In conclusion, everyone has different opinions.....

Can we all agree on that? IMO These post are becoming redundant, now.

Interesting points but think about this:

1. moms and sisters and old people and casual gamers don't use metacritic. again I am talking about reviews from the other demographic. let's play devil's advocate and get moms to rate mgs4. then it would be low, so you're logic doesn't work here.

2. It sould 3 million in Japan with 8 million consoles sold. that means in America it would have sold at least 17 million if it wasn't bundled, add that with the Others region and it would be about the same as it is now. it would have sold anyway so the bundled excuse is not valid at all

The title of this thread is freaking fantastic.

Yes, hundreds of games already have. Go over to Metacritic and look for all of the games on all of the systems that have higher scores than 76, and they are all better than Wii Sports.

Wii Sports has done a pretty good job of selling well because it was in the Wii's box though. Just like the dualshock 2s that were packed in with the PS2, but I don't remember anybody being overly exicted about how many dualshock 2's sold (something like 140 million at least).

What the hell your crazy!

 I can't wait to get my copy of Wii Sports when I get my Wii though, so that I can turn around and sell if for $30.00 on ebay and buy No More Heroes instead.

I'm not saying sales determine quality, but I hope you're not saying that accessibility automatically leads to a lack of quality.  Was Pac-Man a bad game because it didn't use any buttons?  I think Wii Sports Tennis and Pac-Man both have brilliant design just because neither game uses buttons at all, and you only have to control the motion, and I think it's a great challenge to make a buttonless game so damn enjoyable.

If complexity was better in every case, the whole world would have given up Chess and Poker for Steel Battalion,and we'd all be playing games with these instead of touchscreens, microphones, keyboards, and analog sticks:

Luckily there is room for complex games and accessible games to co-exist!  Can a man not equally enjoy StarCraft, Portal, Wii Sports, and Tetris?  There really isn't a giant divide (or any divide at all) between "hardcore" and "casual."  Why is accessibilty a bad thing we're supposed to look down upon anyway?  Super Mario Bros. was so easy to play that anybody could play it, and for a game from 1985, it was really "dumbed down" compared to the complex pen-and-paper RPGs, ASCII-based Roguelike games, and flight simulators that came before it.  But history hasn't decide that SMB was trash and 70's-80's RPGs and flight simulators were more important.

Quality is completely subjective.  You can't even argue that Beethoveen is objectively better than Britney Spears or the Jonas Brothers.  You can argue that Beethoveen's music is more complex, but that might not even be true anymore, with the amount of complex production that goes into Britney's beats compared to the simple "one note at a time" ditty "Ode to Joy."  And either way, complexity never automatically equals quality.

If you want to argue that MGS4 is better than Wii Sports because Wii Sports doesn't have a story, voice adcting, or cutscenes, I can just as easily argue that Britney Spears has better music videos than Beethoveen and the Jonas Brothers have better guitar solos than Beethoveen.  Those arguments are equally stupid.  It's like saying a cheeseburger is better than a milkshake because milkshakes don't have cheese.  Those are the arguments of crazy people.

I'm not even saying Wii Sports is THE greatest game ever.  But I think it's safe to argue that it's one of the most historically important games of all time, in the same way we can definitely argue that Beethoveen is one of the most historically important composers of all time.

I just don't like everybody ganging up on Wii Sports fans.  It makes you look like elitist old guard gamers who are afraid of the new generation.  You're too young to get this bitter and ornery people!

I hope you actually believe this and agree with Metacritic's top 20 games of all time, in that order, and believe it is a list of games magically ordered by objective quality from top to bottom.

While I think determining the greatest game on any criteria other than sales, as many in this thread want to do, is somewhat pointless; if you do want to dermine a subjective answer for the general population consider this.

1. Wii Sports has circulated more copies than any other game in history.
2. By the game's very nature most copies have been played significantly more than one person.
3. It is still a pretty new game, and very much on the minds' of the general public.

If even 5% of the people who have played Wii Sports think its the greatest game ever, then in all likely a survey of the general public asking "What is the greatest video game ever?" would most likely put it first. The only game I could see having a chance against it would be Super Mario Bros (but it being a quarter century ago, and as such no longer on the brain of most casual gamers, would likely kill its chances too)

Just to beat home a point. If in 1998 you had done a survey of the general public asking what is the greatest movie of all time, I would guarentee that Titanic would have come out in first. No movie critic or hardcore movie buff would have put it there, but the same chicks who made it the highest grossing film would have voted for it in big numbers. And it wouldn't matter for a second that some hard core geeks (myself included) hated it for overtaking Star Wars as the highest grossing film of all time.

One of the truely odd things about all forms of art is that what satisfies the masses is rarely what satisfies the fanatic. But which is more important? While it is easy when one is the fanatic to discount the opinions of all others who are "beneath you", how can something that brings joy to millions be discounted? Why should their opinions not count?

This game can be the first 100M seller! They should stamp Chuck Norris on the box art of games that sell 100M copies.

Actually, I think they would respond on the lines of "I don't know greatest, I never played videogames. I only played the Wii one".

Seriously, the audience of Wii Sports can be divided in gamers, of which I doubt you'll find many that will say it's the greatest game ever, and non-gamers which will never formulate a thought in the terms of "the greatest video game ever". They will just say that they had fun.

As for the opinions of the masses, they are important of course. But when you analyze the qualities of a game - or any other work - why should its accessibility be the most important one? Because that's the soul of Wii Sports.

Accessibility is a quality that grants popularity. It doesn't make the opinion of the greater number of persons more right, only easier to achieve. Other games hide other qualities behind an entrance barrier, and probably those same qualities would be recognized by many people if they went through that initial barrier.

If that does not happen, those opinion are not informed, and as such intrinsically of less value than more informed one. Not because of the people expressing them, but because of the way that opinion was formed.

I don't know much of classical music, I can express my preference for a symphony or another and enjoy what I listen to, but I would feel silly saying "this is the best fuga in existence".