ah, so inorder to reply, I have to click on quote. ok.

I'm new on the site, so I know jackshit about it.

I'm not johnlucas.

A serious problem LOL oh dear I better go to the doctor then I guess ....

Certainly comes across that way btw.

I could say the same about you and Zod95.

You have good points, I admit. Anyway, I'm not here to debate with anyone. Most peoples here have their own opinions, so what's the point of debating when the opinions won't change.

This is the reply I'vw been trying to give you. Sorry, I'm still learning how to use the site.

I think I didn't wrote my post very well. Don't get me wrong, I've owned the wii u since february, and I am a Nintendo fan since I was a child. I always had faith that Wii U would do well eventually. My concern during a big part of the year was that Wii U wouldn't get alot of third party support, and since I've read John Lucas' post on August 09, my concern's been lifted. I knew Wii U would dominate the market eventually, but until August 09, I didn't know it would dominate THE INDUSTRY. John Lucas explained himself on that, and it makes sense. That's why I don't feel concerned anymore.

(having problems posting for some reasons. my bad).

I haven't even read what Zod's saying but I never make posts that long.

That and Zod and Fan's discussion is fucking annoying and I told them to cut it out 3 pages back.

I don't have an alt thank you.

Let's recall what you originally said.

"This isn´t true because you are not counting digital sales."

You said this isn't true.  In order to say it isn't true, you would need data to show that it is false.  Since you don't seem to have any data, you can't quantitatively state it to be untrue.  Not to mention I said it was likely.  Even if digital sales brought Wii U software above Ghosts PS4, it wouldn't have made the statement untrue.

Plus when hardware sales are low and retail software sales are low, the idea that digital software sales are high is just a bit silly.

Seece and I have our differences, but I would be surprised to learn he thought Sonic Adventure was the greatest platformer of all time.

 I can see a scenario like that happening.

You've raised 2 interesting points. First, you're right when you say marketing costs are involved. In fact, those aren't only development costs. But be my guest to find and post here the top most expensive games without marketing costs. Second, you're also right about the multiplatform factor. Maybe the best to do is to consider games as multi-platform and, in the top sellers, sum different versions of the same game. That would be fair already. And Nintendo would still have the majority of the top 27, while being absent in the other top. Same conclusion man.

Furthermore, I don't agree with you when you say marketing represents more greed than effort (at least effor in the sense of commitment, which is what I was talking about). Still, money is only 1 of several objective metrics when can use. Like I said, objective outcome requirements and number of man-hours are also possible metrics. So, instead of criticizing the little that we have at the moment, you could add more or better objective metrics.

The problem is that you didn't read everything I've said. My list of criteria comprises objectively deep games and committed devs. Like I said earlier, the list of games that qualify under that criteria is far from representing my tastes. But at least is something that neither I nor you (or anyone else) can deny. That's coming to a certain point instead of going in circles (due to subjectivity). Of course quality is what defines a good or bad game (I, and I'm sure everybody else, agree with you). The problem is that what is quality for me couldn't be for you and vice-versa. You can tell me: "but that's what really counts". And I tell you: if you think that is the only thing that really counts and no other parameters can be used at least to have an idea about the depth of a game or the commitment of a dev, then don't bother to come here to the forum. In subjective matters you will always make zero progress. As hard as it might be for you to believe so, effort is only apparent to several people that discuss in a forum and that have different tastes, when objective parameters are assessed.

Regarding the many forms of effort you talk about, you're right. I see that Nintendo is very competent at developing games under hard restrictions: small teams and low budgets to make games that sell dozens of millions. That is called "greed". That has been the driver for them in the last years. They were able to push creativity (specially in avoiding game genres or types that would dramatically raise production costs), innovation (in the motion controllers, etc.) and everything but to spend large money. And they were very competent on it. Not only they sold hundreds of millions with low-budget games but also they could earn the respect of their fan base and even critics. Nintendo fans and even some experts tell that their games are deep and very artistic. Things couldn't have been better for Nintendo.

As for me, a non-Nintendo-fan that avoids to be blind by subjectivity, I find this story to be sad. I wish that Nintendo respected more gamer's money, and even their fans respected more their own money. Like I said earlier, even if I was fan of Nintendo games, I would think twice before putting my money in there. I like to spend it in games in which I know it goes back to the industry.

Those are the wrong questions. I don't look for the opinion of the majority. I look for incoherences. Some centuries ago, a man who said the Earth was spheric instead of flat, you be sentenced to death. Yet, some ships could go in one way and appear on the opposite side. That was the detail to be investigated, not "how many people agree with me?". Maybe that's the difference between you and me. I look for obectivity, you look for subjectivity. I look for incoherencies, you look for the opinion of the majority (no matter how much hipocrisy is behind). I look for everything that is substantial, you look for eveything that is superficial.