Read my post again, you clearly missed the point.

Nintendo's influence is such that without ever picking up a Nintendo product, if you're gaming you're playing Nintendo. Nintendo drives the games industry to do things they wouldn't normally do. Things outside of the mainstream. Without Nintendo there would be no real platformers for example. Without something like Mario, there wouldn't be games like Little Big Planet or Ratchet & Clank. Why? Because they're not mainstream enough and the other companies all tend towards homogeny. Look at the teams of old. Crash Bandicoot and Spyro The Dragon stopped why? Because those developers and production companies felt they'd be better off making games like Uncharted, Killzone and Resistance. The platformer stopped to make way for more shooting. Now is this a bad thing, not at all, if you like shooters that is.

The fact is "gamer" used to mean something. It used to be a small niche hobby and it could tell you about the likes and dislikes of a person. Just like how a "film buff" is someone who enjoys film in a way most people don't, and "bookworm" enjoys books in a way most people don't. If you watch Hollywood blockbusters you're not a film buff, you're just an ordinary person; you don't need a label because everyone watches Hollywood blockbusters. If you read the Harry Potter books, or The Hunger Games, or even something like The Da Vinci Code, you're not a bookworm, you're just an ordinary person; after all you can't get more mainstream than Harry Potter, Hunger Games and Dan Brown novels. The same is true now of gamers. If you play Call Of Duty, Fifa, and GTA5, you're not a gamer, you're just an ordinary person; everyone plays those games... they're literally the most popular forms of media in the fucking world. If everyone who plays those games is a gamer; EVERYONE is a gamer and the label loses all meaning and purpose. Have you noticed though, most film buffs dislike Hollywood Blockbusters like the Transformers films. Most bookworms consider the Harry Potter books and Dan Brown's novels to be badly written and trite... and... wait for it, most actual gamers, find Call Of Duty and Fifa uninteresting and disconnected from the larger culture that video games are built on.

Call Of Duty and Fifa are not made for gamers, for "geeks", they're games that appeal to the "jocks", and that's OK. There's nothing wrong with them having games too. My point is that they're no more gamers now than they where in the late 80's, and there's plenty of reason for antagony here.

Nintendo still perpetuate games for gamers, and them doing so pushes others to do the same, if only to compete with Nintendo because that's how capitalism works. That said, if Nintendo didn't make those games, would the other companies bother? Would they have the connection to the medium that Nintendo had to create these games intependently. I'd bet not. This is why we need Nintendo; for the same reason that we need the Sundance Film Festival, because just as film buffs honestly don't give a shit about mainstream films, gamers don't give a shit about "mainstream" games and that's what Sony and Microsoft are pushing.

More fool them then. Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes is better in every conceivable way, if people at large want to hate it; go for it, no skin off my nose. It's them that are missing out.

I will agree that Sony has some of the best third party titles ever made, though I think you're severely  underestimating the appeal and lasting value of Nintendo's first party. Remember, Nintendo has practically had to live off first party with little to no support from third party for close to a decade now. They are masters of it, and not even Sony comes close.

three of those five were born on the PlayStation 3, i would hardly call that focusing given they did not exist with the ps1 or ps2.

And i really wouldn't call the currently released Infamous or Resistance games "holywood blockbusters", so you end up with Killzone, Uncharted and God of War, three games that are completely different in every way from one another, which neatly underlines my point that Sony offers the most diverse range of games, even when you take your shortlist of "hollywood blockbusters".

Thanks for proving my point.

Yeah, a lot of 3rd party franchises that are generally associated with Playstation have actually originated on other platforms, or have been more multiplatform than anything. Of course, people generally exclude PC versions here for one reason or another, and some just ignore the existance of anything prior to Playstation.

There's a valid argument to be made here about how a popular platform can help a franchise rise in popularity like it happened with some on PS1/PS2 (or other platforms, including Nintendo ones) which justifies the association with the brand to some extent, but more often than not, it's the whole chicken/egg situation. Who knows what would've happened if 3rd parties had made a different set of choices...

The PC version of Final Fantasy VII was originally released in 1998, a few months after the PS1 NA release. Same with Final Fantasy VIII (which on PC included the "Chocobo World" minigame). And for the record, the original Metal Gear Solid also got ported to PC, albeit 2 years after the PS1 release.

now compare sales performance for first party games that were new IP's on comparative systems, keeping in mind that no comparative games were available prior to the PlayStation 1, and of course ignoring heavilly bundled titles such as Wii sports.

Comparatively software based from:

PS1 - N64
PS2 - Gamecube
PS3 - Wii

It's all very well throwing out numbers such as lifetime sales of entire franchises when they span 11 major device models in the past 30 years compared to just 5 in the past 19, but that doesnt exactly paint a picture a sane person would call accurate.

Additionally, Metal Gear Solid was the first proper Kojima produced game to release on a console, with Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake only seeing releases on the MSX computer, the NES port of Metal Gear and the sequal Snakes Revenge that appeared on the NES were not done by Kojimas team, the latter of which reviled to the point where Kojima was asked to make a "proper sequal" which is why the Metal Gear 2 was released on the MSX AFTER the the NES release of Snakes Revenge.

Many metal gear fans do not count the NES games as part of the main series but rather as spin offs.

yea but it's not only Nintendo fans that would vote for him, everyone knows Mario, even the non-gamers or casuals, not a lot of those guys know who master chief or nathan drake are.

Yeah, as proven by Sony All Stars Battle Royale. 

LOL.

I can buy most third party games of Sony's consoles on my pc by the way. I really have no need for an XBOX360/PS3. I'd rate Playstation over XBOX though. 

He may well win a popularity contest but he isn't winning the bake-sale lately (wiiu) - being aware of something does not instantly mean the thing you are aware of is liked.

SEGA fitted that bill more accurately. *sigh* I miss SEGA :(

I agree that people like other genres besides COD and annual sports games. However Nintendo certainly aren't the publisher covering other bases the best right now (what racing games have they published of late that don't involve go-karts with powerups?) I actually think Sony probably have the broadest range of genres in their first party output. However to me, Nintendo are gaming's Disney. When they put their mind to it, their quality is always sublime and their worst output is still of a quality which most other publishers would be proud to have.

They don't take many risks in their games though now.

that's not what i'm arguing though.