Are these games high sales and low metacritic scores a sign that bad games sell well on the Wii, or a sign that metacritic is a poor metric for the quality of these games?

Both have been argued several times on this forum but I've come to believe that it's metacritic is a poor metric for the quality of games in general.  I've also come to believe that developers take just as much of an interest in metacritic as gamers(or their intended consumers in the pursuit for 'hardcore on Wii') do.

Wii Sports has a MetaCritic of 76

Wii Fit has a MetaCritic of 80

These are not bad games in fact the games are of beter qulity then many games that have higher metacritics. However they don't quell the thirst for a Hardcore gamer and reviewers don't review these games with there intended audience in mind and thus they get lower ranks in Metacritic then they should.

If Movie Critics were to rate Metal Gear Solid 4 it would probabaly have a 19% r less on RottenTomatoes. It si not to dissimiliar to that.

Nintendo does both it takes bigger risks than other companies while releasing its staple franchises. NOthing wrong with sequels but fresh IPs are nice as well. While MGS already has 4 games Super Mario only has 3 games in 3D in over 13 years.

I think it is nintendo's fault for the bad third party support, but also i believe they did it intentionally. They will dominate this gen, and emerge into next gen a serious power, Nintendo want to really dominate this industry.

I will keepr referring to a quot Iwata said to IGN when the Wii was still called the revolution

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Iwata spoke on the Revolution's unique interface and if it would alienate third-party developers.

"Well, of course, the idea is that the Revolution will sell and sell and sell so it becomes the standard in the industry," Iwata mused. "However, at least for the launch period, we designed the controller so it can play any of the different conventional styles. After all, we are talking about it playing games from our past machines (i.e. the virtual console). So don't worry."

http://uk.cube.ign.com/articles/636/636350p1.html

It scares me that some people are suggesting it's Nintendo's fault for them making bad games. No one has come close to giving a legitimate reason why Nintendo is to blame for their bad games. It's not like Miyamoto sneaks into their facilities and messes with their code. How can Nintendo make the companies produce inferior games.

Also, while I'm here, understand that BAD GAMES DO NOT SELLS because ONLY THE CONSUMER CAN JUDGE QUALITY AS ONLY THEY SPEND MONEY TO BUY THE PRODUCT. VGChartz is a better indicator or what games are good then a site like IGN or Gamespot.

The thing is, there's a difference between a bad game and an uninnovative game. Many would say cod4 is uninnovative and generic but I think most would agree that it's a great game nonetheless. The problem with those midway games you mentioned except UT3 (was this by midway?) is that they're generally seen as bad games. Area 51 was a glitchfest. They sold poorly because they were bad not because they were uninnovative.

The real risk with Hd titles is spending a lot of money to make a bad game. Granted there are a few good games that don't perform very well but most of these titles sales can be predicted in advance based on the popularity of the genre like Valkyria Chronicles. if sega lost money on that game, then their planning was very poor because SRPGs never pushed huge numbers.

How have nintendo innovated with  the super smash bros and mario kart series aside form graphics? Why are they still selling so many copies? The sales have even increased due to wthe wii's higher userbase. On the other hand, most agree that Ubisoft innovated with the new Prince of Persia and what happened to the sales?

If you ask me, with some series, it's when they tried to change the working formula that sales started to dwindle. Case in point: Need for Speed. The Hot pursuit series were loved by many but they retooled the whole thing and tried to copy Gran Turismo instead. I'm pretty sure if they just polished the graphics and added more options, cars and tracks, the series won't be where it is now. Just look at COD and gears: the same thing retooled over for even less money and the sequels are thus looking to be even more profitable.

I even forgot Dragon quest which is the most obvious case of the same exact thing over and over yet people can wait to pay their money. Many nintendo fans are excited for DQIX and X

 Well, Mario Kart had the Wii wheel and motorcycles (and online, though not all together innoative (although it is for the series).  Brawl, while it had a much improved single player (and online (which doesn't work too well, albeit)), probably was less innovative, but the series is much loved, has only had two titles of it before in the past 9 years, and has had a much hjigher install base to work with, so the sales are expected (although, I imagine another SSB game released, at least, soon, probably would not see such great sales unless it change something big).   Comparing these games to the Wii-whatever series, however, shows how far innovation can go.  Also, yes, perhaps an innovative game flopped, but that's just one case you provide.

This post was not up to snuff with your usual works. It didn't address why the Wii is failing to attract gamers.

Balme Nintendo because THIRD PARTIES DOESN'T MAKE GOOD GAMES is just plain retarded.

What do you want? That Nintendo goes to 3d parties and gives them money to make games? do you think that Sony and Microsoft do that?

Of course not.

If 3d parties can't make good games because they need super duper graphics and visuals then said companies deserve to fail.

CoD was noted as innovative for the prestige feature... now what was that saying about human excriment in a box? Innovation doesn't mean good or bad and a lot of people are using it as a convenient word to hide for what is being ignored. Nintendo's games have a wide appeal, if Nintendo is a business then they found Cortez's Spanish gold.

So it's "I blame Nintendo" instead of Wii Fit?

FTR I don't believe Happy S was understood properly; all he is saying is that games on the HD Twins from third parties are the same as their predecessors in all ways except the upgrades and he was specific as to how... It is my understanding that these games (the predecessors) would not work as well on the Wii, this was proven through out 2007. Games that are the successors to them on the HD Twins feature values appreciated by an understood demography.

So the reason Nintendo games sell well is because they are on a Nintendo platform designed for that game and not the other way around, that is the strength of being hardware and software proprietorship oriented company.

The solution to third party woes was already stated clearly by Shigeru, place your best teams on the track to use your established IP's to SELL Wii's or reep what you sow otherwise.