A question then Legend if I may, what is the difference for the consumer if they buy a game they want if it's third or first party?

My point: What difference does it make for Nintendo if they sell millions of third party on their platform versus selling millions of first party software on their platform?

wow, i din't realize the numbers were that drastically different.

People that said that those games aren't core, surely hasn't played them.

 Those games might be "core" for you, but they are "casual" or something even worse for me.

This thread is part of the huge abyss of threads that proves that "hardcore" and "core" are almost exclusively used by every individual to express their specific personal definitions which are entirely subjective.

I do not fully understand why you all fight this war of attrition, but the level of effort many of you put into this is surely remarkable. :P

Metroid is a pretty unknown game. Unless you're on a gaming site ofc, but we all know most wii owners don't do that. It's not really nice if you compare the development costs of both games :)

Killzone 2 is a generic first person shooter that offers nothing new except fancy graphics. That game is not core for me, but something far worse. Things like this really go both ways and it's just a matter of taste. The fact that you can only enjoy violent games and no games like mario doesn't make you mature, it makes you insecure and immature.

I am a bit confused by your post but then again it may be because I had a long day at work and so slightly tired.  I am confused because you seem to be contradicting yourself.  In fact I read the first bolded part and was about to respond to say how wrong you are and then saw the second bolded part which is pretty much in line with what I was going to say.

My exact words were if you think there isn't much to worry about in Brawl and it isn't hardcore then you should play against some of the folk on this site.  I tried some of them and was amazed and what they were pulling off.  I actually stopped playing the game cause they were so good and gave me such a beating I just gave up on the game cause I felt I would never have the time to invest in the game to be as amazing as they were.  Chose to just play Mario Kart where I was already amazing. 

But if you recognise that if you are a pro in Brawl and untouchable by an amateur how can you think it isn't hardcore and doesn't have alot of depth?  Why does depth in a fighting game having to learn long ridiculous button presses to pull off a combo?  Why can't it be knowing what to do at each given time?  For example in the original Street Fighter 2 I was invincible with M Bison.  But I only ever used his tornado move.  His other two special moves were pointless and he didn't even have any combo.  Yet people who had mastered Ryu and Ken and all their amazing combos couldn't step to me just cause I knew what to do and when to do it and was able to read what my opponent would do.

Now when did I say anything about violent games? Why do you need to call other people immature/insecure? Does it make you feel cool and mature?

As an experienced Civ player, I would suggest that to achieve victory at the highest difficulties, there is only one strategy (different with each game).  As in Civ 3, pumping out nothing but settlers until all available land is settled should ensure a victory in the later game.  In Civ 4, the only real way to compete against the computer is basically rushing them with nothing, but army.  There is certianly no shortage to strategies you can use to play a game of civ, but to win at the higher difficulties your strategy selection is actually extremely narrowed down.

I know this isn't really on topic, but I figured I should comment on your hardcore versus strategy count.