I have minor dislexia, so I just kept reading it wrong. I'll try to type it correctly from now on.

It's not just you, it's the fact that it's carried on even though he uses his own name in his articles (other posters use it in this thread). The incorrect name is likely being selected above the correct name because of either auto-correction ("Maelstrom" being a real word) or because it sounds cooler.

He also uses the word in some of his articles, probably because it seems cool.

Good god, you're almost as bad as Khuutra >_>

In a good way, of course.

The path the series was on? So switching from 2D to 3D and changing the gameplay vastly, like Super Mario 64 did, was an inevitable path for the series? Just because it was bigger and badder than the other games before it doesn't mean it wasn't disruptive. I mean, heck, instead of doing what they did for SM64 they could've made it much, much different. The truth is that SM64 essentially created the 3D "platforming" genre.

... Unless I'm wrong on that last statement. Please do correct me if I am.

If it was disruptive innovation it would have dropped things from the previous game(s). Instead it kept adding things on.

It added a new dimension, better graphics, etc. In order to tell us it was disruptive you'd have to tell us what features it dropped in order to gain a new value.

Some people here don't quite understand what is meant by disruption.

Disruption does NOT mean that there was some massive change in how things are done. Disruption means that an innovation is geared to under served downstream markets.

SM64 was not disruptive despite the radical change in game play because it moved the series upstream. SMB and NSMBW are both disruptors because they used old technology and simple game play to appeal to downstream markets that were not being served.

Yes, SM64 moved the series upstream, making it more complicated, etc. I'm questioning the whole concept of disruption only being applied to  fulfilling the needs of the downstream folks, though. Why does it only need to go 'backwards'? Why can't disruption be applied in the forward direction, as well?

I'm arguing that SM64 was disruptive because it 'disrupted' the way previous Mario games were being played. It may not have catered to the underserved of the 2D platformers, but I'm trying to convey that it catered to a non-served demographic in addition to changing the gameplay formula.

You are just using disruption as a buzzword. 

Disruptive innovation doesn't just mean "Big Damn Innovation", and sustaining inovation doesn't just mean "meh! innovation".

 It is a complex business theory, defined by Prof. Clayton Christensen, and as he said, its very simplest definition is "crummy products for crummy customers". 

This is what it means. Period. 

Maelstrom was  the one using it as a buzzword, I'm trying to get my facts straight.

Does Diruptive Innovation need to use weaker techniques in some areas only to make up for it in others? The way Maelstrom keeps using it seems too be a very weak interpretation to me.