They can't be 100% accurate

But it begs the question, how accurate is VGchartz? I was under the impression that the numbers come from the NPD.

 As you have already acknowledge, that's not the best way to prove anything. Many of Capcom's most iconic franchises do not reach 90%. Nintendo's games get there on nostalgic reasons alone. Nintendo's games are also immune to the criticism given to other developers games due to their past accomplishments. Here's an example: Devil May Cry 4 is a highly percieved action/adventure game. However, the game only ranks in at 83%, and the main reason why are false claims such as it not offering anything new. The same argument could easily be made for The Legend of Zelda:Twilight Princess - GC, a game that ranks in at 95.5%. More often than not, Capcom's games are underscored for fallacious reasons (the game is hard, nothing new, ect). Nintendo's games are almost always given extreemly generous scores. 

 While I'm not necessarily saying Capcom has a lot of faith in the numbers, there's a difference between what you're saying and what he said.

Saying "The data is not very accurate" is different than being asked if the numbers are accurate and replying "Not very" in quotes.  By not adding the word accurate to that and adding his own quotes, it implies a different meaning than what you said. 

I'm just wondering if you've considered the alternative? I mean you do realize its possible that Nintendo is in fact just the better developer according to most people's opinion's right? I'm just wondering if you're taking a reasonable stance on this or if you're taking a position of "I'm right and thats all there is too it!"?

Basically you pointed to averge-high reviews of Capcom games and High reviews of Nintendo games and said "See look proof that capcom is the better developer and just doesn't get a fair shake!"...which sounds more like denial than anything else to me but hey its your opinion so have at it..I'm just curious if you've even considerd the possibility that you're opinion is the minority.

PS - IMO Twighlight Princess was very deserving of its score and possibly a bit underrated, but I like that sort of game quite a bit. On the other hand I'm not that big of a DMC fan, good series but just not the same class as a Zelda game imo. As for which Studio is better? Who cares? I know I like Nintendo games more and thats all that matters to me so if some group of people decided to declare capcom better it wouldn't change anything for me. So long as they both keep making great games I am happy~

Where did you get these figures? Metacritic has nearly 40 games made by Nintendo that are 90+. Microsoft obviously has more than 0, as all 3 Halos would qualify. 

http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?ty=3&ts=Nintendo&tfs=game_publisher&x=0&y=0&sb=5&release_date_s=&release_date_e=&metascore_s=&metascore_e= 

Gamerankings has this:

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp 

In the top 100 games, Konami has 4 titles, Nintendo 17.

Did you crop this picture in some fashion?  I don't see how you reached these conclusions. 

As others have already pointed out, Ring, there isn't much other way to go about this. Here are the ways I can imagine game quality being objectively measured:

Critical reception
Sales to consumers
A game's "longevity," or legs. Sales based on good word of mouth

Nintendo has historically the most number of games rated 90+ on either Metacritic or Gamerankings, by a wide margin. They're the best selling publisher in the world, and their games consistently have long legs.

You're absolutely welcome to your own opinion, I don't want to diminish that. But if there is any such thing as objective evaluation, then there isn't much room for argument here -- Nintendo succeeds under every possible criteria, be it commercial, critical, or lasting success.  

Again, for greater emphasis: you're absolutely welcome to not personally like Nintendo games. I don't want to undermine that at all. 

Boo Capcom. Devil May Cry 4 demo sucked, I won't buy the game. So Hah.

Some thoughts

It would have been nice to have seen the full context instead of just the single quote. Then the "Not Very" (quotes in original) would have maybe been more easily explained.

That being said, there are several possible reasons for the respnose.

One is that NPD has really made its week-to-week numbers a lot more accurate. However, I doubt much as changed. Remember an interview a couple of months ago in the News section where an insider talked about how widely they varied.

Another is that Capcom has its own internal tracking system and can tell you exactly how many people have purchased each title at any given time. ... But given the resellers that is all but impossible.

More likely are the explanations others have offered. One being that Capcom is comparing its internal sales numbers (to dealers) to VGChartz numbers (to consumers). Another being that Capcom is comparing the December software sales numbers problems to the NPD data.

Remember, the sales numbers are considered strong when pre-corrected they are +/- 25% or so. Even the masters of the site realize that is an area that needs attention and are working to improve the estiatmations. However, considering how much we pay for this site (last time I looked ... nada), I feel the data is very worthwile.

If someone wants "more accurate" data, they can always pay for NPD. But then again without Wal-Mart and Toys R Us, how accurate is that data?

Mike from Morgantown