1) R&C is more story driven than Zelda that is a fact, know you want to put another 2 games to compare against it? I would like to see you prove to the Nintendo fanbase that Nintendo doesn't focus first on the gameplay and then they will look at graphics and story. Nintendo doesn't even look at voice acting for their games because that isn't the direction they are after.

2) Nope I'm not conflicting both. It is from the same company, so if they develop hardwares for 3 consecutive gens that aren't focused on putting as much power as possible and in fact are a lot less powerful than the consoles that were released at the same time (no need to just go for "but switch is hybrid" since this started before it) it already shows that Nintendo as a company doesn't have their main concern on graphics... go and look the assets, cost of production etc of Nintendo games against the AAA of industry and you'll see they invest a lot less. Their game will look better (on your opinion) than the ones from the competition for 2 reasons, the port had to be compromised to fit on a lot weaker HW and photorealistic graphics take a higher hit on it prettyness against cartoonish/cellshaded when going to lower power system.

3) Your logic must be quite crazy to assert that since I said Zelda story is bland it must mean GT story is better than it. Sorry to burst your bubble but Metacritic is not even considered an argument on VGC because of how bad it is as a system and critics giving a game a better score doesn't mean a game is better. Or do you think "Jorney" with a 92 is factually better than all but 4 games on WiiU? With only Zelda and Mario 3D (2 games) scoring higher than it

4) Yes no bias on thinking Nintendo games are all better than the rest of the industry... and if you had an account previously you are already admitting you are an alt.

5) I ain't saying that a game should sell on Switch as much as it sell on another platform or that a game in another platform must sell more than a Nintendo game on its own platform. What I'm saying is that when you pick a game that is considered the best of its genre and is multiplatform it will sell more than the platform holders on that system, but on Nintendo system it will sell less than what Nintendo is offering.

Racing genre - > Mario Kart, no multiplatform is even near that level (so no need to cherry pick F-Zero, because I didn't said no 3rd party games sell better than any Nintendo game in that genre. I said that the best seller multiplat would be lower than one Nintendo offering on that genre)

Wii Music - a failure and a single game on the genre so it's basically you trying to prove that there is some case.

RE4 - Are you considering it a terror game? And Eternal Darkness is just published by Nintendo not made by them.

RPG - DQ X doesn't even get near Zelda

Shooter - Link Crossbow Training (for crying out loud) have twice the sales of CoD 3

So I have done the work for you, per genre (as vgc classify them)

Action - Lego 5,7M versus Metroid Other M 1,36M (10th place) so in this category it would have 9 games over Metroid

Adventure - Zelda 7,18M vs Lego 3M

I usually consider action and adventure to be on the same genre, but not important.

Fighter - Smash 13M, Dragon Ball 1M

Misc (???) - WiiPlay 29M Just Dance 10M

Platformer - NSBW 28.5M Epic Mickey 3M

Puzzle - WarrioWare 3M Gameparty 1.7M

Racer - MKWii 35.8M Sonic 1.5M

RPG - Monster Hunter 2.2M Pokemon 1.6M (no idea why Zelda isn't here)

Shooter - Link crossbow 5M CoD 2.2M

Sim - Animal Crossing 4.6M Cooking Mama 2.9M

Sports - WiiSports 82.6M Mario&Sonic 8M

Strategy - Pikmin 0,6M Thriville 0,4M

That clearly show how Nintendo base isn't biased towards Nintendo and that the difference in sales is totally justifiable per quality difference, in some cases over 10x.

Do you need MS or Sony tables like this to see how it compares?

1) why did your answer only focus on R&C and not GT? I'll concede the point that R&C is more story driven than Zelda (I already said that I wasn't overly familiar with the game). Qwark, above also listed LBP & Driveclub as having less of a story than Oddysey, never mind BOTW. So really, my point stands. As usual you deliberately avoid the overall point just to score a few pedantic points.

2) I already said that there are many reasons why Nintendo have gone the way they have with HW - this debate has already grown too many arms and legs. Bottom line is that they've always maxed out the hardware they've developed on. I don't think we're going to get anywhere on this one so let's just leave it.

3) My logic is fine - you asserted BOTW couldn't be a Sony game because it had a bland story. GT is a Sony game which, as you pointed out has a story mode. Conclusion GT's story meets Sony's standards of storytelling & BOTW doesn't. What is proving difficult for you to understand here...? Unless you're now conceding that GT's story is weak, which then destroys your main theory that all Sony games are based on a central tenet of story-telling...

