That is all I read in your sentence.

The sales determine the popular response to the platform, not its quality. More people buy from McDonalds then from a fancy restaraunt. Does that mean the fancy restaraunt has worse food then McDonalds? No, of course it doesn't.
To put it into game terms, Angry Birds is one of the greatest selling games on the planet. Does that mean that Angry Birds is a better game then Xenoblade? No, of course it's not. The DS was cheaper then the PSP and had more stuff that was kid-friendly for the system, namely Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon. That, and the fact that a lot of people own more then 1 DS, is the main reason it did better then the PSP. The PSP's audience is much smaller then the DS's, meaning it will likely not sell as well.

You're acting like I was disagreeing or something. It was just a question.

And those were some of the worst references I've ever read. McDonalds to a restaurant? Angry Birds to Xenoblade? Unfair, ignorant comparisons my friend. Please be clearer with your opinion.

@Cerealkiller You really outta read that statement in context...as well as, you know, the rest of the post, where he immediately says that's false.

...how much money the company made, obviously.

Also, I think Moomoo made pretty fair comparisons. I don't see how anyone could justify the quality of food at McDonalds...

EDIT: I didn't see the "Angry Birds to Xenoblade" part. That's a tougher one, as they really have nothing on common as a game, and neither failed to achieve what they set out to do. Both are more or less technically sound. Sure, some people may enjoy one more than the other, but that just comes down to tastes. I think what he's trying to say was that Angry Bird's success rested with factors outside of the actual quality of the game (It's cheap price, constant support, and once it got going - loads of advertising), whereas Xenoblade has become well known within the community based purely on its own merit.

He was reffering to the sales. just because angry birds sold more than xenoblade, that doesn't mean that it's better

Was'nt Angry Birds free?

[/div]

Only on Android because Android games are pirated a lot.
EDIT: For clarification, it's so Rovio makes money off the ads and it prevents piracy.

It also helps promote Rovio and the Android platform.

So when a game sells millions, it's probably not good? There are some exceptions but I don't think that's totally true.

You seem to have a very Black And White attitude about things. Just because high sales don't equal good doesn't mean high sales equals bad. What I've been saying, and what I think everyone else is saying, too, is that sales don't represent quality one way or the other at all.

But you're not understanding that high sales can represent a quality product. And, last time I checked, most bad products don't sell well.

Edit: But yes, I know where you're coming from.

You've never heard of McDonalds? Anyways, yes, good products can sell well. But so can bad products. I think it's safe to say that the original PS2 and the first version of the 360 were heavily flawed products. That didn't stop them from selling well. Lets not forget all the high quality games that end up overlooked and abandoned in bargain bins for one reason or another. To put it simply, sales rest on more far factors than just quality, therefore making sales an untrustworthy determination of quality.

I think we both can agree that sales can determine a product's quality but it also cannot.

...no, no we cannot. As I've said a thousand times by now, sales mean almost nothing about the actual quality of a product or platform. That's my opinion. That's my observation. And obviously they are not coinciding with your opinion on the matter. All we can agree on, is to disagree.

None of this matters because we know that every video game console ever made is named "Nintendo".

I agree with Mickeymac on this one:

This game had a HUGE number of copies sold

Point proven.

Does anyone else hate angrybirds. I'd rather play Zenonia. I have the original on DSIware and 2 through 4 on my iphone 4S. Angrybirds is a cheaply made POS that nobody can say they beat because every few months they add levels that they try to force you to down load. And, I might as well add, the birds kind of resemble Sega's 8-bit version of their Flickies with the only difference between the two characters being wings on the Flickies. In my opinion Angrybirds is plagerizing Flickies just as badly a Disney did when they plagerized Kimba the White Lion to make The Lion King. And sadly they are all getting away with it.

Mickeymac is right. 28.5 million sales of Wii Play, and it was total garbage.

Games are sold by the hype that surrounds it. Do you think every consumer who buys a game knows exactly if they will like it or that it'll be an excellent game? Not at all. Most of them have no idea and only get it because that's what the latest craze is and its popular. Or just because the game is appealing to them in some way, but they might not know just how much of a quality purchase they're making. Not everyone reads the reviews of games before they buy. Yes, good games can get good sales, but they can also get bad sales. If a game gets bad sales its because it wasn't marketed to the point where a lot of people wanted to buy it. I'll just use this less extreme example. New Super Mario Bros. has sold 28 million copies and Super Mario Galaxy has sold 10 million. Like Super Mario Galaxy or not, it was one of the most critically acclaimed games of the year, yet it didn't sell nearly as much as the DS game that came a year before it.

On the note of the topic, "What the DS could've been called"
I like the name DS, it sticks.

[/div]

[/div]

[/div]

[/div]

That's a really good point actually. I remember I got super hyped for Super Smash Bros. Brawl, despite me never playing Melee or the original before. Granted, a month before it released I bought Melee and adored it, but you make a really good point. And although there are more DS systems out there to act as a counterpoint, considering Mario Galaxy is the second highest game ever made from a critic review perspective, its hard to argue.

And yeah, Mickeymac is right when it comes to sales not being the best indicator of a quality game. Pac Man and E.T. on the Atari are two of the systems biggest sellers, and we all know how those turned out. There's a lot of other examples, though Zack and Wiki and Wii Music come most to mind to me, since Zack and Wiki sold pretty badly for how great it was, and Wii Music... let's just say it wasn't all that great.
Oh, and Little King's Story, which the fanbase of this site gave Game of the Year. Not a huge seller either.

My point with the Xenoblade vs. Angry Birds comment was to point out that sales don't reflect the quality. It was supposed to resemble the hamburger vs. steak comparison, since Xenoblade is $50, is quite ambitious, and is one of the best games on the Wii, though it didn't sell amazingly. Angry Birds is $1, not ambitious, and isn't as great a game as Xenoblade. However, Angry Birds is cheaper and has sold way more then Xenoblade, so by sales logic, Angry Birds is a better game.
Emman did a better job at establishing the point, though.

Anyway, I'm glad Nintendo stuck with the DS name. It makes sence, since it has dual screens, and it rolls off the tongue nicely. It's pretty unique too, so that helps.