mario 64 and golden eye 007 are irrelevant, not to mention the first anlog controller ever, my god your out of you'r mind

@Bold Oh really ? If it wasn't a bad console then why is everyone from the PS360 camp calling it trash ? Why is the mass market deeming it as trash ? Then I rest my case once again. 

FYI the PS360 gamers are also full of casuals too if you hadn't noticed! 

Yes, because the masses are such good judges of quality. Just ask the Fast and the Furious movies. Or the Madea movies. Or the Twilight franchise. Or the Transformers films.

Apparently you have some reading troubles. I didn't say all of the games were irrelevant but rather MOST OF IT IS. BTW that controller sucked. 

hey you guys know what else sells, cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, and gangsta rap music all are quality products because they sale according to fatsob.

If that's what the market wants then so be it.

The Mass market has shunned the Wii U because it isn't the Wii. It isn't dumbing down gaming so non-gamers can try to understand it. If Nintendo created a tablet that controlled TV games without controller buttons then it would've been more non-gamer friendly. You have to understand how wider markets respond to products. Non-gamers dont care to understand how to memorize thirteen buttons on a controller for specific uses. The original NES controller had two buttons that the casuals and core could agree they liked (at the time): A and B. Simple. The Wii relied upon waggle movement and very little button useage. It finally gave non-gamers a chance to game.

Anyone who says the Wii U sucks is speaking subjectively and their opinion is neither right or wrong but just what it is... an opinion.. That has no bearing on the reality of the situation. Before the Wii Nintendo could not satisfy the broader core gaming demand for third party games which is where Sony and Microsoft has both excelled since inception compared to Nintendo in their respective timelines. Half of your marketshare or more comes from consumers who follow a specific third party. I am drawn to the Wii U because it is made for gamers who happen to like Nintendo products. The tablet on the Wii U is secondary to the actual controller itself. If the tablet was primary the casuals would've come in droves. Nintendo marketed the product the wrong way but they couldn't stand seeing Microsoft and Sony make profit off the the third party games in the current gen while they only majorly profited off of a couple third party games and the rest of their first party. They wanted to make a console that could satisfy casuals and the core. Problem is the more sophisticated you make a controller the less it attracts a non-gaming audience. They don't like to spend the time to figure things out. 

I had an experience like this with a non-gamer who watched myself and I play UFC at a party. He was amazed by how we used complex moves and understood things without looking down at the controller. We asked him if he wanted to play but the fact that the UFC games from THQ utilized all of the buttons on the 360 controller he became overwhelmed and opted not to play the game. When we brought out the Wii, he played Wii Sports with us and had fun. Thats the whole purpose of the Wii...to bring gaming back to the minimal basics so everyone can enjoy it.

The market doesn't want quality, they want shiny things and flash. That's why they flock to One Direction, Miley Cirus and Avatar. Videogames have not gone full retard down this path yet, but they are trending down that same abyss; eagerly lead by the GFLOP fanatics of the world.

You have yet to prove that it is an incorrect statement. How does one simply prove that a statement is incorrect if the other side shows no evidence ? 

Oh but it absolutely does otherwise i wouldn't go around trying to make my point clear.

I'm not saying top tier items should only exist. You clearly made a strawman right there. 

Again you have yet to show that I'm incorrect without showing evidence on your part. My opinion is irrelevant to the subject at what i'm trying to prove. If you were truly flexible then you wouldn't have simply thrown away this possibility without giving it some thought. 

A game's quality doesn't HAVE to be subjective. If we were to use market response, then it can be objective. Your dead wrong about being the games bulid being the objective part otherwise Bethesda games wouldn't be doing well with both the critic AND the market. How about MANY peoples enjoyment with the game ? That part is obviously NOT subjective because their enjoyment WOULD lead to BUYING the game. 

In total it is YOU who has failed to defined quality therefore my definition still stands because you used worthless arguments to fuel your stance. 

You clearly shown that you don't understand that marketing isn't the key to making a game sell. 

Then what you just pointed out was an irrelevant example that had nothing to do with my point.

Then you clearly are not in position to judge their taste since your the minority.