I can see a scenario like that happening.

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.

2a3a. 
I'm willing to believe that list is accurate in its numbers but it is extremely incomplete.  $2 million may have been a bigger budget than any other game made in 2000, maybe not; but certainly many games made nowadays exceed that cost, inflation adjusted.  One of many examples of Nintendo games I am sure exceed that cost is Super Mario Galaxy, but I cannot cite official numbers backing up this assessment.  All I was able to find of SMG's budget was a person here on VGC that claimed that in E3 2009 Nintendo said they'd spent $20 million on Super Mario Galaxy.  If it was 20 million, that would be less than half of the Halo 3 budget reported in that list, a game that came out at around the same time.  On the other hand, SMG is not multiplayer, and not an "HD" game, both of which add a lot of cost to game development. 

Note:  It was estimated by a website that average quality Wii games turned a profit by 400 thousand units sold, and a Nintendo representative said they profited well before 1 million.  This leads to estimates that those Wii games could have been budgeting 2 to 4 million dollars.  Obviously Nintendo could expect to sell more than half a million units of their flagship title and budget more.  Without more information I can't say exactly where Nintendo's biggest Wii games land on that list but I can confidently say it's not at the bottom.

2a3b. 
I'm sorry if "great atmosphere" is something that can't be converted easily into numbers for your mental well-being.  But do you deny that, if it is true, it can contribute to a game being "deep"? 

Since I'm talking about this, let me clarify a couple of things:  one, I reserve the right to add more evidence of depth if I choose; two, the comment about the "originality" of the combat system was less about depth and more in response to your claims of Nintendo being a lazy developer; three, a good combat system only contributes to a game's depth IMO by keeping you immersed in the game—if you are being annoyed by a clunky combat system then you are being thrown out of the game experience; four, good graphics alone don't make a game deep but it can enable depth with good artwork, creatures, level design etc. that combine to create a deep gameplay experience.

2a4b2. 
I was able to use the "view cached" option to see that the 100km was talking about a completely different game, Brütal Legend.  I don't blame you for not knowing how to do this, but if you had PAID ATTENTION to the result you found you would have known that the result was on Metroid Prime 2:  Echoes and NOT the original Metroid Prime that I was talking about. 

I think I'm not doing the same thing.  I'm showing examples to prove a point, very specific examples that can be easily double checked by you.  This is only illustrated by the ease with which you pointed out to me that my examples were in fact wrong!

Spore isn't a JRPG, and I don't mean becasue EA isn't a Japanese company.  Actually, is it an RPG at all?  It's really not much like Pokemon at all IMO, and I'm not sure why you thought it was.

Simulators can be considered a genre IMO.  Train simulators and flight simulators are obviously vey different games but it's they're different things in the same type to me.

1.  "foto-realistic environments"—Originally I took this to mean realistic graphics.  Now I know that you meant "environments based on replicating a real life area".  I think this is a retarded way to judge the quality of a game developer, but fine:  Ken Griffey, Jr. Presents Major League Baseball.  I believe I previously mentioned Waialae Country Club True Golf Classics.  Also, as I just found out after writing in point 9 of this list, Goldeneye 007.

3.  "simulating gameplay" as in simulating real life activities or things like trains.  Can I count Ken Griffey again?  Nintendo made several of them.

5.  "gameplay with at least 100 variants (players/characters/cars/etc. behaving differently according to their skills/specs)" dumb measure of quality because of the fact that not all types of game call for this kind of multitude of similar-but-different "variants".

I think this is also a pretty hard to research quantity for many games, however it's just occurred to me that when it comes to sports games you can cheat a bit.  Let's take Ken Griffey Jr. again.  Based on the Wikipedia article, there appear to be at least least 27 teams in the game.  Since you need 9 players on a side in baseball, it can be presumed that the game has at least 9x27 players.  Boom, hundreds.  NBA Courtside 2002 also qualifies.

6.  "content expandable with features created by gamers (area, levels, objects, game modes, etc.)"—I believe I already mentioned Mario Paint; after looking at the original condition I can say that it definitely qualifies.  And from what I've heard of Wii Music it does as well.  But I think this is another one that would be hard to research; I just happen to know a couple that fit. 

