Fair enough, but most people don't qualify all real-time RPGs (you move around and attack without turns) as Action RPG's, so that might be why the OP didn't include it. I personally make said distinction myself. 

But you don't attack in turns in xenoblade.

I never said you did. I said not all RPGs  in which you don't are action-RPGs. They are real-time, yes, but an action RPG is more than a real-time RPG. Standard attacks are mapped to specific buttons or keys. For example, in Diablo you have a right click attack a left click attack, and attacks for each keys 1-9. You also don't have to wait for a cooldown. As long as you have mana you can keep attacking. Now some RPGs have action elements and traditional elements as well. 

O_O I guess I missed the defenition of an Action RPG going by some of these suggestions

Nope it's flawed because of the reasons I've pointed out and you've yet to counter any of them probably becaue you realize how contradictory your point is to begin with. You may not care about those games but many do which is why your appreciation argument is just a broken as your sales argument you're using to tell us Carnival Games is quality, gaming is niche industry and the are billions in the world who don't care for it does that make the industry any less relevant? No, it's even funnier that the RPGS you're arguing against are heavily successful which under your logic makes them appreciated and contradicts you by default.

Playing the game is the only way for people to determine the worth your argument is like saying trying out a new restaurant is not the way to find out is their food tastes good and again if the only argument you go for is sales and profit then you've already been derailed in your own argument hard.

Marketing is the key to why a number of products sell as every market leader has had good marketing for initial momentum to build on, GC had little of it and even then it still sold as much as the Xbox and turned a large profit (something you yourself have said is what you look at right), Wii and GC would never have sold as much at a higher price point, the cheap price allowed consumers to try them out with out hurting their wallets and with first party games it was always worth a punt.

You have yet to point out what's contradictory about my argument. It's not only me that doesn't care about those games, MANY don't either. Using the internet gaming community as a reference for appreciation is flawed on your part since it doesn't represent the reality. It's amusing how you keep claiming that my arguments are broken without even elaborating. Heavily successful ? Now that's an overstatement if I've ever seen one ... 

Comparing game quality to taste in food ?! What an irrelevant comparsion you've made right there. The only one derailing here is you because you do nothing but keep pitting these useless strawman points against me ...

Marketing is only one aspect but it's not the main one. FYI, most of GC's so called "profits" came from the GBA. Again the sweet spot was $300 so been cheaper than that didn't much in the end ...

Buddy, the logic that sales=quality is just absurd.  This isn't the case in any art form.  Titus Andronicus was more popular than some of Shakespearean masterworks in his day.  There are generic art works produced en masse that make more money than some artists of the Renaissance did; heck, Leonardo didn't make too much money on his art at all.  James Patterson is one of the best selling authors of all time.  Transformers movies make huge ammounts of money compared to Citizen Kane.  But to say that these better selling, more popular works are superior for that reason only would be ridiculous.  It assumes that there are absolutely no objective standards or underlying principles, a very bold assumption that has no real basis; underlying principles of technique at the very least have been the foundation of these art forms and all art forms for a long time.  Even where it seems they aren't there, they are.  Enjoyment of a thing is subjective, and certain aspects are subjective, but the whole is not subjective.  Sales are not a reliable metric for quality, never have been and never will be.  You can easily sell to the masses inferior crafts on the basis of convenience, marketing, or the mob mentality.  

Dude I've highlighted for a while what's contradicting you just read through your own posts, your many people don't care about certain games argument goes for many successful games as well your arguments at this point are loose and don't come together and it's becoming more clear that you improvized an argument to save face which has left you in a position of saying Shrek, Carnival Games and the like are better games then the majority of PS4/X1 games. The are various factors in Sales other then quality that drive them, Sonic's recent games have been bad with SB being terrible but it still sold decently because of the branding, I assure you that you could make a poor or mediocre game and stick any popular brand on it and it would outsell far better games.