There will always be outliers and exceptions on Metacritic / Opencritic but to suggest that there isn't a high correlation with score and quality is beyond belief. Tell you what - I'll play 10 random games from the 90+ category & you can play 10 random titles from the <50 bracket and we'll see who comes out the happier - according to you, we each have a 50-50 chance... Probably one of the most misguided things I've seen written here...

4) Here we go again - where did I say "Nintendo games are all better than the rest of the industry..." - I didn't say this and I don't believe that. 

5) I stated before that your premise of trying to find 3rd party titles that sell better than 1st/2nd party titles on a Nintendo system is flawed - but I thought I'd throw out a few examples just for the hell of it. I don't agree on the categories that vgchartz splits games into, but I did site examples of games that I thought were similar enough to meet your 3rd > 1st/2nd party sales . Why the those examples have to beat ALL Nintendo games in the genre rather than just some, I don't get. But then there's a lot I don't get about your rationale.

Bottom line is that the sales reflect game quality - which is the only real bias any of us should have. Why quality isn't dictating sales to the same extent on the other systems I couldn't tell you - the transformers movies have a bigger box office than films like Blade Runner 2049 or Ex Machina - go figure...

"Eternal Darkness is just published by Nintendo not made by them." 

I clearly stated SEVERAL TIMES that we're discussing 1st/2nd party.

Second-party developer is a colloquial term often used by gaming enthusiasts and media to describe three different forms of game development studios:

1. Independently owned studios who take development contracts from the platform holders and produce games exclusive to that platform.^[7]
2. Studios that are partially or wholly owned by the platform holder (also known as a subsidiary) and produce games exclusive to that platform.^{[citation needed]}
3. Companies that make video game consoles, but also make games on other platforms.

1) That is me avoiding to use the same adjectives than you. If you didn't noticed that I said GT had a "story" in the sense of career progression and not a story driven aproach blame yourself.

2) Nope they have the same philosophy on art direction on Switch as they had on GC, they aren't going anyday soon start focusing on photo realistic graphics. Seem like you have just avoided the discussion.

3) No I haven't said BOTW couldn't be a Sony game, unless you can read minds on things that weren't even thought. And nope also didn't say all sony games are based on story telling, I said the cohesion between their games focus on graphics, cinematics and story driven narratives, one outlier on not focusing entirely on telling a story directly proves nothing.

How reaching can you get that you want to compare a 90+ with a sub 50 (that there isn't even many to even look at) to accept that Metacritic doesn't define if a game is good or not?

4) So if you don't believe they are better, then why do they dominate the multiplats on their system if not by the bias of the userbase?

5) Eternal Darkness have games released for other platforms, so how do you classify that as 2nd party is beyong me, also it isn't the best selling on its category, but you decided to make your own genre classification to win the argument.

The premise is flawed because you want to create a narrative that disregarding the entire Nintendo catalogue is biased and hatred, but Nintendo fanbase buying Nintendo games over multiplats on about all genres Nintendo have made a game isn't bias... so please explain to me how Link Crossbow is better than CoD 3.

Your last paragraph introduces many false conclusions that only you are introducing, so I won't even bother responding to those points.

Gran Turismo is story driven? Rathcet & Clank & LBP are story driven? (I've not played those 2 but by the looks of them - doesn't seem like it...) Even the Last Guardian doesn't look particularly story driven, but again, could be wrong on that one.

So the 'cohesive approach' of Sony's Studios is 'high fidelity' and a 'focus on narrative' on some of it's catalogue... Do you know how many studios those 'approaches' would apply to? There's simply nothing unique there.

Nintendo puts just as much effort into 'graphical prowess', it's just that they are developing for much weaker hardware.

If Zelda had been released as a Sony IP, with visuals befitting the PS4, nobody would be saying - wow, this is so un-Sony... rather they'd be buying it in it's millions and giving it GOTY, just like on Switch.

Zelda botw is a bit story driven( not much)

Ratchet and clank is yes, and so is the last guardian, even lbp has a story mode.

Both ninty and sony creates a lot of good and interesting games,noo need for hate.