7.  "online matches with more than 100 players at the same time"—I guess you mean hundreds in the same game, instead of hundreds online in general.  Why is this a measure of game quality?  And how am I supposed to research this?  I can know about games like this through reputation like MAG and Warhawk, but if I don't already know about it how can I find out?

8.  "massive motion capture movements of actors"—This is a lot like the "photorealistic" environments quality, and at least as retarded a way to judge a game developer.  And even harder to research, at least when it comes to "this game has realistic humans acting realistically in the game but how can I tell whehter they used motion capture?"  NBA Courtside 2 Featuring Kobe Bryant had motion capture, but I don't know whether it was "massive" enough for you. 

9.  "story performed with character replicated from reality (bodies, movements, faces, voices, life habits, etc.)."—I don't see how this could possibly reflect a game maker's quality, But Ken Griffey Jr. steps up to the plate once again.  Goldeneye  007 had some too .

As you can see, I obejct to at least half of your criteria on the basis of difficulty of research.  Many of your criteria are slanted towards specific genres.  For example, a "realistic" sports game would be much more likely to have hundreds of different players than a fictionalized one.

In fact, most of the matches to your criteria listed above were found by going through lists on Wikipedia and then following the links to games that seem like they could plausibly match

2a4a4b.  "Do you think a paint is a level?"
I don't even know what you're trying to say here, but I can tell for sure that you don't know what I'm talking about.  Mario Paint fits the criterion of creating content, in this case by:  composing music; creating an animation that you can play back at various speeds, with sound effects; yes, making a painting (which is totally your own creation, not like a coloring book or whatever); and more. 

2b1. 
Actually, no, I don't.  To get 100 players with different stats all you have to do is plug different numbers into a character creator, or in FFT's case randomly generate some.  To get 100 minigames, you have to actually make them, even if they are simple.  That's not to say that a lot of work doesn't go into making a lot of characters in a game.  In Final Fantasy games you often have a huge number of players and a lot of work does go into making them all individuals with their own history, presonality, appearance etc.  And the Gran Turismo series puts a lot of work into modeling a bajillion different cars.  But the number doesn't prove that work happened.  You have to look into the game, know it, see the work that was done.  But that's not as objective. 

2b2. 
You misunderstood me.  There isn't a "Sudoku" Brain Age game, and ten other Brain Age games that I was lumping together.  There was one Brain Age game I was talking about that had at least 50 Sudoku puzzles and all the other stuff. 

Ironically, Knack would have benefitted from being delayed alongside Drive Club. A bad game is allways bad, but a delayed game can eventually be good. But in all fairness, most of the Sony published games are decent quality games.

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.

2a3a. 
First, like you said, those 20M$ aren't official numbers. Second, if those 20M$ are to be true, I believe most of it is marketing spending (since Mario Galaxy has nothing that demands high budget - photo-realism equipment, capture of movements equipment, cinematographic costs, top-quality graphics and physics engine, etc.). Third, Wii games and Nintendo Wii games are not the same thing.

This and your earlier statement resume to one single point: tell me about objective things, leave the subjectivity away. Your earlier comment had only subjective points. That, as I already said many times, should not enter into discussion. How can I discuss tastes? Maybe it's possible, but I'm certainly not willing to do so.

I find some games subjectively deep. But they are deep for me. They aren't deep that I can come to a forum and say it as an universal truth.

Fair enough. Then we don't have any idea about the size of Metroid Prime. My suggestion for you is this: find games and their size on the internet, games that you know well enough to take them as reference. Then compare them to the Nintendo games you've played and thus try to assess their map sizes. My guess is that none of them will seem like having more than 300km2. But in case some do, tell me which are them.

I didn't understand this at all. Please elaborate.

You didn't talk about JRPG, you talked about Pokemon-style. So, any major detail (which helps to define Pokemon) I can find that is similar to another that a EA game has is enough. Several major details instead of just 1 would demand the game to be pratically the same (and that is plagiarism). FYI, the detail is that both games are about an infinite number of unreal creatures.

