By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - Global Hardware 23 December 2017

160rmf on 17 January 2018
GOWTLOZ said:
xMetroid said:

Again, Switch being this close during launch year is just insane when you consider the PS4 will probably never sell much more than this.

If we compare to the two first Christmas periods of the PS4, it was below 800k during the same week and had weeks below 600k during December. 

Switch launched at a lower price, $300 to $400. That also says it has less room for price cuts, which is why it wouldn't have good sales at the end of its lifespan like the PS4. Nintendo also brought their biggest AAA guns to Switch already in its first year, unlike the PS4 which only got a bunch of cross generation games and less successful titles in its first year.

Funny that now we're seeing these kind of statements from people with a heavy anti Nintendo bias. So you think that PS4 first year sales were possible only by pure hype?

 

Also, this "Nintendo already brought their biggest guns for Switch" is some kind of mantra? It's just tiresome how people repeat this over and over.



 

 

We reap what we sow

Around the Network
TheBlackNaruto on 17 January 2018
160rmf said:
GOWTLOZ said:

Switch launched at a lower price, $300 to $400. That also says it has less room for price cuts, which is why it wouldn't have good sales at the end of its lifespan like the PS4. Nintendo also brought their biggest AAA guns to Switch already in its first year, unlike the PS4 which only got a bunch of cross generation games and less successful titles in its first year.

Funny that now we're seeing these kind of statements from people with a heavy anti Nintendo bias. So you think that PS4 first year sales were possible only by pure hype?

 

Also, this "Nintendo already brought their biggest guns for Switch" is some kind of mantra? It's just tiresome how people repeat this over and over.

Yeah it is kind of lame constantly hearing that over and over lol. It is no different than the freaking 'Sony has no games" crap from the start of Gen 8 smh....



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

DonFerrari on 17 January 2018
160rmf said:
GOWTLOZ said:

Switch launched at a lower price, $300 to $400. That also says it has less room for price cuts, which is why it wouldn't have good sales at the end of its lifespan like the PS4. Nintendo also brought their biggest AAA guns to Switch already in its first year, unlike the PS4 which only got a bunch of cross generation games and less successful titles in its first year.

Funny that now we're seeing these kind of statements from people with a heavy anti Nintendo bias. So you think that PS4 first year sales were possible only by pure hype?

Also, this "Nintendo already brought their biggest guns for Switch" is some kind of mantra? It's just tiresome how people repeat this over and over.

Not exactly hype, but confidence on the games that would come on the future... I bought my PS4 with only 2 games near launch, but knowing I would end the gen at near 100 as I did with PS3, 2 and 1.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Biggerboat1 on 17 January 2018
DonFerrari said:
Biggerboat1 said:

Just because a game has a story doesn't mean that it's narrative driven. Nearly all of the Nintendo games I mentioned have a story / story mode - but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the game's narration being the central consideration around which everything else is built - not just that it has a beginning, middle and end. You either don't get this or you don't want to get this.

And I didn't say all games have all of the traits that you're saying that Sony games have - I said - "do you know how many studios that would apply to?" - implying many studios - so obviously not all games - please read more carefully. And even if there are many studios that hold those traits in common, it doesn't mean that they all execute them as well as Sony, some do, some don't - but that's a different argument.

Re. Nintendo & visuals - go to any of Nintendo's platform and pick out the best looking games available on any of those systems - guess what, the majority are developed by Nintendo. They do make a point of making the games as beautiful as possible, it's simply the case that in recent history they've been constrained by the companies choice of hardware. The reason's for this choice is another subject entirely.

Look at the last generation in which the 3 hardware makers had rough parity in terms of power - GC/Xbox/PS2 - Metroid Prime 2, F-Zero GX,  hell even Starfox Adventures, to name a few, could go toe-to-toe with any game on the competing systems in terms of visuals.

Re. Zelda under a different IP developed by Sony - again, please read! I specifically said "If Zelda had been released as a Sony IP, with visuals befitting the PS4" - so your point about it being a weak graphical game are, again, misplaced. And a bland story... So you're telling me that GT's story mode is better than BOTW - come now...

