Jump to content

Talk:List of best-selling video games: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 108: Line 108:
Rule of thumb for fighting games: UP is always in some way used to jump. An 'action button' cannot be jump.
Rule of thumb for fighting games: UP is always in some way used to jump. An 'action button' cannot be jump.


Rule of thumb for platform games and beat em ups: They're not fighting games. [[User:Pé de Chinelo|Pé de Chinelo]] ([[User talk:Pé de Chinelo|talk]]) 21:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Rule of thumb for platform games and beat em ups: They're not fighting games. Let's put Tekken 3, the king to the top. [[User:Pé de Chinelo|Pé de Chinelo]] ([[User talk:Pé de Chinelo|talk]]) 21:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


== pgr3 ==
== pgr3 ==

Revision as of 21:08, 17 December 2008

WikiProject iconVideo games List‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

COLECOVISION SOLD 6 MILLION Donkey Kong carts, both as pack-in and alone.

Please do NOT delete the Colecovision entry, as it is stated by NINTENDO that the Coleco system sold 6 million Donkey Kong, as the court case Nintendo/Coleco vs MCA/Universal proves. Refer to book Game Over, page 117. Also in the book on page 121: Donkey Kong cartridges sold for Coleco system: 6 million, translated into $4.6 million. (Also see on mainpage under References, entry 46)...DO NOT DELETE THE COLECOVISION ENTRY.... Tomtomtomabc123 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read Game Over again buddy. Donkey Kong sold six million TOTAL copies, which means this includes sales of the VCS and Intellivision ports that were also done by Coleco. Since this list is sorted by console and not by sales over multiple consoles and there is no way to know how many of those six million copies were specifically sold for ColecoVision, the game had to be removed. If you want to argue for a change in format for this list, feel free to do so and we will all listen to your arguments and maybe even add our own. Otherwise, I bid you good day. Indrian (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might be so, but look at the main page. Did the sale of their conversions for VCS and Intellivision score over 1 million each? No they did not, otherwise it would be listed under VCS and Intellivision as million sellers. Therefore take away 1 million (let's say 500.000 for VCS (doubtful), 500.000 for Intellivision (very doubtful), leaves still a cool 5 million Donkey Kongs for the Colecovision. So I'm going to put it back. Tomtomtomabc123 (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We cannot assume things like that. Maybe we can get consensus for adding it for in a "others" heading... -- ReyBrujo (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to elaborate on what ReyBrujo said, you have presented a faulty premise, namely that our lists of million-selling VCS and Intellivision games are complete. These lists have been assembled piecemeal from the few reliable sources that provide video game sales and are in no way comprehensive. We have no idea how many copies of Donkey Kong were sold on those systems because we have no source for those facts. Indrian (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should suffice as a source for the 6 million figure [1]. Donkey Kong was bundled with every ColecoVision sold and the system sold 6 million units, thus 6 million Donkey Kongs. -Zomic13 (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MGS4

Konami's recent quarterly report indicates that the "Metal Gear series" has "sold over 4 million units" in the quarter and that the "Metal Gear genre/category" sold 4.33 million units; however, an article from psu.com, which cites the Konami quarterly report as its source, states that the 4.33 million figure in the quarterly report as Metal Gear Solid 4 sales. I don't see why the psu.com article should be used as a source for Metal Gear Solid 4 sales in this article or PlayStation 3, when we can see that Konami's quarterly report itself doesn't state that the 4.33 million sales figure is specifically for MGS4. --Silver Edge (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I normally use Gamasutra, and they claim 4.33m shipped for the series, and 4m for MGS4. I agree that when the sources interpret another source the wrong way, we should keep the original one. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd doubt that Konami's sales are up to date, but I am also a little doubtful that MGS4 sold 4 million chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 11:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