I'll highlight one last time where you have contradicted yourself, you said in an earlier post that it's the consumer that quality matters to yet your focal points are that of the company, under your logic Michael Bay makes the best films because of his success when it's far from the truth if anything success is never an indicator of quality as quality is defined by the overall merits of the product itself, things we find out from playing them. A well made car will always be that regardless of how much it sells same with games, but this is where the contradictions begin you say that you only measure by success and profits yet the games you were trying to dismiss earlier have just that, on the M&L side Bowser's Inside Story has sold around 3.8m, Dream Team has sold about 1.8m while on the Paper Mario side TTYD sold 2.25m, SPM sold 3.69m and Sticker Star sold 2.13M.

Moving futher on Awakening sold 1.53m, with Golden Sun the original sold 1.75m and lost age sold 1.2m and when we come to Pokemon which consistently hits 10m each installment your original stance against them falls apart under your own very logic as these games are outselling most RPGs and matching the likes of series like Mass Effect which blows your whole stance about them not being top tier RPGs to pieces under the very logic you have just highlighted. If you don't want to admit contradiction here then fair enough keep arguing the stance as every post you add further mocks yous at this point.

Ironic you using strawman argument in your post as I've highlighted the flaws in your posts you haven't once countered any argument in this thread that people have put forward and instead have sidestepped all of them. 

The position you're in right now with your argument is that your logic in sales equals quality flat out debunks yourself at the same time, at this point your only course of action will be to try and move goal posts again and start saying only a certain amount of sales count like how you tried to discount Golden Sun earlier as a first party RPG. You've put yourself in a situation where you can't argue quality on a game's merits which funny enough would have suited your stance better but instead you went with logic that actually countered your very own arguments earlier. Finally nope GC's profits games came from software sold on the platform like every other home console from Nintendo and the fact it made profits further stings your points.

Congratulations on that.

Except there are more who care less about those games compared to other games so instead you just resorted to twisting my words to fit your argument. Nothing is going to change the fact that more people care about COD than SotC or Fire Emblem. So what if Shrek or Carnival Games are better than some of the AAA games on the PS4/X1 ? Quality is the only way to drive sales whether you like it or not. Sonic Boom sold decently ?! 200K is laughable just so you know ...

Again with your twisting ...

Mario & Luigi weren't the ONLY games I were referring to and anything within the range of 1-2 million is "average", not particularly "great" ...

Once again some of those games fall under "average", not "great" with the exception of pokemon ... 

Just so you know I wasn't dismissing every RPG from Nintendo but once again you put words in my mouth that I didn't utter ... 

FWIW, MOST of the RPGs from Nintendo aren't top tier ...

The only one using strawman here is you ...

This is not addressing my points, it's pure deriding on your part ... 

How exactly did I move goal posts when it was somewhat clear in referring to sales milestons and in-house developed RPGs ? What's more is that the OP SPECIFICALLY stated "Nintendo's unique take" so explain how exactly Nintendo's take = Gamefreak's take ? 

How long are you going to keep up this Argumentum ad lapidem ? 

GC making profit is mostly besides all this but no one can deny that most of Nintendo's profits were attributed to the GBA ... 

It's pretty clear that your not interested in addressing the argument but since this is getting off-topic there's no point in continuing this farce with you ...

Au revoir ...

Well done you post a reply that failed to address any points at all, so you're saying the Shrek and Carnival Games are better then the majority of X1 and PS4 games based off sales alone? Good thing you're not in any X1/PS4 forum or any other boards as you'd be lucky to be taken seriously in any future debate also note how you ignored someone else who pointed out how silly the logic you're trying to push.

As I predicted you'd move goal posts and start saying only a certain amount of sales equals a certain amount of quality, you're transparent at this point and have been found out hard, it's not me twisting your words it's your own words coming back to haunt you. We were talking about Nintendo's RPGs and I told you to give your definition of quality and you came out with sales and profit, you realize now how that contradicts your early ramblings so have now adjusted goal posts even more to try and suit your argument which was improvized from the get go.

Explain in logical terms how unit sales measure quality especially Nuvendil highlight how broken your logic is, no in fact lets go one better, lets take your exact argument in here and put it forward to the whole forum, go on lets go, word for word start a topic in the general explaining your logic and how you think Carnival Games and so on are better the the likes of ICO etc... and lets link this topic as well so people can read your posts.

Explain how sales equal quality and how 2m sales means a game is average, put your money where your mouth is.