"So please go away with your narrative that non-Nintendo are biased against Nintendo, but you and others Nintendo fans are unbiased, evaluating only on the merits of the game."

Again, you're simply being reductive & simplistic in your conclusions just to accomodate an outraged response. I have never said Non-Nintendo fans are biased. I'm happy for many consoles to exist and for many gamers to choose whichever they prefer. What I've said is that I believe that people who lazily write off Nintendo's catalogue of games as not for them are most likely holding some form of bias. I'm not asking everyone to own or even play Nintendo games, I'm asking them not to have the ignorance to write of a collection of games (which vary in every category) based on what they think they are like. And I'm more than willing to accept that there are biased Nintendo fans out there.

I've noticed that you get involved quite a lot in endless back and forths on this forum & the reason is because you don't actually argue the other person's points. You argue with the points you want them to have made. There's no point in writing a retort to a point that wasn't actually made or deliberately missing the point that they're actually trying to make in order to be pedantic.

If you look back at our discussion, you'll see that half the time has been spent by me correcting you on what you are interpretting me to have said.

Not sure if it's a deliberate move on your part, if it's not, then please see this as some constructive feedback.

1) Having a story and being narrative driven not being the same ok, but when you disconsider R&C as narrative driven you are wrong (and it isn't a Sony 1st party studio eitherway). Will wait for you to show that Nintendo gameplay first looks after isn't a common trait cohesive approach. Also Nintendo HW is developed with the underpower because Nintendo doesn't care as much for the graphical output as Sony and MS.

2) Nope, sorry Nintendo doesn't try to make games as pretty as possible, they try to do it as pretty as possible on their own line of development using cartoonish graphics that adhere to low power consumption. If they were really worried about graphics their system would have more power as well. And GC was the last gen Nintendo was at least caring as show as they stop developing the power of the system.

3) Have I said GT story is better than Zelda? Nope, you were the one trying to put Zelda as something that really have a story. And if you meant Zelda as being developed by Sony, HZD is selling way lower than Zelda while looking much better and having real story driven touch. But exactly what on your mind is Zelda under a different IP developed by Sony?

4) So you have been monitoring me, how strange for a 31 post count on a account with 1 month age... are you an alt by any chance? And nope you haven't really accept it, you think that someone disregarding the whole Nintendo IPs is because of uterior motives but don't think it is similar when Nintendo fanbase doesn't go and buy some 3rd parties at higher level than any Nintendo game on that genre.

5) It is simple as that: If there is a MP in a genre that is better than anything Nintendo offers there and it doesn't sell more than Nintendo games on that genre then it is clear that a good part of that userbase is dismissing all 3rd party games. You then try to put "you don't need to outsell a Nintendo game to be sucessful" that is an argument that wasn't made. It's funny that you accuse me of not addressing your points when you are inventing points that weren't made when you "correct my understanding"

1) As established earlier - I'm talking about 1st & 2nd party titles. Hence the inclusion of F-zero GX, Xenoblade etc. Is R&C more narrative driven than your average Zelda, Metroid or Xenoblade? Because essentially that's what we're establishing here. If R&C or GT are not more narrative driven than the games I've listed then your assertion that Sony's games are narrative driven and Nintendo's aren't is false & and in actual fact would support my position of both companies offering varied libraries without a single ethos linking them.

2) You're conflating 2 different issues here - the hardware and software. Nintendo has made decisions on their recent HW based on a variety of reasons, the latest being that the Switch is a hybrid. Their software very much does take visuals seriously which is why their games look the best on their given systems. If they didn't care about visuals then why do their games regularly look better than most of the competition on their systems???

3) You stated that a common trait of Sony games are that they are narrative driven - you then call BOTW's story bland (so not meeting Sony's standards) - so the only logical conclusion is that you are asserting that GT (and every other Sony game) has a better story than BOTW...

My guess is that Horizon is selling less than Zelda because it is by and large considered an inferior game - and review scores support this - you asked for evidence over opinions - well there you have it. Though tbh, I'm not interested in a BOTW vs Horizon debate - I'm sure I'd enjoy the 2nd a lot. The theoretical Zelda under Sony that I'm proposing would simply be new names/character models/and updated visuals to take advantage of the hardware - simples!

