You're contradicting in your definitions of quality, you're trying to say it's a game that is appreciated by many which many of the games you're arguing against are then you bring up sales and use them as a single indicator of quality when that is flawed. A game can sell off hype and marketing alone regardless of quality, many poor games like Shrek on the PS2 for example simply outsold the likes of ICO becausethe former carried a popular film's branding on it this is why that logic is flawed from the word go. We can tell how well a game is put together by playing it, we look at what the game's aim is, the overall execution and how it compares to what the industry has seen before.

Wii Sports is a big seller and a fun game yes but it's far from the quality displayed in some of its peers in the industry, I'm willing to go as far as to say that the cheap price of the Wii was the main killer app in itself as you could purchase the platform for the same price as a PSP during a recession when the other platforms cost almost 3 times as much. Even if someone didn't have as much interest in the platform it wasn't as heavy on the pocket to try it out.

To "appreciate" is to shell out the $60 for the game, isn't that enough to show that people value the game ? 

Marketing and hype alone cannot make a game sell ... 

Shrek 2 was a poor game ? I don't like the franchise much but getting a 71 on metacritic must meant someone liked it ...

Playing a game to determine whether it's good or not is an even poorer way to measure quality when there are too many variables and it also varies on an individual basis too which makes it even less objective ... 

If you don't like the game that doesn't mean you get to impose a products worth for the consumers ... 

Cheap price alone cannot make a console sell, take a look at the gamecube for an example ... 

Like xenoblade? Or The Last Story?

Real-Time =/= ARPG

Xenoblade does not have button-mapped/key-mapped 1:1 attacks. That is a requirement for an ARPG. Xenoblade is a real-time traditional RPG. The Last Story is a perfect example of an ARPG though. 

The last story is more dynamic but xenoblade is still an action rpg.

Can you explain why you think it is? Everything is done in menus in Xenoblade. That disqualifies it as an action rpg. While some menus are used in some action-rpgs (see: Kingdom Hearts), the core gameplay has button-mapped attacks. Just because an RPG isn't turnbased doesn't make it an ARPG. The Last Story is different from Xenoblade in that it has 1:1 button-mapped attacks. If I press a button in the last story, an attack is enacted by my character corresponding to that button press. If I press a different button, a different attack is enacted. 

Sorry but this is by far the most flawed argument I've ever seen, firstly marketing and hype is more then enough to make a game sell quality stopped selling games generations ago because the majority of people don't follow games avidly they just hear the hype and buy what they're told is cool that's how a mainstream market works other wise the type of games developers would be putting out would be far more diverse and polished.

Shrek 2 was a poor game and for someone who earlier wanted to avoid using critical reviews you've sure been quick to jump to them, your logic is sales equals quality and buying a game at launch is appreciation, I'm going to be blunt that's rubbish as under your logic Shrek is a better more appreciated game then the likes of ICO, Okami, SOTC etc... Appreciation is actually acknowledging not only the game's quality but what it did for its time long after, I'm willing to bet most of the people who bought the Shrek games have long forgotten them and moved on but the games I've mentioned are still touted today by the industry and those who bought them as great games. Every console that is market leader has had loads of shovelware a fair amount of which sells well, you're trying to tell us that Carnival Games on the Wii is better then most of the games on PS3 and 360 as well as almost all PS4 and X1 games? Sorry I have to be direct in highlighting how broken that mode of thinking is.

You trying to suggest that playing a game isn't the way to determine it's quality is so bizarre it's almost as if you're not serious, so a majority of people both critics and consumers playing a game and deciding it's great is flawed now? Even if we added more varibles from reviews and so on like you did with Shrek it further goes against your stance on the games you're arguing against.

GC sold as much as the original Xbox, I doubt it would have sold that much if it was just as expensive plus it's marketing was poor, what happened with the Wii was good marketing to a different type of consumer which coupled with a cheap price and good first party lead to a success.

Dejavue all over again.

In Xenoblade, you have to move a lot and launch attacks continually. It is an action rpg for me, albeit different than The last story.

It's only flawed because because it doesn't suit your point of view. Following games avidly just means biasing the evaluation. You seriously underestimate consumers all around. They aren't ignorant, they simply respond to their desires. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you can see how shoddy your point is ...

I didn't want to use reviews but I wanted to play devil's advocate. "Appreciation" is simply valuing a product, nothing more and nothing less. For every guy that likes ICO, SotC, Okami, and etc there's hundreds of others who don't give a damn including me. I don't like the Carnival games but if their better than most of the games we love then so be it ...

Again, playing the game doesn't mean we can truly determine it's worth since that's evaluated at an individual basis and that biases the results. The only variable I vouch for is sales and profits, nothing else ...

Price could've been prohibitive but the sweet spot was always $300 so it wouldn't have meant much if GC launched at a higher price and marketing didn't mean jack when all the GC could sell to are the Nintendo fans ...