario World is next. Malstrom says it has some nice surprises, but is missing the magic of the other games. It sold 20.61 million worldwide, 3.55 million in Japan, 12.97 million in America, and 4.09 million in Others. So, how does a game that is missing the magic do as well or better than SMB 3? Part of the reason is bundles, but it wasn't bundled in Japan where it only sold a quarter of a million less. I see more personal preference over theory here. Malstorm states that 'Mario Madness' ended shortly after this game was released. I think it just ended for him. Malstrom admits here ( http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/email-of-mario-and-of-mythos/ ) that he fell out of gaming shortly after 1992 (this game released in late 1991 in America).

Malstrom criticizes Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island heavily. He blames it for killing 'Mario Madness'. Again, I think it just died for him. In the link above he also criticizes it for making Mario uncool. I would blame the marketing of Sega and Sony during this time period. Other things that hurt this game's sales was the fact that the first PlayStation had just launched, and the N64 and Super Mario 64 were just around the corner. This game sold 4.12 million worldwide, 1.77 million in Japan, 1.68 million in America, and 0.68 million in Others.

Malstrom praises Super Mario 64 for it's new content. It sold 11.89 million worldwide, 1.92 million in Japan, 6.87 million in America, and 3.10 million in Others. This game barely outsold SMW 2 in Japan, a game that Malstrom heavily criticized. Again, I see more personal preference than theory in his analysis.

Malstrom criticizes Super Mario Sunshine. It didn't sell too well for Mario. It sold 6.28 worldwide, 0.87 in Japan, 4.03 in America, and 1.38 million in Others.

Malstrom also criticizes Super Mario Galaxy. He makes some strange claims without proof like 2D Mario fans bought the game because of no alternative, and people think that Petey the Piranha and Bowser Jr. are annoying. This game sold 8.07 million worldwide, 1.05 million in Japan, 4.20 million in America, and 2.82 million in Others. He has a right to wonder why this game didn't sell more than it did, but his criticism seems superficial here.

Malstrom ends by criticizing New Super Mario Bros. He makes the claim that many fans thought it was disappointing. Proof? I've heard pretty much nothing but praise for this game. Critics didn't think it was disappointing. It is the sixth highest rated game on the DS, and only misses the top spot by less than 4 points on a 100 point scale. This game sold 19.22 million worldwide, 5.69 million in Japan, 7.08 million in America, and 6.45 million in Others. Malstrom claims that this game sold so much because it was selling to people who never played SMB, so it was like playing that game for the first time. It could be true, but again, there is no proof of this, so it is hard to tell. I think his personal dislike has clouded his theory here again. He should be trying to explain why this game sold so well, not trying to cut it down and say it lacks content. He is contradicting his own theory here.

Short version/Conclusion:

Malstrom has warped his 'content' theory to try and fit his personal taste in games. When actually looking at the sales of these games, his theory falls apart. Properly applied, his theory might have merit, but that is yet to be seen.

It kinda falls apart once he hits the 3D era, i think.