4) I used to visit the site regularly after the Wii launched but then fell off a couple of years after that - recently found myself back here when my interest was reignited by Switch. Over the last couple of months of generally lurking rather than posting I've noticed your tendency to tie an argument in knots by introducing random points and misinterpreting other's meanings. Nothing more suspicious than that.

For instance your assertion that a non-Nintendo game must outsell a Nintendo game within the same genre to prove that Nintendo fans are not biased... This makes no sense as generally Nintendo's offerings are of much higher quality - so... duh... You keep repeating this - how many times do I have to reply? Can you provide examples of where in your opinion a 3rd party title should have outsold a 1st/2nd?

5) If we're talking MP games - it makes sense that they sell better on other platforms as those who have access to multiple systems will buy them for the one which offers the best experience / framerate / visuals which is generally not Nintendo's version. Switch may change this as it offers portability in exchange of reduced fidelity, though I still think the majority will opt for the former.

"You then try to put "you don't need to outsell a Nintendo game to be sucessful" that is an argument that wasn't made. "

Fair enough, I'll concede this point - was probably not needed - though overall I think you have me at around 20-1 on the irrelevant point scoreboard!

 



Biggerboat1 on 17 January 2018

@DonFerrari:

Also, according to this sites database:

Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem: 0.44m

Resident Evil 4: 1.69m

&

Need for Speed Underground: 1.21m

F-Zero GX: 0.65m

If the latter of the 2 sets of figures is true than that's a travesty!



Around the Network
Biggerboat1 on 17 January 2018

Also @DonFerrari:

Xenoblade Chronicles 0.92m

Dragon Quest X 0.97m

&

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption 1.79m

Call of Duty 3 2.24m

&

Wii Music 3.25m

Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock 4.60m



DonFerrari on 17 January 2018
Biggerboat1 said:
DonFerrari said:

1) Having a story and being narrative driven not being the same ok, but when you disconsider R&C as narrative driven you are wrong (and it isn't a Sony 1st party studio eitherway). Will wait for you to show that Nintendo gameplay first looks after isn't a common trait cohesive approach. Also Nintendo HW is developed with the underpower because Nintendo doesn't care as much for the graphical output as Sony and MS.

2) Nope, sorry Nintendo doesn't try to make games as pretty as possible, they try to do it as pretty as possible on their own line of development using cartoonish graphics that adhere to low power consumption. If they were really worried about graphics their system would have more power as well. And GC was the last gen Nintendo was at least caring as show as they stop developing the power of the system.

3) Have I said GT story is better than Zelda? Nope, you were the one trying to put Zelda as something that really have a story. And if you meant Zelda as being developed by Sony, HZD is selling way lower than Zelda while looking much better and having real story driven touch. But exactly what on your mind is Zelda under a different IP developed by Sony?

4) So you have been monitoring me, how strange for a 31 post count on a account with 1 month age... are you an alt by any chance? And nope you haven't really accept it, you think that someone disregarding the whole Nintendo IPs is because of uterior motives but don't think it is similar when Nintendo fanbase doesn't go and buy some 3rd parties at higher level than any Nintendo game on that genre.

5) It is simple as that: If there is a MP in a genre that is better than anything Nintendo offers there and it doesn't sell more than Nintendo games on that genre then it is clear that a good part of that userbase is dismissing all 3rd party games. You then try to put "you don't need to outsell a Nintendo game to be sucessful" that is an argument that wasn't made. It's funny that you accuse me of not addressing your points when you are inventing points that weren't made when you "correct my understanding"

1) As established earlier - I'm talking about 1st & 2nd party titles. Hence the inclusion of F-zero GX, Xenoblade etc. Is R&C more narrative driven than your average Zelda, Metroid or Xenoblade? Because essentially that's what we're establishing here. If R&C or GT are not more narrative driven than the games I've listed then your assertion that Sony's games are narrative driven and Nintendo's aren't is false & and in actual fact would support my position of both companies offering varied libraries without a single ethos linking them.

