^As I pointed out claims of quality are opinions, I'm certain I could find Twilight fans that would say its the best thing ever, and just because you liked dirt, doesn't mean everyone would, alot of people would probably get bored with it.

Hence why say sales are the better measure of how a game is received and how wide its appeal.

No, I don't care what reviewers give games, because their reviews are opinions as well, what I was pointing out was the flaw in psrocks argument if he says Sony makes the best games, then by what measure, cause every measure says Nintendo.

Even if he says some of the best, that's also not true, as in both sales and Reviews I don't see many games from Sony anywhere near the top, reviews I see only Uncharted 2, and in sales the highest is Gran Turismo, which is way down the list.

So by what measure do you say they make some of the best games, they make good games, but I don't see the best

I think you just don't like the arguments because you don't have a response, you keep saying that sales don't equal quality, well then what does? Reviews don't because reviews are just opinions, so what defines quality?

Avinash: Let me break it down for you; if sales equal quality then you have to admit and agree that Modern Warfare 2 is the best game released this year, simple as that.

^Actually no, since its not going to sell the most of all the games put out this year, that would be NSMB Wii.

And I didn't say that it was a measure of quality per se, I said its a measure of how well a game is received and how wide its appeal is.

read what I wrote:

Why won't this argument die? The Wii is the most popular system. The mainstream media is in love with the thing. You see it all the time in movies and tv. What more do you want? Some games just don't work on it. Some people in the industry like the PS3 and 360 more. Get over it.

A measure of quality is wholly subjective, there are plenty of award winning movies I find tedious and almost all award winning music is shit imo. Same goes for many games, a lot of the highly rated games of this gen are completely underwhelming or even poor to me. And, yes, finding Twilight fans that would claim its the best thing ever is no hard feat...
Sales and reviews are a good measure of general reception, indeed, but it says nothing about the quality on an objective level.
And that's what I'm trying to communicate here; psrock's opinion is every bit as right, in his (and my) opinion Sony has made some of the best games around this gen, as have Valve, Blizzard and other developers and review scores and sales do nothing to change that subjective opinion.
It gets hairy then you start claiming superiority in your subjective opinion because it happens to coincide with popular opinion as well, a larger group that feels that something is awesome holds no merit over a person's tastes and preferences (I feel that Twilight and Harry Potter is utter crap no matter how many squealing tweens, or Soriku, tell me otherwise).

Of course, I know you're clever enough to deduct all this on your own so I won't bother with that anymore but don't go around saying that claim A or B is "utterly false" when it isn't on the same premises that yours isn't.

PS: What the hell is wrong with me anyway? Award winning music makes my ears bleed, award winning movies make me fall asleep and award winning games usually make me cry because they're not as good as I thought they were!

^You'll find that I don't disagree with much of what you said

But when people go around saying that quality games on the Wii don't sell, or that Sony makes some of the best games around, it falls into the same area of being subjective I mean you may like Sony games, I think they are rather boring. You may think that third parties put out good games on Wii, I disagree.

This is why I use sales as an indicator of reception and appeal, while sales may not indicate quality directly, the problem being that quality is largely subjective, sales are an objective measure of reception and appeal. This also why I use sales as a measure, while toehr things are subjective, Sales are something that are objective, maybe not of quality, but definitely of appeal and how well something is received.

The "Game Industry" is your culprit there. No respect at all.

Let's respect everyone's opinon's please. thanks for the responses everybody. Alot of you have good points in your post!!!!!

No piece of hardware EVER has recived so much hate like the PS3 did in 2006 and 2007 so stop whining

This, and hardcore gamers have always been into pretty looking games since the dawn of time, and anyone who's seen an HD game has a hard time going back to the Wii if you have an HDTV. 

Finally, and most importantly, maybe the biggest reason hardcore gamers/pubs don't care about the Wii is the control scheme.  Let's face it, playing an FPS, or TPS on Wii is janky at best.  The controls for traditional hardcore games are not good.  Tack on some motion controls, and you make it even worse (shake to spin jump) lift your arm to jump.  The BIGGEST reason that these games control like crap on Wii is NOT the motion controls though, it's the lack of a second analog stick.  I don't care what anyone says, using a second stick to control the camera is essential to quick, accurate, and responsive gaming. 

The pointer controls on the Wii are great though, so I give them credit there.  I hope to see all future consoles add in the pointer functionality.  On the DS3 they could put it right where the mini USB port is. 

But really, not having a second analog stick ruins the Wii for me.  It's essential to most of the games that I love.