smash bros brawl vs tekken 3

OK not wanting to EW I thought I'd get editors opinion on whether you think Super Smash Bros Brawl is a fighting game, and should therefore be no.1 selling fighting game of all time, or not, on the list. cheers guys chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 22:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As said, Smash is not a fighting game, it's too different from real fighting games. No Hit levels, the Japanese consider it a Vs. Action not a fighting game. vs action is a genre in Japan. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes I know, thats why I'm asking editors opinion, as its a genre that exists in Japan, but does not, as such, exist in the west where it may or may not be considered a fighting game. there maybe arent enough vs action games in the west to consider that a genre. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it back to Brawl as to let there be a consensus whether it is a fighting or not. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo, in its page, says it belongs to the fighting genre. IGN says fighting too. Gamespot calls it a 3D fighting. I believe those are references strong and reliable enough to solve this dispute? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a fighting game? All you do in the game is fight. A brawl is just a big loud fight. Plus, since Nintendo, IGN, Gamespot and others all label it a fighting game, it should take the fighting game spot. -Zomic13 (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ah good so its not just me thinkin it is :D chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 00:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that... in US, Smash was the first of the Vs. Action genre, and because of that, they thought the game belonged to Fighting, as opposed to Japan, where there have been other Vs. Action games like Smash (AFAIK Konami has it in Wai Wai World for instance). Pé de Chinelo (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reference that says it is a Vs. Action game? My point is, there were two Smash games before this one, one in N64 and another in GC. I think they would have had time to change the qualification of the third game had they considered it to be a different one. Note that even Nintendo calls it a fighting game. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smashbros.com. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
where on there?? direct link plz. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 22:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Players: 1 to 4 Genre: Action. 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pé de Chinelo (talk • contribs) 

nuff said? let it drop now please. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tekken 3 is much more of a fighter than Brawl, Brawl, IF it is a fighting game, it has too many party influences to it. Tekken 3 is the pure fighting game. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so on that basis you would say mario strikers is not a football game because its not 11-vs-11 and has silly characters, or that sonic riders isnt a sonic game because its not a platformer, or parasite eve isnt a survival horror coz its an rpg not action adventure, or gitaroo man not being rythm action because it doesnt have an accessory? chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rite i've had it with your continuous edit warring despite logic and sources. its on the incidents page now. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested in seeing a proper resolution, an RfC on Chinelo's edits has been started at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pé_de_Chinelo. Feel free to comment chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 10:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of thumb for fighting games: UP is always in some way used to jump. An 'action button' cannot be jump.

Rule of thumb for platform games and beat em ups: They're not fighting games. Let's put Tekken 3, the king to the top. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pgr3

has anybody got any exact details on pgr3's sales. almost everywhere claims its sold at least 1.5M copies, but its not on the 360 list (prob coz of this) if anyone can find it. i know pgr4 was a flop (released around the time of halo 3), but i think pgr3 being missing is a big miss. (launch title etc) cheers guys chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vgchartz. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VGChartz is not an acceptable source for this list. -Zomic13 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the 360 list with PGR3 but can someone put the link to vgchartz PGR3 page as Im new and dont know how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaza13 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Games

Shouldn't there be a sandbox genre in the genre section? Because I think Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is like the best selling game in that genre. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be... -- ReyBrujo (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbox isn't a genre. It's just a term used to describe non-linear gameplay. A genre is a specific type of game (i.e. action, sports, racing, shooting, platformer, etc.) while the term "sandbox" can be applied to describe the gameplay of games from any of those genres.-Zomic13 (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots sells 4.33 million copies!

Here is the article.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=285433

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6200752.html?sid=6200752&part=rss&subj=6200752 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguy681 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being on the look out for new sales figures, but please see the MGS4 discussion above for why that figure is incorrect. -Zomic13 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party games: genre?

a guy named Pé de Chinelo is calling Tekken 3 the best-selling fighting game, not Brawl. He called SSBB a party game. I know its not, but is party games a genre?GamerPro64 (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ignore him, he's exhibiting either tekken fanboy or anti-nintendo mannerisms. he was trying to get it classed as a Vs action game before. every site (inc all nintendo official pages) except smashbros.com class it as a fighter. he was actively involved in the discussion and I consider the evidence conclusive. He keeps reverting and I have left a message on his page explaining this. If he reverts again he needs reporting.
there prob should be a party game, but SSBB certainly isn't a party game. party games are like mario party, sceneit etc chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 19:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why it is not a fighting game? -No HP -No button sequence attacks, such as hcf+hk (special attacks and magics are by pre-defined buttons) -The characters don't fight at the same line, as there is platform jumping in the battles -No hit levels -Too many party influences. pure fighting games don't use items, they use SKILL -It requires no skill unlike Tekken 3 which is an actual fightin game Pé de Chinelo (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm upset about you now. And besides, this section is where we are trying to find out which game is the best-selling party game ever. Let it go! GamerPro64 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Chinelo. Don't be stupid, stuff like that is dynamic in beat em ups. Its the core of the game that makes SSBB a fighter - an arena and hitting each other. Its like a roleplayer, theyre all diff - some have random battles some dont, some use hp some use a % scale. let it drop or action may have to be taken. consider this your only warning before it goes on incidents page. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brawl is more of an action game. Pé de Chinelo (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jus coz u say it doesn't make it so. the majority has spoken. it IS a fighting game. having got the game i can tell you i haven't played the adventure part so i have only played the fighter. let it drop chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 22:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No HP, no button attacks, no skill? Has Pe De Chinelo ever even played Smash Bros.? Smash Bros. is a fighting game and he's going to have to get over it and stop wasting our time. -Zomic13 (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this topic http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=208&topic=46973296 Pé de Chinelo (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is this? Are you one of those people on the Gamefaqs thing? And good news, you just added another thing to your request for comment thing due to a similar incident you did.GamerPro64 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't surprise me if he's all the guys on there, GamerPro64. Its fun to talk to yourself in public isn't it, Chinelo. Just leave this place, you clearly cannot contribute beneficially so don't bother. Also, GameFAQs isn't a reliable source anyway so we would disregard it anyway. Goodbye. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List format