2) You're conflating 2 different issues here - the hardware and software. Nintendo has made decisions on their recent HW based on a variety of reasons, the latest being that the Switch is a hybrid. Their software very much does take visuals seriously which is why their games look the best on their given systems. If they didn't care about visuals then why do their games regularly look better than most of the competition on their systems???

3) You stated that a common trait of Sony games are that they are narrative driven - you then call BOTW's story bland (so not meeting Sony's standards) - so the only logical conclusion is that you are asserting that GT (and every other Sony game) has a better story than BOTW...

My guess is that Horizon is selling less than Zelda because it is by and large considered an inferior game - and review scores support this - you asked for evidence over opinions - well there you have it. Though tbh, I'm not interested in a BOTW vs Horizon debate - I'm sure I'd enjoy the 2nd a lot. The theoretical Zelda under Sony that I'm proposing would simply be new names/character models/and updated visuals to take advantage of the hardware - simples!

4) I used to visit the site regularly after the Wii launched but then fell off a couple of years after that - recently found myself back here when my interest was reignited by Switch. Over the last couple of months of generally lurking rather than posting I've noticed your tendency to tie an argument in knots by introducing random points and misinterpreting other's meanings. Nothing more suspicious than that.

For instance your assertion that a non-Nintendo game must outsell a Nintendo game within the same genre to prove that Nintendo fans are not biased... This makes no sense as generally Nintendo's offerings are of much higher quality - so... duh... You keep repeating this - how many times do I have to reply? Can you provide examples of where in your opinion a 3rd party title should have outsold a 1st/2nd?

5) If we're talking MP games - it makes sense that they sell better on other platforms as those who have access to multiple systems will buy them for the one which offers the best experience / framerate / visuals which is generally not Nintendo's version. Switch may change this as it offers portability in exchange of reduced fidelity, though I still think the majority will opt for the former.

"You then try to put "you don't need to outsell a Nintendo game to be sucessful" that is an argument that wasn't made. "

Fair enough, I'll concede this point - was probably not needed - though overall I think you have me at around 20-1 on the irrelevant point scoreboard!

1) R&C is more story driven than Zelda that is a fact, know you want to put another 2 games to compare against it? I would like to see you prove to the Nintendo fanbase that Nintendo doesn't focus first on the gameplay and then they will look at graphics and story. Nintendo doesn't even look at voice acting for their games because that isn't the direction they are after.

2) Nope I'm not conflicting both. It is from the same company, so if they develop hardwares for 3 consecutive gens that aren't focused on putting as much power as possible and in fact are a lot less powerful than the consoles that were released at the same time (no need to just go for "but switch is hybrid" since this started before it) it already shows that Nintendo as a company doesn't have their main concern on graphics... go and look the assets, cost of production etc of Nintendo games against the AAA of industry and you'll see they invest a lot less. Their game will look better (on your opinion) than the ones from the competition for 2 reasons, the port had to be compromised to fit on a lot weaker HW and photorealistic graphics take a higher hit on it prettyness against cartoonish/cellshaded when going to lower power system.

3) Your logic must be quite crazy to assert that since I said Zelda story is bland it must mean GT story is better than it. Sorry to burst your bubble but Metacritic is not even considered an argument on VGC because of how bad it is as a system and critics giving a game a better score doesn't mean a game is better. Or do you think "Jorney" with a 92 is factually better than all but 4 games on WiiU? With only Zelda and Mario 3D (2 games) scoring higher than it

4) Yes no bias on thinking Nintendo games are all better than the rest of the industry... and if you had an account previously you are already admitting you are an alt.

5) I ain't saying that a game should sell on Switch as much as it sell on another platform or that a game in another platform must sell more than a Nintendo game on its own platform. What I'm saying is that when you pick a game that is considered the best of its genre and is multiplatform it will sell more than the platform holders on that system, but on Nintendo system it will sell less than what Nintendo is offering.

Racing genre - > Mario Kart, no multiplatform is even near that level (so no need to cherry pick F-Zero, because I didn't said no 3rd party games sell better than any Nintendo game in that genre. I said that the best seller multiplat would be lower than one Nintendo offering on that genre)

Wii Music - a failure and a single game on the genre so it's basically you trying to prove that there is some case.

