It isnt funny, not at all. We have some hardcore fanboys in here. Its disgusting, how much nonsense bull***** was said in this tread. This isnt constructive in anyway, it trew away all kind of debate out of the water and mindless sheeps  keep following this kind of pathetic behavior if we keep it running.

I tought I would hardly see this kind of things here at VG, but this tread prooved that no internet forum is safe from closed minds and downright absurd bias.

^ ur takin bout OP rite???

  I'd say it doesn't appeal to the mass market, and that they don't view it as a game worth the price tag (whatever that price is)

Wait, so nothing that sells less than 10 million is memorable? *Looks over at Super Mario Galaxy*

  I never said 10 million was the defining point of memorable, that was CGI who made that statement I believe, no only thing I said in either this thread or another, was that Wii had far more 10 million sellers when someone claimed that Wii games weren't as well received as the games of the HD twins

You may be surprised by this answer, but TOO FEW! (at least too few home console games) Super Mario Galaxy will probably be remembered well. Metroid Prime 3 is much more memorable than most PFS games. I didn't like Zelda Twilight Princess, but since it's liked by som many I guess it will be memorable. Wii sports and the Wii series are pioneer games, It's very hard to tell how they will be remembered. If I have to make a list of what I think will be memorable, it will be: Super Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart Wii, Super smash Bros Brawl, Wii Sports Resort. these are the ones I guess will become memorable, the games I am uncertain of not included. I didn't mention any Wii series games because I really don't know about them. This is on Wii, but if you count portables it's many many more. 

Memorable is usually something that can be determined a long time after a generation, so I'm just making an educated guess, games that follow the latest trend usually become very forgettable, the FPSs and 3D brawlers of today are the Sonic clones of yesterday.

I'm sorry for not being able to explain exactly what I mean by memorable, but here is an example: Tetris for the NES, and Collumns for the Megadrive, one is memorable, and the other is totally forgettable. Or Sonic and Kid Chameleon, one is memorable, and the other was very good at the time, but utterly forgettable.

It's very silly to be arguing over what makes a game memorable or not. My thoughts are that hardly any games today are worth the plastic they're lazered onto.

Speaking of Mario though, this another thing that tells me Nintendo's had it easy because most of the Super Mario games past 2 have been using the same content over and over and over only changing to 3D or occasionally adding some gimick like a domesticated dinosaur or a water powerd jetpack.

It's no wonder now why it took them so long to make another 2D Mario after Mario World lost to Sonic The Hedgehog with public perception they didn't want any more direct comparisons.

Sega is the only game company that gave them a hard time and if they hadn't kept cutting off support for their consoles (especially the genesis) things might look a hell of alot better today.

This thread is being tugged in all directions, but scarcely in the one the OP meant, I suspect. I'd rather go back to the root of it all.

I'm still trying to understand how in practice the quality of what, say, Naughty Dog or Bungie produce as a development studio would be improved if the parent company was a "games only" company. Or are you talking about a more general "bird's eye" direction of the work of the studios in a collective sense?

Because I can't see -for what I know- much difference in the way Bungie, Naughty Dog or the Nintendo studio responsible for SMG tried to cater to what they thought were the customers' needs and desires. And as such I can't see all the influence of the parent company being or not uniquely focused on games, at least at studio level.

They were doing pretty good until they abandoned the Genesis in favor of the Saturn. If fact at one point they had grabbed over half of the market. Trust me if Sega wasn't so poorly managed we could very well have had much better effort from Nintendo.

^Nintendo and Sega are/was integrated Hardware and softaware companies. Both desingend their hardware around the software they wanted to make.
Sony and MS makes their hardware, and then they tell all of their scattered studios to make some software for it, not what software to make, just to make software. This is confirmed by the video where the Sony engineer talked about the motion controller that he was designing.
One may think that it's an effective way of providing much software for a platform, but in reality, the software made does not give the console an identity like the games that the integrated companies make. The game selection will just seem broad but shallow. Games like Killzone 2 and infamous are not console sales momentum drivers, they are just games like any other games made by any other company.

The point I was trying to make in my previous long post is that I want Sony and MS to integrate their hardware and software sections, and to make more LittleBigPlanets and more ICO games and more Halos (not litterarely, but you get the point). Not to prove what company is better, just what some companies are doing wrong and should try to change.

"Or are you talking about a more general "bird's eye" direction of the work of the studios in a collective sense?" Exactly!