A user has modified the list to show the different sections as ordered lists instead of dots. I reverted those modifications, since I believe using numbers gives the impression the lists are absolute. However, if others believe numbers are necessary for sorting, I have no problem in changing them (using # instead of ol tags, of course). Of course, the franchise uses them, but it is a single list and not several ones. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it sounds like a good idea. It can help show how many games reach a million on a single console. However, the user did do the same with the best-selling genres section. And that seemed stupid. If you revert it like that, don't add numbers to the genre parts.GamerPro64 (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with ReyBrujo, this list is not an accurate ranking since our data is incomplete, so we should not give a false impression through using numbers. Indrian (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put a LOT of time into renumbering that wiki (yes I used OL and LI tags instead of # as I'm fluent in html but had only edited a whole 2 wikis as of me formatting this one). For you to just up and undo the changes, THEN open a freaking talk page was inconsiderate and just plain lame. It's a hell of a lot easier to go through and get rid of all those OL and LI tags then it is to go through and renumber each individual item.
Bullets are nice for short lists. They make a point. But when you're talking a gigantic ass list like this, using anything other then numbering is just plain stupid. OL tags (or the # wiki tag if you so wish to use) are ordered list tags and they do just that...order the list so people don't have to sit there and point at their screen counting "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7..." to see what the 25th top selling game is for playstation.
And as for this crap about "it's incomplete"...DUH! Of course it's incomplete. This list has never, and will never, be complete. There's always going to be a new console and new games and new sales records. It'll go on and on. And as for it being official, it's A WIKI. In high school, college, and in the military I've been told wiki's cannot be cited...ever. Because of their unreliability due to anyone being able to change said data (or in this case, format it from an easy to read system to something way more difficult to read...being that makes so much sense).
Disrespecting someone's want to add organization to a very large and very hectic list is nothing more then a sign of a control freak.
As for renumbering this thing, one of you all can do it. I contributed, got slapped in the face, and now I'm going to step back and let you guy's play "Wiki God's: The Legendary Journey".
--ZeroAccend (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i believe policy is 2 stick 2 the original format until concensus is reached, so it was correct to revert then discuss. sorry, and thx 4 the work u put in chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving us your point of view, and sorry if you felt offended, it was not my intention. The etiquette for Wikipedia is usually "if you make a change and someone reverts it, instead of redoing your changes you open a discussion in the talk page". Considering an inexperienced user did the change, I opened the discussion myself. And while I don't like the general tone of your post, I understand your frustration. If other users agree that numbering is needed, it is a matter of replacing all the * with #. If they think it is not necessary, the list will stay this way. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply came here to help out the wiki and make it more readable/user friendly. Wasn't looking for a thanks, hand out, donation, props or whatever. I've referenced this page more then a couple times which is what brought me to the point of numbering the lists. When people are looking up certain games how are they suppose to know what number on the list that game is without counting from the top down. I can't seriously be the only one who thinks this makes sense. I've made all the points I can for the defense of my logic in my previous post above, the main point being it organizes the list by making it more readable and easier to sort through.
What benefit does bulleting have? It lists points just like numbering except it's unorganized. It's like having a graduated cylinder that measures liters. Sure, using dots to mark the 1/2 or 1/4 liter points is fine, but when you get to milliliters, who would want to count up 351 or 887 dots? Numbering is your friend when working with more then 2 or 3 or 10 things.
Also I'm having a problem with this "they" you keep talking about. Who is "they" or "other users"?
"If they think it is not necessary...If other users agree that numbering is needed..."
I noticed the same names over and over in this wiki's talk page. Do you want their general approval or is "they" any number of random people who say "yeah, good idea". If so, I'll get ya a few posts this talk page saying "Yes, numbering is a common sense formatting move" by tomorrow afternoon if it's truly what you're looking for.
And as far as replacing * with #, man that's a ton easier than doing the <OL> and <LI> method I used. My method was derived from the "new guy has zero experience with wikipedia but knows his html" logic. I'm not going to complain about it though. On the contrary it was nice to learn something new. But regardless of how you number this thing you still have to double check your work line by line. You don't want 1 character that's off skewing the whole page (did this yesterday when i was editing another wiki. Caught it and fixed it.)