Gt is not story driven btw,

1) You just don't get it... You said that if Zelda was a Sony game it would be criticised for it's weak story, yet Sony released GT which has a weaker story than BOTW - your logic is broken. Qwark also listed LBP & Driveclub as having less story than Odyssey, never mind BOTW. If they can be successful Sony games then so can Zelda. How about WipEout Omega Collection, or Patapon Remastered or Singstar...?

Anyway, I'm done with this part of the debate - the facts are staring you in the face - if you don't want to accept that then it's up to you.

2) On GC, Nintendo released Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, Wave Race: Blue Storm, the Metroid Prime games, 1080° Avalanche & NBA Courtside 2002 - a completely different, and probably by your definition, more 'mature' artstyle to Mario/Kart/Smash etc.

3) It's not one outlier - I have given you other examples.

"How reaching can you get that you want to compare a 90+ with a sub 50 (that there isn't even many to even look at) to accept that Metacritic doesn't define if a game is good or not?"

I don't actually understand what your point is here. You said that metacritic can't be used as evidence of a game's quality... So a 90+ game vs a <50 games should have the same chance at being a good/great/bad game. I'm demonstrating how flawed your argument is by taking it to it's logical conclusion.

4) I said that I didn't agree with your claim that I thought "Nintendo games are all better than the rest of the industry...". I do believe however that in general on Nintendo systems that Nintendo's offerings are better quality. Those 2 views to not conflict so what is your problem?

5) "In 2000, Silicon Knights was signed by Nintendo to create games exclusively for its consoles, during which time it produced Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. Together with Nintendo, Silicon Knights worked with Konami to create Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes. In 2004, the company ended exclusivity with Nintendo. In 2005, it partnered with publisher Microsoft Game Studios for Too Human, though Nintendo still owned stock in the company." Producer(s): Shigeru Miyamoto, Satoru Iwata, Kenji Miki

You are simply wrong.

My classification has Eternal Darkness going up against Resident Evil 4 - yours/VGchartz's has Pikmin up against Thrillville & Animal Crossing competing with Cooking Mama... riiiiigggghhhhhttt...

Though even by your own questionable acceptance of Vgchartz very arbitrary system of cataloguing games you had:

RPG - Monster Hunter 2.2M Pokemon 1.6M

Action - Lego 5,7M versus Metroid Other M 1,36M

So you actually passed your own challenge - congratulations :)

And Link's crossbow training was not a full-priced game and came with the zapper peripheral at the point that the motion control phase was in full swing on the Wii. It was more of a proof of concept than a game and I think most people bought it to experience what the new dawn of motion control would be like. So not really a fair comparison...

Plus they also really don't belong in the same genre of games. Crossbow training should be in amongst the mini-game stuff, if anywhere.

1) Nope, I didn't said if Zelda was a Sony game it would be criticized by its story, you must have misunderstood something, I said it wouldn't look up to par with the likes of HZD. And that HZD wasn't able to sell as good as Zelda, so no reason to affirm that if Zelda was made on PS4 it would sell greater and etc. None of the games you listed have sales near Zelda so not sure what you are talking about.

My first point on this was quite simple, you said that if Zelda was an IP on Sony... and answered saying that we have an equivalent in HZD and it didn't better than Zelda, but Zelda would look inferior graphically.

2) Yes GC had more diversity on the style than what they used in Wii, WiiU and so far in Switch. So you have stopped saying the art direction is cohesive on Nintendo.

3) Nope, you are doing a fallacy. Saying Metacritic don't determine quality isn't the same as saying the probability of a game under 50 being better than one over 90 is 50/50.

4) My problem? You have a problem on accepting Nintendo Bias as real instead of factual quality.

5) Not mine classification, VGC classification. What was your classification? In what genre RE4 are with Eternal Darkness?

And yes I done your work for you, I have found 2 genres per VGC where a 3rd party outsold Nintendo (although as I said, I have no idea why Zelda wasn't on RPG as well)

Again, please go and compare the genre dominance on Nintendo versus Sony and MS if you still don't believe on the bias.

Switch launched at a lower price, $300 to $400. That also says it has less room for price cuts, which is why it wouldn't have good sales at the end of its lifespan like the PS4. Nintendo also brought their biggest AAA guns to Switch already in its first year, unlike the PS4 which only got a bunch of cross generation games and less successful titles in its first year.