Again, about 12 million people disagree with you. The gamers have spoken: New Super Mario Bros. is better than LBP.

Because?

Since when did sales mean that a game is by default good & it's not fanboys getting one off over their favourite fanchise? Not to mention do you have a demograph of who bought it because by gamers you could be saying "12 million kids bought it", and last I checked a kid didn't know the difference in quality between steak and playdo.

Traditionally spekaing, children who are into video games tend to be among the most discerning when it comes to the qualities that appeals to them - but it should go without saying that, since NSMBWii looks to go on to double or triple the sales of Mario Galaxy, that its appeal extends far beyond people who will buy a game just because it is Mario.

But you hold an interesting (and valid) point that appeal can't be used as an absolute metric of quality, but it brings up a more inteesting problem in that nothing is an absolute metric of quality. Now, following that, does it not stands to reason that you may not have the perspective necessary to comment on the quality of the Wii's library?

I don't even know why I'm posting here. O yeah, post count...

Anyway, back on topic: I don't even get these guys. . .

I've played the games and have been playing games for over a decade - I feel that you can logically break down what makes a game good or not. For example NSMBW is good, for kids, but I'd argue that maybe LBP is better, as it offers more functions that children may find fun, such as making your own level and online play.
A tech point of view is easy enough to talk about, but I think to break a game into how is it good you have to look at what does the game do, who does it appeal to and  essentially are there better games out their that appeal to the same people but have more to offer.
As a further example someone could agrue Killzone2 is better than MW2, BUT essentially they may not relate to the same audience as the pace is very different, however some things remain fundamental to gaming, such as most gamers do not enjoy having no control other their death, whether it is due to glitches or poor level design. It is in that sense I think you can relatively compare games of roughly the same genre to determine if one is better than another, or if a game is simply good or not.

That's a very interesting perspective, but let me ask you this: is it not also possible that these games have different qualities that appeal to different people? If people enjoy local multiplayer built around interactions with dynamic environments and AI-controlled enemies in a sidescrolling game, wouldn't New Super Mario Bros Wii be better for that person than Little Big Planet? Keep in mind that I'm including the point of AI-controlled enemies here for a reason, since it's the primary differentiating point between them. Though, I suppose one could argue that World 8 in NSMBWii has more dynamic environments than anything I've played in Little Big Planet.

Very true that local multiplayer is something that is rare to find in games and may be a good selling point of the game, but personally what I played of NSMBW it just didn't seem like a quality title - the levels etc seemed to be just ported straight from the SNES with a few moderations. Still I can see how it would appeal to young kids, especially ones who have friends around etc though I'd still say as far as quality goes, it's nothing new or nothing special, which is a shame, but thinking about what you said that doesn't necessarily make it unenjoyable.

I think NSMBW simply does what it is meant to do, which is a simple 2d scrolling platform, but that's nothing new; not bad, just not new. This is where I get confused when people talk about it, players and reviewers, as if it's the best platformer ever, when I'd say it's adequate, but some similar games offer more enjoyable features depending on what you want to do, as with quite a few Wii games.

So this is what I got out of reading some of these post. Wii 3rd party games are all shovel ware that sold more than a million. You do know if you ask a lot of those people that bought them would say? What do you mean they are fun games that me and my family/friends love to play. Then they would just tell you to shut up if you kept giving your reasons.

True gamers only play or soon will only play xbox/ps3. Well, I have played video games all my life. I assume that puts me in the real gamer section. I have owned/still own(2 different atari's, Nes, Snes, Sega Master system, N64, ps1,ps2,Gamecube, Wii. GB, GBC, GBA, DS, Gamegear and a couple random things with a few games on them. I have to many games to care to count. My choices this Gen are D.S. and the Wii. I like some of its "niche" titles its 1st party games, some of its 3rd party, and some of the Wiiware. They get used almost daily. A lot by me a lot from parties we have where people enjoy playing the Wii and drinking/having fun. I have yet to hear anyone say man I wish the Wii had more graphics or more mature games.

Anyways, people choose the games and systems to have fun. No such label works for any of them. If you like ps3/xbox great you made the right choice for you. Same as I feel I have made the right choice for me. And yes I myself enjoy some of these "casual" games.

Now your experiences with the game are genuine, I acknowledge that, and trying ot impress upon you the qualities of the game would be counter-productive in more ways than one. But - and this is an important "but" - does it not stand to reason that, since you don't agree with the qualities that other people see in it, that they may have different value metrics altogether?

Like - suppose they hold World 8 in NSMBWii as pretty much the best platforming world in any game, ever, because of how it uses environments and enemies and lava and shit. Suppose you say to them, "There are games that have much more features tha just well-designed levels," and they say, "Yeah, but who cares about that stuff?"

Are the people who say that wrong for saying it?

This is an ironic answer given you have noted before the casual nature of many Wii owners.  

 And apparently they are pretty happy paying $60 for a game that last not much longer today.  But you're going to be so ignorant to assume game length has significantly increased over the generations or that such a notion is even relevant to quality then we've stumbled upon a failure of quality assessment on your behalf unrivaled by many before.

It is not elitist to look forward to technological advancements with each incremental generation.  What is elitist is your insistence that technological increase be the only means which a new generation should be born or that only core games attain respectable sales or even be considered video games at all.  It is elitist to to demand your own ideology be dmoninant above all.

I wish I could say it was only a matter of ignorance but ignorance suggests a capacity to learn and understand whilst it's quite obvious you have no intent whatsoever to remove yourself from your personal perceptions and gain an expanded knowledge regarding the expanded audience and the industry we support.