You guys do realize that Capcom had already started development on Monster Hunter 3 as a PS3 game, but they switched it to a Wii game mid-development, right?  To save money?  Because it's cheaper to make games for the Wii.  I hope I'm not the only person here who remembers Capcom telling us that.

Which also implies they didn't have enough faith the game would sell well enough to justify the cost, and that they had faith there were Wii owners who would buy the game (or else they might have just made the series PSP exclusive). And a million copies is still a million copies, especially when games appealing to those people on the Wii have been so rare.

And by "appealing", I don't mean "values", in case anyone asks. I really call on the notion that HD system owners have radically different values than Wii and DS owners. It's more a matter of differing tastes, but same values. The differing values are amont the reviewers, developers, and the vocal minority gamers. GTA sells for reasons closer to why Mario Kart sells, even if different reasons, not for the reasons it got all those review scores. And MW2 sells for reasons closer to why NSMBWii sells, not for things like HD graphics and a "gripping" story (it's not "Saving Private Ryan" the game, it's closer to "Commando" the game).

Just because a feature is included in a game, does not mean people buy the game for it.

The local multiplayer in CoD is really lacking. I'm willing to bet the vast majority do not buy the game for it (unlike, say, Halo). I recall the online stats (people playing) for MW2 being extremely high, very close to the number of copies sold. The game does not have an online local multiplayer mode, unlike Gears / Halo.

Really, I'd equate it to SSBB's online multiplayer. I don't think anyone uses that thing...

I understand what you mean by similar values. I personally believe MW2 would have sold much more if its local multiplayer was anything like Halo's. Still, there are pretty big differences between the console userbases - one only need to look at the sales of some multiplats to understand this. (Or even other exclusives... Heavy Rain's sales are unbelievable, considering the type of game it is)

Also, when I bring up games having different values, I mean they're superior on the HD consoles, because they stress graphics, online, and whatever else. See Madden, Fifa / PES, and Call of Duty for best examples. A Wii version of these games will always be inferior, because these games strive for realism.

"Just because a feature is included in a game, does not mean people buy the game for it."

But you're assuming just because it has online that people buy it for that. I'm using actual facts. The top selling console shooters ALL have local multiplayer. Even if that's not the only reason, that's clearly one of the deciding factors.

You actually made my point quite well--that this is completely subjective, and that, no matter what I do, it won't matter because there's no way you (or for that matter 99.9% of the people on the internet) would ever concede to the opinion, thoughts, ideas, or points of another individual.  It also appears that you may have dismissed my post outright without actually reading it--which I'm used to.  I write more than the average modern attention span can take in.

No, games don't need to sell a million to be successful.  But a game that sells 250k is a success?  I hardly think so.  That's what Eternal Darkness reportedly sold, and it was considered a commercial failure. 

I don't believe what I typed?  You don't think superior sequels to Red Steel and No More Heroes deserve better sales?  Really?  You believe that they deserve worse?  Or, to be more cumbersome as per this conversation, you believe that I believe they deserve worse?  That's all kinds of silly. 

Of course Capcom is going to claim a success on TvC.  To say otherwise would be to badmouth sales of a Wii game, Nintendo fans, or Nintendo; and Nintendo's seriously disturbed fans always hit the internet in droves crying foul to the hills against anyone who dares say a negative thing about anything Nintendo.  Look at the way those very fans bombarded the internet as though personally offended when one single person from Capcom claimed Street Fighter IV wouldn't fit into the system and "couldn't be played on the Wii." 

My point original point, though, remains the same.  Third party games don't sell on Nintendo systems because of Nintendo fans.  Regardless of quality of said third party games, almost without exception (Soulcalibur II being such a thing), they sell better on other consoles than on Nintendo systems. 

The guy that posted right after your post, Games4Fun, noted how many of the craptacular games I listed (with high sales) are "fun" in the views of many people.  So, again, this stuff is all subjective.  To assume that I don't believe that a solid, if imperfect game, like Deadly Creatures deserved better sales is to cast an air of either A) gross elitism or B) fanboyism to my argument, without actually acknowledging my point.  It's subjective.  If crap-scoring titles like Link's Crossbow training garner high sales and are still somehow considered "fun" by some, why is it impossible to believe that the same can't be true of a game some actual effort was applied to, such as Deadly Creatures, Geometry Wars: Galaxies, or several other of the titles I listed?  Oh wait, Link's Crossbow training is forgiven it's flaws because it has Link in it. 

My point also remains uncontested, that had some of these mediocre games (like The Conduit) been made for an HD console, their sales would've been several times higher.  It was damn near hype alone that pushed Haze so high.  And again, that game sold far better than The Conduit. 

Perhaps I don't know if people buy the game for online specifically, but considering how much it's used, I imagine a lot. Modern Warfare 2 had 8 million players online within the first 5 days, with only slightly more than that sold between the HD consoles in the same time period. More recently, it hit 25 million unique players online.

Admittedly, the number of players online don't equate to each person that bought it (multiple users per copy, rent/used/sharing games), but seeing as how the X360 leads in numbers and requires paid accounts to play online, it's clear that the majority of people end up playing online.

As for all the top selling console shooting games having local, so what? There's no proof of how many people actually use or care about Call of Duty's local multiplayer. All the top selling Wii games have "Wii" in the title, I may as well conclude that's one of the deciding factors.

I think we all clearly remember that.  Well, at least all of us who pay attention to industry news.  At this stage in the game, I'm willing to bet that Capcom wished to have kept the game on the PS3 where the more solid online setting would've likely guaranteed much higher sales than on the Wii.  Of course they're not going to complain, it's selling pretty well, though probably lower than it should have, and certainly lower than several PSP titles--which is a system with a much lower installed userbase than the Wii.

Because the PSP titles are focused on local multiplayer, something the console versions never even had until Tri, and Tri's is rather lacking. Ad-hoc multiplayer is the strength of that franchise in Japan, where PSP is well out ahead of the Wii (or 360 or PS3 together). Tri has also beaten the ever-loving shit out of the PSP versions in terms of western sales

Monster Hunter became the huge franchise it has as a portable game primarily. If anything, the console versions are prestige projects, though Tri made the first serious effort for the franchise to find Western appeal, and so actually served a purpose.

I thought we already agreed that any Wii title not making 5M is a bomb?

Nintendo did say that Wii music and AC (both around 3 million) basically flopped.