RE4 - Are you considering it a terror game? And Eternal Darkness is just published by Nintendo not made by them.

RPG - DQ X doesn't even get near Zelda

Shooter - Link Crossbow Training (for crying out loud) have twice the sales of CoD 3

 

 

So I have done the work for you, per genre (as vgc classify them)

Action - Lego 5,7M versus Metroid Other M 1,36M (10th place) so in this category it would have 9 games over Metroid

Adventure - Zelda 7,18M vs Lego 3M

I usually consider action and adventure to be on the same genre, but not important.

Fighter - Smash 13M, Dragon Ball 1M

Misc (???) - WiiPlay 29M Just Dance 10M

Platformer - NSBW 28.5M Epic Mickey 3M

Puzzle - WarrioWare 3M Gameparty 1.7M

Racer - MKWii 35.8M Sonic 1.5M

RPG - Monster Hunter 2.2M Pokemon 1.6M (no idea why Zelda isn't here)

Shooter - Link crossbow 5M CoD 2.2M

Sim - Animal Crossing 4.6M Cooking Mama 2.9M

Sports - WiiSports 82.6M Mario&Sonic 8M

Strategy - Pikmin 0,6M Thriville 0,4M

 

That clearly show how Nintendo base isn't biased towards Nintendo and that the difference in sales is totally justifiable per quality difference, in some cases over 10x.

Do you need MS or Sony tables like this to see how it compares?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Qwark on 17 January 2018
Biggerboat1 said:
xl-klaudkil said:

Zelda botw is a bit story driven( not much)

Ratchet and clank is yes, and so is the last guardian, even lbp has a story mode.

 

Both ninty and sony creates a lot of good and interesting games,noo need for hate.

 

Gt is not story driven btw,

I wholeheartedly agree that both companies make good games - no hate coming from me.

My issue lies with those that lazily write off Nintendo's entire output.

They create a huge variety of games in terms of style/genre/feel at a generally high level of quality - so there'll be something for the vast majority of the market to enjoy.

Would you say that Ratchet & Clank & LBP are more story driven than Zelda?

The Last of Us or Uncharted is what I thought a previous commenter meant by narrative driven / cinematic experiences. I don't see R&C or LBP falling into that category - though again, I could be wrong.

I mean, Oddysey has a story - but I wouldn't call it a narrative driven game...

Ratchet and Clank is as much story driven and cinematic as Uncharted. There even is a movie based on the original game on which the game is based on. They even share cutscenes. LBP, Driveclub and GTS don't have a story or one better than Oddysey. But I said there where a few exceptions.

 

To answer your question I played quite a few zelda's but none of them are really story driven or cinematic unlike Ratchet and Clank which is very story driven. As for Sony and narrative or story driven games this gen alone:

Horizon Zero Dawn

Until Dawn

Uncharted 4 and Uncharted lost legacy.

Ratchet and Clank

The Order 1886

The Last Guardian

Infamous Second Son

Killzone Shadow fall (the story was horrendous for Killzone standards and unfinished but it defenitly is ahead of other shooters).

This year we will get Spiderman which will be very much story driven. Detroit beyond human, God of War, Days Gone (which has hours of cutscenes according to dualshockers). So yes I would daresay most Sony games are story and presentation driven that's just their style.

 

 

 



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Mystro-Sama on 17 January 2018

I just can't believe the 3ds is still selling like it is.



Biggerboat1 on 17 January 2018
DonFerrari said:
Biggerboat1 said:

1) As established earlier - I'm talking about 1st & 2nd party titles. Hence the inclusion of F-zero GX, Xenoblade etc. Is R&C more narrative driven than your average Zelda, Metroid or Xenoblade? Because essentially that's what we're establishing here. If R&C or GT are not more narrative driven than the games I've listed then your assertion that Sony's games are narrative driven and Nintendo's aren't is false & and in actual fact would support my position of both companies offering varied libraries without a single ethos linking them.

