No need to continue. You have done very well.

Are you acknowledging that I am right or are you being sarcastic? Your avatar tells me that it is the latter. If that is the case, argument how this that I have written is an opinion instead of trying to walk around the issue with seeing-you-from=above comments that have nothing to be backed up with.

I asked this question, because you made the argument that Nintendo's decline happened solely due to their consoles being less appealing to non-Nintendo fans. Before making such a statement it would be good to know what a Nintendo fan actually likes.

You said Super Mario Bros. 3 and that's partly correct. The better answer would have been Super Mario Bros., because this game didn't only sell the NES itself, but without it SMB3 would not have existed in the first place. In the end it comes down to the same thing: The Super Mario Bros. series is Nintendo's most valuable IP. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

The NES had three of these games. The SNES had one, plus a compilation of the NES games including both the Japanese and Western version of Super Mario Bros. 2. The N64 had none. The GC had none.

With Nintendo's biggest series not making an appearance on the N64 and the GC, isn't it highly likely that a lot of Nintendo fans refused to buy those systems? That's my point.

And when Super Mario Bros. returned to a Nintendo home console, the Wii trounced the PS2 December sales record in the USA by a whopping 1.1 million units. This happened after the Wii's decline had already started and everyone thought the days of pulling off record sales were over, including Nintendo themselves. The Wii also strongly rebounded in Japan when people were already placing their bets on Final Fantasy XIII to push the PS3 to a yearly victory over the Wii. The push initiated by NSMB Wii was actually so strong that it managed to put the Wii over the PS3 even in 2010. What this means is that there are a lot of people out there who equate Nintendo with Super Mario Bros. and no game is no hardware sale for them. Therefore, if Nintendo would take better care of their fans, their console sales would be much healthier.

The same goes for their handhelds. If there's one game that could really push the 3DS, then it would be a sequel to NSMB. But Nintendo is not going to make it, instead that Super Mario 3DS game will take its place and as such the 3DS won't take off anytime soon (if ever).

What is the definition of quality? A product that is worth its price.

That's not how quality is defined. How would you then measure quality of any art in the public domain. Quality is measure by its degree of excellence, which, in most cases, is entirely subjective.

If there is a delicious dish served at a restauraunt that was almost universally loved and it quitupled in price - it wouldn't suddenly be of lesser quality, but rather less valued.

On another note: You use the word 'worth' in your definition, which is, of course, entirely subjective.

1. This is why it's better to listen to the consensus of people who paid for it (sales) 2.  than those who get not only to play it for free, but even get paid for it (professional gaming journalists).

1. Sales, however, are not necessarily a consensus on a people's opinion on a product so much as it is simply representative of how many people felt compelled to buy that product for whatever reason.

2. I haven't made the argument that it is better. I think both measures are unreliable.

Now this is not to say that a game that doesn't sell well is automatically bad. Like you said, there are things like timing, marketing etc. that can have a huge influence on the success or lack thereof. But a game that achieved huge sales numbers must have at the very least some sort of quality to it.

Agreed. I'd mentioned that there is no doubt a correlation between the two (just as there is with professional reviews). However, it's the strength of that correlation which is in doubt.

1. You aren't happy with this train of thought because hype and marketing can distort the picture greatly? 2. You are right, that's why it might be a good idea to discard the sales of any game in its first two months. After that time period the dust has settled and the game has to sell on its own merits. However, this way of looking at it makes the comparison only more favorable for the Wii.

1. I'm neither happy nor am I unhappy. As I had said before, quality is subjective. I could not care less of a game's sales and especially its critical reception. Assessing it myself or from someone from whom I have similar tastes is the most reliable way.

Secondly, I don't think that that is a fair stipulation. There are far too many variables involved. For example, if a sequel is to be released of a well-loved game, people will purchase the game heavily leaning on the fact that they believe the developer to be reliable. The game may not expand much further due to several reasons - namely, accessibility. I fully appreciate what you're saying here, but it is grossly oversimplifying.

2. Responding to this part would make the assumption that I believe sales to be so conspicuously indicative of quality. I do not.

Beyond ignoring launch sales and only looking at long term sales, it would also be a good idea to factor in the selling price over this time period. Simply put, the longer a game is able to hold on to a high price tag, the higher its quality has got to be.

Quality is something different to different people. This is undeniable (you need not ask more than five people to find this to be true). The difference between our stances is that you are making an absolute statement, while I am not. Quality is perceived and can, hence, have no objective measure.

To summarize: A game that doesn't sell well isn't necessarily bad, but a game that sells for years at its initial RRP of $50 or more can only be a quality title.

Based on personal experiences, that would seem to most often be the case. There is no doubt a correlation. There are, however, more variables than simply quality - accessibility being the most important I can think of at the moment.

I apologize for the half-witted response and, perhaps, the confusing format... it was written in a hurry.

I am not making an opinion. I am stating a fact. Look for a definition of art. Try to find a form of art that lets you have control and impact the the work of fiction and receive feedback from it through emotions. Analyze what videogames do regarding this concept. See what Nintendo has done and is doing to enrich such experiences in videogames.