You're looking at just the raw numbers and not understanding what they mean. It's not that Call of Duty is bigger. They have many more games out than 2D mario games. There are 2 2D Mario games and at least 4 CoD games with Black Ops on the way. Of course it should have better total sales because they produced more games. It's not strength in terms of stregnth of the individual games, but just making more games. In this regard, the two series are not comparable because the number of games are not the same.

The correct analysis would be to do the average of the games to tell us how well the games do overall. If we take the 2D mario games (from this generation) it would be 18.78, which is almost all of Modern Warfares sales. It's clear the 2D Marios are a much bigger series.

And CoD is not a killer app series. System sales do not boost with them. They boost with Halo, Gran Turismo, Mario Kart, and even GTA before the PSP when it stopped being a killer app series (no, not even IV boosted system sales).

This is a major reason the 2D Mario games are still huge. People bought Wiis and DSs just for these games.

I'm done with this lame bean-counting that you're doing. Lumping together all the Call of Duty games that have been released in the past 5 years and saying it is "bigger" is not convincing me.

Preorders are sales driven by hype. Core gamers seem to get more enjoyment out of waiting for a game to come out than to actually play it. I don't discount them, but I'm aware that MW2 had a 7 million head start when it was released. 

Mario 5, on the other hand, had to earn it's sales. The core audience despised it because it wasn't 3d and seemed antiquated, so this game had to reach an audience that had stopped gaming 20 years ago. Nonetheless, when I go back and see just how much it was outselling MW2 during the holidays, I can't see how Call of Duty is bigger than 2d Mario. All I can see is how Call of Duty is getting massive marketing, yearly releases, and big production budgets while 2d Mario is treated like a flash game on the internet. And yet, this flash game is outselling the big production!

Then all anyone ever wants to talk about is Call of Duty and ignore Mario 5 as if it didn't exist. "Oh that?" they say, "Never mind that, it's just a popular flash game". 2d Mario is clearly outselling Modern Warfare, and yet people are constantly bean-counting ways around this. They say, "If we combine platforms we can see it sold more." or "If we combine all the Call of Duty games released in the past 5 years to all the 2d Mario games we can see which franchise sold more." or "Call of Duty is currently outselling Mario 5 by 20,000 units so that means 2d Mario is not popular and will not sell anymore".

A sale is a sale. What is absurd is bringing up "hype," "preorder," and "earn" as if they matter. How does a game earn it's sales? By having zero marketing for it? By having less marketing than another game?

You are treading into mighty murky water by saying Super Mario Bros. 5 earned it's sales, while Modern Warfare 2 did not.

It can be argued both ways. On one hand, one can argue that Modern Warfare 2 earned it's sales because Activision Blizzard put so much time, money and love into marketing a game. Conversely, you can argue that Super Mario Bros. 5 sales is more impressive because it was marketed a fraction in comparison to Modern Warfare 2 which had constant commercials during the NFL playoffs in the US with Eminem's "'Til I Collapse" song playing.

As I said, murky waters because it can be equally argued both ways. Depends on your point of view.

I'm sorry, what? The week ending may 3rd in 2008, PS3 hardware was up by 80% and 360 by 79%, all due to GTA IV.

... Uh, yeah, I think I just gave up on you. Good job, now I even I don't feel like arguing any more.

...Oh wait, you're probably now going to make random claims against me.

Sigh, okay then:

• Ha ha, nice insult there. Why don't also claim me to be a misogynistic hermaphrodite while your at it.?
• I did play the first Zelda game more than 15 minutes. A couple of hours actually.
• ... So? Is that important? Not to mention, that was before games needed a deeper story.
• No. Just, no. Nice and simple
• The only reason the first few games had dangerous enemies is because of the unfair difficulty, which was common for a NES game. And not only did I fight Darknuts, I also fought a couple of Moblins and Wizzrobes in the same room. In Wind Waker. A "newer Zelda game". And then I fought a bunch of Zora Warriors, basically Darknuts but fish. In Spirit Tracks. Another "Newer Zelda game"
• So does the hookshot, clawshots, giant hammers, grappling hook, that spinning beyblade thing, ball and chain, snake whip from Mother 3, a leaf fan, etc.
• ... So? Is that really relevant?
• ... Yes, so many things unique and interesting. Not even the least bit vague and confusing.
• Actually, Twilight Princess has far more dialogue than Spirit Tracks has(Which means you've either never played Twilight Princess or Spirit Tracks. I would guess the latter, because I wouldn't  be suprised if you are just following DALEK SEAN's ways of hating Spirit Tracks). And as I said a countless times before, this is not age where plotless games with no specific aim is all that tolerable any more. Games have to have story structure if it wants to survive and be taken seriously as a cultural medium. Plus, it's much more satisfying than have a ending screen saying "You Win. Reset to play again".
• That's true. Sort of.
• Oh yes, hit the dragon in the horn, bomb the dodongo instead of harming it with your sword, play the whistle, hit it in the eyes and guess where Ganon is are not even the least bit puzzle-y.
• And Spirit Tracks is awesome. Take that.