2) You're conflating 2 different issues here - the hardware and software. Nintendo has made decisions on their recent HW based on a variety of reasons, the latest being that the Switch is a hybrid. Their software very much does take visuals seriously which is why their games look the best on their given systems. If they didn't care about visuals then why do their games regularly look better than most of the competition on their systems???

3) You stated that a common trait of Sony games are that they are narrative driven - you then call BOTW's story bland (so not meeting Sony's standards) - so the only logical conclusion is that you are asserting that GT (and every other Sony game) has a better story than BOTW...

My guess is that Horizon is selling less than Zelda because it is by and large considered an inferior game - and review scores support this - you asked for evidence over opinions - well there you have it. Though tbh, I'm not interested in a BOTW vs Horizon debate - I'm sure I'd enjoy the 2nd a lot. The theoretical Zelda under Sony that I'm proposing would simply be new names/character models/and updated visuals to take advantage of the hardware - simples!

4) I used to visit the site regularly after the Wii launched but then fell off a couple of years after that - recently found myself back here when my interest was reignited by Switch. Over the last couple of months of generally lurking rather than posting I've noticed your tendency to tie an argument in knots by introducing random points and misinterpreting other's meanings. Nothing more suspicious than that.

For instance your assertion that a non-Nintendo game must outsell a Nintendo game within the same genre to prove that Nintendo fans are not biased... This makes no sense as generally Nintendo's offerings are of much higher quality - so... duh... You keep repeating this - how many times do I have to reply? Can you provide examples of where in your opinion a 3rd party title should have outsold a 1st/2nd?

5) If we're talking MP games - it makes sense that they sell better on other platforms as those who have access to multiple systems will buy them for the one which offers the best experience / framerate / visuals which is generally not Nintendo's version. Switch may change this as it offers portability in exchange of reduced fidelity, though I still think the majority will opt for the former.

"You then try to put "you don't need to outsell a Nintendo game to be sucessful" that is an argument that wasn't made. "

Fair enough, I'll concede this point - was probably not needed - though overall I think you have me at around 20-1 on the irrelevant point scoreboard!

1) R&C is more story driven than Zelda that is a fact, know you want to put another 2 games to compare against it? I would like to see you prove to the Nintendo fanbase that Nintendo doesn't focus first on the gameplay and then they will look at graphics and story. Nintendo doesn't even look at voice acting for their games because that isn't the direction they are after.

2) Nope I'm not conflicting both. It is from the same company, so if they develop hardwares for 3 consecutive gens that aren't focused on putting as much power as possible and in fact are a lot less powerful than the consoles that were released at the same time (no need to just go for "but switch is hybrid" since this started before it) it already shows that Nintendo as a company doesn't have their main concern on graphics... go and look the assets, cost of production etc of Nintendo games against the AAA of industry and you'll see they invest a lot less. Their game will look better (on your opinion) than the ones from the competition for 2 reasons, the port had to be compromised to fit on a lot weaker HW and photorealistic graphics take a higher hit on it prettyness against cartoonish/cellshaded when going to lower power system.

3) Your logic must be quite crazy to assert that since I said Zelda story is bland it must mean GT story is better than it. Sorry to burst your bubble but Metacritic is not even considered an argument on VGC because of how bad it is as a system and critics giving a game a better score doesn't mean a game is better. Or do you think "Jorney" with a 92 is factually better than all but 4 games on WiiU? With only Zelda and Mario 3D (2 games) scoring higher than it

4) Yes no bias on thinking Nintendo games are all better than the rest of the industry... and if you had an account previously you are already admitting you are an alt.

5) I ain't saying that a game should sell on Switch as much as it sell on another platform or that a game in another platform must sell more than a Nintendo game on its own platform. What I'm saying is that when you pick a game that is considered the best of its genre and is multiplatform it will sell more than the platform holders on that system, but on Nintendo system it will sell less than what Nintendo is offering.

Racing genre - > Mario Kart, no multiplatform is even near that level (so no need to cherry pick F-Zero, because I didn't said no 3rd party games sell better than any Nintendo game in that genre. I said that the best seller multiplat would be lower than one Nintendo offering on that genre)

Wii Music - a failure and a single game on the genre so it's basically you trying to prove that there is some case.

