Actually I just chose to ignore your sarcasm. Clearly Galaxy is not a must own title because most Wii owners do not feel the need to own it. There are plenty of absolutely great games that are not must owns. Think of the PC - Total annihilation is not a must own, yet it no doubt one of the best Strategy games I have ever played. It sold poorly in comparison to SC, despite glowing critical reviews, and thus the gaming community deemed SC instead of TA the "must own" of 1997.

A must own game does not mean a game meets some set of abstract standards that automatically give it the title. Must own games are defined by their reception, partially critical reception, but more importantly user's perceptions, which we see most evident in whether or not they purchase and continue to play a game. Furthermore, a must own game compels people who would have passed on playing the game or system to reconsider due to wide recognition of the game's superior gameplay, presentation, and fun factor. A must own needn't be simply the highest selling game for a system, because perhaps the game only attracted current owners of the system (albeit a high p[ercentage (25-20 atleast) and thus did not become a must own. MGS4 and Mario Galaxy cannot be said to have done these things. MGS4 in particular failed to attract even a sizable portion of the PS3 community, a fact that would have been apparent from the get go had anyone bothered to see the sales reception MGS3 received, which, while large, definately indicated a niche market and not something on the scale of GTAIII or the original Halo for Xbox.

Must have games are rare - uber rare, as in if you are lucky there will be one franchise per system per generation that meets that qualification. The only one this generation so far to meet that standard is Halo 3. Perhaps, if KZ2 attracts enough people that would normally pass on the game and also manages to convince people to buy a PS3, KZ2 can slowly gain the title of must have.

NES - Super Mario Bro

SNES - Super Mario World

Genesis - Sonic 2 (maybe?)

PS1 - FFVII

PS2 - GTAIII

N64 - Ocarina

GC - none

GB - Tetris

Xbox - Halo: CE

360 - Halo 3

PS3 - none

Wii - none

I take your point on mgs4 an excellent game by all accounts from what I hear but I also have heard a lot of criticism on the amount of cut scenes.

But take gears one it defined the 360 as the next gen console and I would be surprised if anyone would disagree with that.

it set the bar and to this day no game on PS3 has done that and when you throw in the price he has a valid point.

Thats not to say it cant do it but the longer it goes on the more market share it loses to its cheaper cousin.

If "must own" titles are defined by their high sales as some argue here, Wii Sports is the Wiis #1 must own game? Oh wait, it's actually the number one must own game of all time....FAIL. "Must own" is a load of crap for the most part.

Must own is whatever you deem must be owned.

i would hate to think must own games would be judged by sales.
Take LBP it aint selling trillions but yet it is by all accounts a very very innovative game.
Having said that unfortunatly sales and hype are a big part of it.

piracy. modding the ps2 was easy.

sony problem it's price, its sell by the own sony the ps3 in my country for 500$ + 5% of taxes.

well, its sadly true.
when people say xbox you think of halo and gears of war.
when people say wii you usually think of games like mario or zelda, or to some people wii sports and fit.

when people say ps3... theres no one big game that sticks to the system. maybe thats why. maybe killzone 2 will be that game

I don't think there is a need for a "must own" PS3 title . When you think of XBOX 360 most people are thinking Gears 2 or Halo 3 in terms of "must owns" as soon as you eliminate one of these guys you loose a big incentive to buy the XBOX 360 , the brand has effectivley placed all it's eggs in one very big basket.

The playstation brand is defined by various titles Resistance 2 , Little Big Plannet , Killzone 2 , Gran Turismo 5 , God Of War 3 and the list literaly goes on . Some are must haves wheras others are decent games at least , the important thing is that Sony's hasn't placed all their eggs in one basket they've gone for diversity and consistent quality , an approach that imo is better for apeal on a mass market level ; the console offers huge incentive across a range of titles.

What I think the PS3 continues to lack is an affordable price point , arguable the biggest problem and the biggest solution.

@ coolestguyever

none for the wii?

i'd say mario galaxy, wii sports, wii fit and brawl are pretty big games that come to peoples minds

@nyanks Wii Sports is bundled with almost every Wii sold. Consumers have no choice but to own a copy of the game. That being said, Wii Sports may perhaps be a mst own title, because it has penetrated pop culture and many purchase a Wii to play Wii Sports. Still, I don't believe it is one. Sales is not the ONLy factor, just a large one. Read my above post.

@reask Mustn't must own games have a compnent that deals with its sales. How is it must own if no one owns it? What does it mean to a must own? Certainly not just that it is AAA. There are usually dozens of those for each console each generation. Innovation has little to do with must own. Execution and attraction, as well as fun factor are the most important components. Similarly, an identifiable mascot (Mario, Master Chief) helps to draw in outsiders who feel they must own a certain game to properly experience gaming on whatever machine the game is on. It's not really about what preexisting owners and gamers think, though they are a component. Sackboy failed in this regard (at least as of now).