Learn the difference between criticize in a constructive manner and criticism just for the sake of criticism.

Ohh I know how to criticize constructively. It's just that when you're an ass to the people who gave you constructive criticism, I never felt compelled to grant you that respect that you clearly don't deserve.

When you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. Deal with it.

Well I'm still waiting for your own graph. lol

No one is playing a game but you here. I've proved you wrong time and time again, but yeah it seems every one is wrong except yourself, even wikipedia is wrong lol. Anyway you said it in a previous post, you don't care about TPS sales trending, so what the f*** are you doing on a thread discussing that topic in the first place? Really who's acting as an ass here?

 I provided sources from Kojima and/or senior members of his team that specifically state that the games I mentioned are canon. If the author ot that section of Wikipedia fucked it up, that's not on me. I don't know what else to tell you if you'd rather believe Wikipedia rather than the people who actually made the games. Don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

You want constructive criticism? Fine.

I actually don't care disussing "TPS sales trends" with you, because you haven't actually presented anything that would would allow anyone to discuss the actual trend, have you? The fact that you only chose game franchises is flawed. The fact that you made poor choices about those game series is flawed. The fact that you're missing some mainline games from the franchises you poorly chose is flawed. The fact that you didn't use the actual totals for some of the games you charted is flawed. The fact that you used a scale based on the number of games in the series, not the years the games themselves were released is horrendously flawed.  Your chart doesn't actually get anything thing right in displaying actual sales trends of the genre.

What's the sales of the top three TPS games in say 1997 vs 2007 vs 2017? Wouldn't that information actually show you how the sales of TPS games might be trending instead of taking all of the first games of all the franchises you chose and sticking them all on the same vertical line for no good reason? Why don't you try to make a graph that shows that actually shows trends, and maybe then people would be more interested in discussing what those trends are, rather than how poorly you thought this out.

P.S. Did you mom walk by when you were going to write "fuck"? You're allowed to swear on the internet you know.

Even if I would do that, some asses like you would find a way to argue about my picks. "Oh that game is not a true TPS" or "Oh this one was not one of the major three TPS in 1997". Understand? That's what I meant when I said someone has to trace a line. Also including a prologue game such as Ground Zeroes which did not manage to sell 2M (all sales combined) and placing it in the same graph as other MGS main entries is stupid as fuck (happy now that I have used that word?) as it would not show the real trending in the franchise. Would anyone consider comparing Gran Turismo 5: Prologue along with GT5 and GT6 when analysing how the franchise or the genre is doing?

p.s. The game's developers will most of the time promote their games as part of the main series and not a spin-off, this is just PR.

OP, your logic is flawed from beginning to end (just like it was with your FPS analysis, or even worse).

Then, prove me wrong. Prove me that the FPS, TPS or the whole shooter genre is healthy in comparison to what it did like 5 or 10 years ago. Use the numbers you want, spin them in the way you want. I can't wait to hear this.

The problem is that you're using Wikipedia, which is clearly not a credible source for video game sales or genres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooter_game#Third-person_shooters

According to the own source you use to determine what game belongs to what genre, the Tomb Raider series is a TPS. So clearly, Uncharted is a TPS as well right?

Just stop with trying to fit every game into a sub genre. If it's third person and has its main focus on shooting enemies, then it's a TPS.

So what you want is to have your opinion and not have it be scrutinized. Whatever the fuck you do with your life, don't become a scientist, because it's literally a huge part of your job to try to find the flaws in others work and have them either defend it or alter it, and then have others do the same to your work because it makes the work stronger. People are going to scurtinize your "analysis" if you put it online. You're going to have to come to terms with that. If you can't handle that, don't put it on the internet.

And again, if you want to choose wikipedia as a source over the actual creators of the material because you think they might be lying because they want to promote their works, even though the quotes I gave you about those games were made well after those games were released? Makes sense. Ground Zeroes is a prologue the same way that the Metal Gear is a prologue - they both take about the same amount of time to beat. They both are crtiical story points in future games. They both have about the same amount of chonological time between that and the next chapter. Yet no one, besides you, is going to argue that the first game in the Metal Gear series is not a mainline Metal Gear game. It doesn't matter what the sales are for the game, what matters is the accuracy of the data you're presenting. You can't just ignore data because it makes things look worse than you want it to. Besides, VGChartz sales don't include digital sales, which makes up a signficant portion of the sales of Metal Gear Solid V's sales (both chapters). Ground Zeroes sold significantly more than 2 million copies.

And again, Wikipedia still included three metal gear games you didn't as mainline titles, so even if you were right about Ground Zeroes, or Revengance or Portable Ops (you're not),  you're still wrong about Metal Gear, Metal Gear 2, and Peace Walker.

P.S If you were going to do a sale trend of racing games, would you exclude Gran Turismo (PSP) and Gran Turismo Sport because they're not numbered, even though they're mainline Gran Turismo games? You can bet you'd be torn apart for it if you chose not to include them. Also, Gran Turismo 5 Prologue sold over 4 million copies, better than Gran Turismo 6, and better than pretty much every other racing game not named "Forza" and better than most of the Need for Speed series. So yeah, you probably do want to include in a racing trend graph as well. That probably wasn't the best example to use.

First of all, stop telling me I don't want to take the opinion of others. I have added the Uncharted series and modified my graph accordingly. On the other hand you still think Ground Zeroes, or Revengance or Portable Ops are part of the MGS main series while they are clearly not. You can quote the developers as you want, as I said they don't have any benefit to claim their last release is a spin-off, of course they will claim to be part of the main series because thats what the consumers want to hear. This is only PR or marketing if you prefer. At this point I think you're the one who is the more close minded, you are literally drinking in the words of the developers without questionning their intents so I'm returning your comment: don't become a scientist!

Now the second issue with your comments is that they are overly agressive for nothing. Dude, we are discussing the trending in sales of a specific genre of videogames. No need to shout insults at people who don't agree with you. Either you are a teen or your life must be really boring to act like this.

What you need to understand with my graph is it won't include all games with TPS element in it otherwise it would not be a graph anymore but a complete daub. I have to pick up the main entries of a franchise and limit the number of franchise. Yes, game like Peace Walker seems to be part of the "main series" but the game is on a portable and only manage to sell 2M, it would not be fair to compare it to the likes of MGS4 or MGSV. I could not add Metal Gear and Snake's Revenge either as we don't even have sales figure for them.

I had to make choices, some you may disagree with and to show I did this thread in good faith I have added Uncharted to my graph as there were a lot of complaining that if MGS is there, Uncharted should be there as well.

And of course I won't include GT5:P or GT4:P when analysing the sales trending of the Gran Turismo series. It would just not be fair at all to do so, even if GT5:P sold more than GT6, it's still not a main entry.