As for the JRPG, demanding it from an american company is funny. It's like me asking you to tell german racing games from Nintendo.

To some extent, yes. But then you have driving games like rFactor and Richard Burn's Rally that have simulating gameplays. And shooters like Arma and Operation Flashpoint that also have simulating gameplays. And even strategy games like Total War that also have simulating gameplay. You can't remove them from their genres and put them all together in the simulators category.

That baseball game? Are you kidding me? Photo-realism means: the dev takes photo (images or videos), replicates it and then obtains realism in the game. I didn't dare to say FIFA or Pro Evolution Soccer (whose the last titles have 3D HD environments) and you come up with a primitive baseball game? I doubt EA Sports (FIFA makers) goes through the stadiums around the world to do that time-consuming process but they could do it. I don't know, so I don't throw it here to qualify. But that baseball game I'm absolutely sure they haven't done that. This is photo-realism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el-YRpEvUP8 and this (start at 2:43) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEVL5rQCSf4

Same thing for the golf game and Goldeneye...unless you prove me they really made the photo-realism process. In that case, I would be very surprised. But, again, I give you the chance for you to prove me I'm wrong.

Like I said, not necessarily. rFactor is has a simulating gameplay because the car physics are replicated from reality. That is a fact. For example, Gran Turismo and Forza are not simulators, because they don't put simulating physics before fun (otherwise they wouldn't sell millions as they do). Simulating gameplay is a commitment that few devs engage in. Another example is SWAT4: 1 or 2 shots and you're dead. That's something Call Of Duty can't afford if it wants to sell dozens of millions. Another characteristic of SWAT4 is the sophisticated AI that makes the criminals to walk around the facilities and thus creating a non-linear gameplay that together with the remaining simulating factors, makes each level of the game to be like a room for simulations. Nintendo would never engage into such a niche.

Almost all surely do. If you don't believe so, tell me 5 genres you think that's impossible and I tell you a way for each of them.

Fair enough. I will count those 2 as qualified. Although both of them were just published by Nintendo. As a developer, Nintendo has only 1 at the moment (Pokemon). I assume when you think about Nintendo's quality you're thinking about their studios, not independent studios that make games that eventually get published by them. But rules are rules and Nintendo has now 3.

You said Mario Paint for fully editable levels, but paints aren't levels. Content explandable with features means the game can grow by all means through the gamer's contribution. For example, rFactor doesn't have a track editor (so, it doesn't have fully editable levels). But it does have an open code, which allowed gamers that know a bit about programming and 3D design to add to the game dozens of tracks, cars, etc. A game that had few tracks became the owner of one of the best racing track list. Another example is ShootMania: the game has almost every element ready to be expandable by gamers (the game was designed in such fashion). Players can create levels, videos, game modes, etc. The game is a platform, and the gamer community is the work force. I know few games are based on this brilliant concept but Nintendo, the dev that sold the most ever, could have at least 1 game like this...but it hasn't.

Again, if you played the game you will know. Besides, when a game allows hundreds of players online in a single match, the internet doesn't ignore that fact.

Massive is when every movement of every character is a result of motion capture. There are games that do motion capture of 2 or 3 specific movements but that's amateurish and so it doesn't count.

Game characters have at least the same appearance (capture of look), same voice (capture of sound) and same movement (capture of movement). Some games go even further and choose people with similar lives as the characters they are interpreting. This is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2-MbYyMLBA This is another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVDnGm117pk

I'm sure Goldeneye doesn't do this.

Now you understand why Nintendo doesn't engage into realism (because it demands more and eventually costs more). Same thing for fictional environments vs real environments (I told you so, some pages back). As for the difficulty, that would be a fair complaint if we were talking about an average developer. But we are talking about the giant of the giants. So many sales are translated into what? So much revenue is spend on what? That's what we're seeing.

2a4b3c.  I didn't understand this. Please elaborate.

2a4b4b.  Music, animations or sound effects are not levels.

2b1.  You clearly haven't read what I wrote. The point is not just how difficult it is, it's also what it usually implies.

2b2.  I understood you correctly. But you can't sum. It's not the same "rock".