Since when does exluding the systems one wants to exclude make for a fair comparison?  Count DS 3ds and Wii and then you can have a good comparison  but dont forget PSP and PSV.    The best comparison would be  COMPARE all Games ever made by nintendo. Because this basically makes them the best developer.
Btw 50% of the games are just published by Sony and dont forget that Sony did not own most of the companies before they made good games. They usually buy the devs after they make good games.  
Nintendo on the other hand always co-develops or supervises the development of their games when they are done at third party studios (ibut most are done at seconrd party studions that ALREADY belong to Nintendo. They bought them way before the games come out they  like monolith and Xenoblade.

If the USA lose against canada in ice hockey  but the USA have won 1000 times before and canada just once.  still doesnt make Canada the overall better team. 

BTW COD gets better reviews than alot of really good SONY MS or NIntendo games   so now you know how much you can trust REVIEWS.

Well, we're talking about consoles and not portables here and obviously if Nintendo hadn't been so concerned with catering to the casuals with Wii, then they would have made more than 8 decent games this gen, rather than 8 decent games and the rest of their console output being crap aimed at the blue ocean market.  And, Ninteno's made it pretty clear at their recent E3 that they're still interested to a large extent in making crap to attract the blue ocean market.  Gaming should be about more than making five or six games for the casuals and five or six Mario games and no new core titles since the Super Nintendo days and pretending that's balanced.

Sony doesn't waste their time on crap.  They just try to make excellent games for the core.

And yet Sony has yet to produce a new megahit since Gran Turismo. Hmm...

Well, we're talking about consoles and not portables here and obviously if Nintendo hadn't been so concerned with catering to the casuals with Wii, then they would have made more than 8 decent games this gen, rather than 8 decent games and the rest of their console output being crap aimed at the blue ocean market.  And, Ninteno's made it pretty clear at their recent E3 that they're still interested to a large extent in making crap to attract the blue ocean market.  Gaming should be about more than making five or six games for the casuals and five or six Mario games and no new core titles since the Super Nintendo days and pretending that's balanced.

Sony doesn't waste their time on crap.  They just try to make excellent games for the core.

You are one of the many many people that doesnt understand what hardcore games REALLY are.

Example  COD or Uncharted = Mainstream.  Media hyped average games. That rely on OMG effects rather than smart gameplay. They are to easy  and are made for  well lets say  less smart people.
They are full of scripted events and quick time events and whatnot. They are basically  interactive movies. You move a few steps   something blows up  you move another few steps another scripted explosion (just look at the crappy  train crash scene at the beginning of uncharted 2? Whats the purpose? Other than showing of how good it looks? Then there was a long empty wagon and i thought  it looks like the floor will break and what happened it did. Totally predictable)

Mario  is a hardcore game it requires thought,  skill and time to beat.

Graphics have nothing to do with hardcore or not.

Cods multiplayer is not hardcore because the challenge comes from other players. Therefore  Wii sports Tennis in competitive gamemode  is also either hardcore as CODs MP is or both are not Hardcore you decide. The only difference between  CODs mp  and Wii Tennis is  that Wii Sports Tennis doesnt require a LOOK MY D*CK IS BIGGER THAN YOURS leveling system and ranking system.  And shovelware exists but its not always casual if it has competitive and smart gameplay its not less hardcore than COD or uncharted are supposed to be.

Either every  game that offers competitive gameplay is hardcore or no game is.

Angry birds is exactly like all the hardcore games were back in the days.  You fail alot. You have to think. The only difference is it came out this decade and is therfore labeled CASUAL. The correct term here would be its a accessible hardcore title. whereas uncharted is a nonaccessible interactive mainstream movie.


You are talking about the media controlled words like hardcore and casual. I am talking about REAL hardcore games. Which most of todays HARDCORE wannabe crap is far away from being a part of.

Lol, have you even tried Uncharted? It is definitely harder than the newer mario games...

You're the one who doesn't know what hardcore/core is. Even the devs and publishers know the difference when their games are casual (Just Dance) or hardcore (Assassin's Creed). I would not call Mario casual, but I would call it a mainstream franchise, probably the most mainstream franchise besides CoD and Angry Birds. 

Yeah, I don't believe that. Did you play on easy? This whole reads like you haven't tried CoD or Uncharted. Why do you have to exaggerate so much to get your point across? 

What's that about Saddam and what does he have to do with any of this?

I know you are starting to rant, especially when you have to mention dancing citroens and Saddam Hussain out of nowhere.

Improving your grammar and spelling would also help in making this not seem like just a random rant.

Nope thats by YOUR definition Because you simply left out what doesnt help you win the argument.

In diablo people can die because the game cam be hard.  (the difficulty aspect is what requires skill as you said yourself after making it look like i didnt say it before)
Call of Duty Singleplayer or Uncharted dont really require skill  so at least the SP part of COD and Uncharted are not HARDCORE.

I just used COD because its way to easy  to be a real hardcore game. But people still say its hardcore.  Its not only about getting killed  but failing because of the difficulty provided by the game in general  this is a part of what really makes games hardcore.

The problem is we misuse the terms we have and might not have enough terms to give to all the games we have.
People usually say Hardcore or Casual  which is wrong thats why i added the Mainstream term.  But in a game that only has competitive multiplayer it would not be fair to call that game mainstream or casual because it might clearly be something else.  We need other terms here. I have no idea what to call those.    Just look at Rock  how every little nuance created another genre.  Or how electronic music has thousands of sub genres now. This is what we might need in gaming too.

The problem is i can only use hardcore because we dont have similar meaning terms for slightly different genres/games. But if we are forced to use the term hardcore for COD well then  mario is clearly more hardcore than COD.

As example:
Angry birds can actually be considered hardcore  because its basically what games where back in the day.  The only difference is  its new and not from the 80s and you can try as much as you want without  beginning from scratch.  Angry birds is also a casual game becaue it can directly be played by anyone without studying the games mechanics etc. 

Hardcore is not the opposite of Casual.

So again
COD singleplayer is not hardcore its mainstream    Mario is hardcore.
CODs multiplayer is not exactly hardcore  its basically only competitive.
Because the challenge is provided by the players not the game.
The game is giving you the some rules and people play by them. BUT i can also come up with my own rules and as long as the community accepts them they will become standard.  Like dont use ITEMS in Brawl  or dont use snipers or dont camp in COD or Counter Strike. This challenge here has nothing to do with the game itself but with the community even coop games can become competitive if the players decide to make it competitive (highest score for example)

The problem here is. By todays standards every game with competitive multiplayer would need to be called hardcore because   Why is COD something different than  for example a future 2 player  Angry birds? Or Wii Sports Tennis? Its not different at all. Because every competitive multiplayer game can be hard if there is good competition. (and just because AngryBirds Competitive or Wii Sports dont have a -look i have the biggest D*CK rank systems - doesnt make their multiplayer something else than CODs multiplayer)

IMHO it would be unfair for real hardcore games to call CS or COD hardcore because they are clearly something else. The problem is WHAT are they?

We need to seperate Multiplayer from Singleplayer terms if we keep using hardcore casual etc. Or drop those terms.

The people that came up with casual and hardcore  when it comes to gaming are idiots. And everyone only using those two terms are not helping either. The only difference in those games is  FOR ADULTS  or FOR ALL AGES and  ACCESSIBLE or NON ACCESSIBLE thats it.