RE4 - Are you considering it a terror game? And Eternal Darkness is just published by Nintendo not made by them.

RPG - DQ X doesn't even get near Zelda

Shooter - Link Crossbow Training (for crying out loud) have twice the sales of CoD 3

 

 

So I have done the work for you, per genre (as vgc classify them)

Action - Lego 5,7M versus Metroid Other M 1,36M (10th place) so in this category it would have 9 games over Metroid

Adventure - Zelda 7,18M vs Lego 3M

I usually consider action and adventure to be on the same genre, but not important.

Fighter - Smash 13M, Dragon Ball 1M

Misc (???) - WiiPlay 29M Just Dance 10M

Platformer - NSBW 28.5M Epic Mickey 3M

Puzzle - WarrioWare 3M Gameparty 1.7M

Racer - MKWii 35.8M Sonic 1.5M

RPG - Monster Hunter 2.2M Pokemon 1.6M (no idea why Zelda isn't here)

Shooter - Link crossbow 5M CoD 2.2M

Sim - Animal Crossing 4.6M Cooking Mama 2.9M

Sports - WiiSports 82.6M Mario&Sonic 8M

Strategy - Pikmin 0,6M Thriville 0,4M

 

That clearly show how Nintendo base isn't biased towards Nintendo and that the difference in sales is totally justifiable per quality difference, in some cases over 10x.

Do you need MS or Sony tables like this to see how it compares?

1) why did your answer only focus on R&C and not GT? I'll concede the point that R&C is more story driven than Zelda (I already said that I wasn't overly familiar with the game). Qwark, above also listed LBP & Driveclub as having less of a story than Oddysey, never mind BOTW. So really, my point stands. As usual you deliberately avoid the overall point just to score a few pedantic points.

2) I already said that there are many reasons why Nintendo have gone the way they have with HW - this debate has already grown too many arms and legs. Bottom line is that they've always maxed out the hardware they've developed on. I don't think we're going to get anywhere on this one so let's just leave it.

3) My logic is fine - you asserted BOTW couldn't be a Sony game because it had a bland story. GT is a Sony game which, as you pointed out has a story mode. Conclusion GT's story meets Sony's standards of storytelling & BOTW doesn't. What is proving difficult for you to understand here...? Unless you're now conceding that GT's story is weak, which then destroys your main theory that all Sony games are based on a central tenet of story-telling...

There will always be outliers and exceptions on Metacritic / Opencritic but to suggest that there isn't a high correlation with score and quality is beyond belief. Tell you what - I'll play 10 random games from the 90+ category & you can play 10 random titles from the <50 bracket and we'll see who comes out the happier - according to you, we each have a 50-50 chance... Probably one of the most misguided things I've seen written here...

4) Here we go again - where did I say "Nintendo games are all better than the rest of the industry..." - I didn't say this and I don't believe that. 

5) I stated before that your premise of trying to find 3rd party titles that sell better than 1st/2nd party titles on a Nintendo system is flawed - but I thought I'd throw out a few examples just for the hell of it. I don't agree on the categories that vgchartz splits games into, but I did site examples of games that I thought were similar enough to meet your 3rd > 1st/2nd party sales . Why the those examples have to beat ALL Nintendo games in the genre rather than just some, I don't get. But then there's a lot I don't get about your rationale.

Bottom line is that the sales reflect game quality - which is the only real bias any of us should have. Why quality isn't dictating sales to the same extent on the other systems I couldn't tell you - the transformers movies have a bigger box office than films like Blade Runner 2049 or Ex Machina - go figure...

"Eternal Darkness is just published by Nintendo not made by them." 

I clearly stated SEVERAL TIMES that we're discussing 1st/2nd party.

Second-party developer is a colloquial term often used by gaming enthusiasts and media to describe three different forms of game development studios:

  1. Independently owned studios who take development contracts from the platform holders and produce games exclusive to that platform.[7]
  2. Studios that are partially or wholly owned by the platform holder (also known as a subsidiary) and produce games exclusive to that platform.[citation needed]
  3. Companies that make video game consoles, but also make games on other platforms.