Ok, we have different opinions then. 

Considering Ghosts PS4 likely outsold all Wii U software combined in the UK last week, this argument that Wii U owners are buying all these other games doesn't really hold water.

False phophet is false.

This isn´t true because you are not counting digital sales.

Even including digital it could be close.

You were thinking about WiiU owners, you haven't ever said WiiU (you were always refering to Nintendo audience).

But even talking about WiiU, your argument fails miserably when thinking about Pikmin 3 and Lego City Undercover in comparison to Assassin's Creed 3 and Batman Arkham City (which have sold less than a half). I will not joke this time because I'm afraid you could really believe on that and don't understand my sarcasm. Instead, I will just say the large difference in sales can't be a matter of quality, since AC3 and BAC are masterpieces. Maybe the answer is that the other two are kindergarten games in a kindergarten console, while AC3 and BAC are for a mature audience that has its roots on PS3 and X360.

~Mod Edit~

This post has been moderated.

-Smeags

Yes it "COULD" be.

Unless you have evidence of the digital market in the UK, I don't see how you can say it is not true.  Even if half of the Wii U's software sales are digital, the overall number is quite low and doesn't suggest people are buying all these other games in droves.

You suck at understanding what is already clearly defined. It's simple grammar and the meaning of the words. It's all there. But anyway let's move on.

I couldn't find a list with 50 games. This one seems quite reliable and it has 27:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

Anyway, do you see any Nintendo game in there? I don't. As for the best sellers, in the top 27 I see 23 Nintendo games! See the contrast? Same thing when we look at games that qualify under my requirements. I just prefer to use them because I believe money isn't everything and that a dev can do great deeds with small amounts of money (Nadeo is a good example of that). So I prefer to assess the commitment of a dev and the depth of a game through their outcome in regards to objective parameters (in order to keep tastes aside and keep me lucid in the analysis). But I can't deny money is a more wide criteria and certainly shows commitment (although depth will depend on how well the money is spent).

In conclusion, I think Nintendo is very competent but also very greedy. I prefer to put my money on games that are, above all, games...rather than on finantial vehicles to fill the pockets of shareholders that won't reinvest it back in the industry. I honestly prefer Sony's and Microsoft's games. But even if I prefered Nintendo's, I would think twice before putting my money there.

What arguments? I had noticed none. Now I went to see your ealier comments on Metroid Prime and I can't believe this is what you call arguments: "That is a game with very good graphics for its day.  It has a great atmosphere and huge levels that all interconnect.  It has a very deep backstory that can be investigated by players that choose to examine the environment around them and see the clues and records of what has happened, as well as find out all about the flora and fauna.  This information can be reviewed after being seen by the player at their leisure.  It has a good combat system that was very original and very different from earlier Metroid games (which were 2D side scrollers while Prime is 3D and first person)."

Please tell me this isn't it...that you really have arguments that I somehow skipped.

Then I also apologize for that. I was implicitly saying "at the moment" but I could or should have put it explicitly. Games are being qualified in our analysis, that's a continuous process. When I say that Sony has 11, I also mean 11 at the moment (it may have more...and most probably it does).

6th result on google (and I couldn't trace it in the link): https://www.google.pt/search?q=metroid+prime+map+size&hl=pt-PT&source=lnms&sa=X&ei=MkCBUrfJBMmS7AbZ94GYDA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAA&biw=1680&bih=949&dpr=1#hl=pt-PT&q=metroid+prime+km2

But I admit this is not reliable, specially because there is a "..." between "Metroid Prime" and "100 km2". Anyway, it's like I said, if it was really big the internet would tell us the number.

Do you think that's fair? I present you 9 different requirements and ask for you to tell me 10 Nintendo games that fulfill ANY of those. You present me 1 requirement for each dev. I present you generic requirements and you present me "kart racers" (within the racing genre, within the kart type) and "Pokemon-style" (even more specific!)? Not to mention that Nintendo has many more games released than EA or Microsoft.

Still, I can tell you about Spore (Pokemon-style) from EA and Joy Ride (kart racer) from Microsoft. Even within your insanely hard criteria, I'm able to find results.

And when you say "Nintendo may simply be a developer that doesn't do that sort of game", I ask you then: what sort of game? As far as I know, you have 9 different requirements to explore (not just 1) and none of them is about a specific genre (they are all generic). So, no matter the niches Nintendo is in, everything would be possible. Fully editable levels can be on action games like inFamous 2, platformers like LittleBigPlanet, driving games like TrackMania, etc. Same thing for simulating gameplay, area bigger than 300km2, online with more than 100 players at the same time, etc. There's no excuse.

You don't need to remember them perfectly. If you've played them, that should be enough for any of my requirements to immediately ring the bells for any of the Nintendo games you've played. Moreover, if you're a Nintendo fan, you certainly know about plenty of Nintendo games you didn't play. That should be quite a knowledge.

You could only say that if they are fully editable and if they are really levels. Do you think a paint is a level? Try again.

Now you start to understand why is there a lower limit but no differentiation at all to whether they are 100, 1000 or even infinite. I defined that requirement not only because of the work it demands to make hundreds or thousands of different stats but also because, if it was really in just 1 game, that would imply the game is deep and hard to make (a dev would never make such an effort if the title wasn't to be strong on most of the other gaming aspects too). My requirements are designed in a way to guarantee at all costs the product demanded hard work. They are not infallible, but I did the best I could. Having that said, now it's easy for you to understand why making hundreds of tiny games isn't as impressive.

Besides my requirements (objective outcome parameters) and developments costs, another insteresting metric would be man-hours spent. But I guess that's hard info to get from most of games.

First fallacy: 50 puzzles are sort of levels, not gameplay variants. Second fallacy: you can't add 50 from one game and some more from other game...until you make 100. Like I told you, the point of the requirement is to get to hundreds of different gameplay variants in 1 SINGLE gameplay so that we know that the gameplay has depth and it was hard to make (it's a big rock, not sand like the hundreds of tiny games).

Actually, it isn't. My opinion is: SA1 is the best platformer ever and SA2 is the 2nd best. So, in my opinion, Mario Galaxy is not superior at all. But you're right, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion.

The same applies to you, without those numbers you can´t say what you did.