Sorry, raw numbers are pretty much all it takes. Call of Duty sells more per year than 2-D Mario and has done it since NSMB's release. The fact that it has more games is irrelevant, except to point out that Call of Duty's fanbase can support yearly releases to the tune of 15 million units sold (and more, for the past three years).

Regardless of reason, Call of Duty is still bigger. That's fact.

Again:

Discounting preorders seems disengenuous and I will not do it, because those are still sales. And it continues to sell more than NSMBWii even today.

You don't get to discount preorders as being unearned. Consumers decide when a game has earned sales, and several million decided it before the game released.

Call of Duty sells more than 2-D Mario every year, and has been doing so for some ttime.

This is about franchises, not individual games. Call of Duty slls more, ergo it is bigger. Period. That is not disputable.

First, a lot of people project onto Malstrom. There is little angry about Malstrom, but everyone calls him so (only projecting their anger). They also call him petty (yet they are the ones call him angry and talking about him on a message board).

So I decided to look at you age, and decided you are too young to have this conversation (no one over the age of 18 would call Spirit Tracks awesome). You were born around 1995, which means you have no idea of old school games. Your first games were probably N64 and Gamecube games. So it's no surprise you think modern games are better then the old school ones. It also shows as you think story is importaint. Rather than talk aboutn each point individualy, I'll go over some themes.

And as I said a countless times before, this is not age where plotless games with no specific aim is all that tolerable any more. Games have to have story structure if it wants to survive and be taken seriously as a cultural medium.

I'm sorry, but the opposite is true. Games don't need story and the ones without it do better. Wii Sports is the best selling game of all time and there is no story there. Neither does Brain Age. Or Nintendogs. Or Just Dance. Or Wii Fit. Pac-Man doesn't have a story either. Nor does Smash Bros. What story does Madden have? Or Guitar Hero and Rock Band? Game like Super Mario Bros have very basic stories which only exist so character has a purpose. And the same was true of the original Zelda. Games, thoughout the short history of the business have been successful without story. Of course, there are very few successful games with story that have succeeded. Most of the ones that have have a way for the play to avoid the story (namely Multiplayer).

So this notion is wrong. Zelda use to be a game with a very basic story, but now they are bloated. As I have already pointed out, new Zeldas are in decline and are only up over the old ones because they expanded into Europe.

Oh yes, hit the dragon in the horn, bomb the dodongo instead of harming it with your sword, play the whistle, hit it in the eyes and guess where Ganon is are not even the least bit puzzle-y.

None of that is "puzzle-y." The problem with the new Zeldas is thew you use a tool to find the weak spot, then the boss falls down and then you hit him and repeat. In older Zeldas, you dodged attacks and hit the enemy. You actually had to fight the boss rather than try to solve a puzzle and have him fall down. A good example of this is the final boss of Spirirt Tracks. There was no fighting. In fact, you were a distraction. It only shows how bad the games have gotten.

The overworld: Twilight Princess's overworld was nothing. It was wide open space with almost nothing in it. There were no nooks. There were no crannies. Zelda 1's overworld actually had stuff to discover. Stuff to find. If you explored, you might be rewarded with a powerful sword, hearts, or even a secret shop. There was stuff to discover and find out. The overworlds in newer Zeldas are much bigger, but are mostly empty space. The first one and Link to the Past had big overworlds with a lot of stuff, and a lot of enemies.

The only reason the first few games had dangerous enemies is because of the unfair difficulty, which was common for a NES game.

You would have a point if the Zelda today weren't so increaibly easily today. I can't tell you the last time I died in a newer Zelda games. But i actually did in the older ones. it's not about it being impossible (which it isn't), but it being a challange.