I know my attitude probably isn't taken well but I get defensive when people want to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I respect the fact some of you have your own opinions about how numbering could be perceived but be realistic about this. Almost everyone who comes here comes for a quick reference or to cross check what they read on another website.
My 2 cents...
--ZeroAccend (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents: I don't believe the numbers imply that the list is complete. I think most people would just wand to see if game A sold more game b (which they can do without numbers), but I agree that some people might want to see which is the Nth best-selling game on ___ console. A numbered list makes this a lot easier. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 08:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as was said earlier, the list is incomplete, you want to be able to know where a game is in the list, but there are 2 problems. 1: missing games - there are games with no ref that shud b on the list, eg pgr3 sold about 1.3m so any below will be 1 lower position. 2: references - all r different dates so an accurate position cant b made. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears most of those pushing for a numbered system believe that this page has an accurate ranking of best-selling games, which I believe only reinforces the point that adding numbers will leave readers convinced we have complete sales figures for every game on every system and have generated a ranking of top games, which of course is not the case at all. This should be avoided. There is no value in knowing which game in the list of Playstation games is in the 25th position, because we are probably missing data on 5 or 10 games above it so that appearing in the 25th spot on our list means nothing at all. Indrian (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (and in reply to ZeroAccend) when I refer to "others" I talk about Wikipedia users in general, readers and editors alike. If you see few names here, it is because a) the topic has a niche importance; b) it is extremely hard to come up with new games and references (especially for old games); and c) the list format is very simple and doesn't really require a lot of maintenance. ZeroAccend acted in good faith and being bold, which is what Wikipedia enforces. I am just taking another path, the one about consensus. I acted in the belief that having numbers may mislead users. However, I am pretty neutral (which is why I am relying in thirds to give feedback).
One of the advantages of having numbered list is to use IDs lo let readers and editors determined games. For example, the fourth best-selling PlayStation 2 game according to this list (no matter which one is now and which one will be in a year) could be accessed as List_of_best-selling_video_games#PS2_4, and the tenth best-selling Wii video game as List_of_best-selling_video_games#WII_10. It may make the list a little more complex (as you need to add a span to name the id), but may allow direct browsing.
However, one of the disadvantages is using the list as reliable. For example, the Final Fantasy article reads The series has been commercially and critically successful; it is the fourth-best-selling video game franchise, only bested by Mario, Pokémon, and The Sims, and Square Enix's best selling series, with more than 85 million units sold as of July 7, 2008. In this case, the article is using an article in Edge magazine, but others may use the Wikipedia article directly.
We can try having the numbered list for a while (a couple of months) to see how it goes, if others complain or not, how the editors, readers and forum goers quote our list. If it is indifferent, we can keep either. As I said, I am pretty neutral (in fact, for the franchise list I used numbering because it is a single list), so if Indrian agrees to try it out, ZeroAccend can modify it (just to let him practice the markup ;-)) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've come across many Wikipedia video game articles which use this list as a source for sales rankings, for example: Super Mario Kart, Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec, Diablo II, and even featured articles such as Final Fantasy X [2] [3]. Those are only some of the articles I found and corrected, there may be some articles that I have yet to find and correct. And this was while the list was not numbered, so it shows some users have come to believe this list is an accurate ranking even though it is not numbered. If it is numbered, I believe we'll come across even more instances where articles will use this list as a source for rankings. --Silver Edge (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
chocobogamer, I'm aware that the list is incomplete. There are some notable omissions due the the lack of reliable sources. But the list is incomplete whether it is numbered or not. I can see how you took my "see which is the Nth best-selling game on ___ console" comment though - I suppose I was forgetting that to a non-wikipedian, the scope of the list would not be so obvious. You are right that the page should not be taken as an accurate ranking and with that being the case, then games should not be listed in order of sales at all - numbered or otherwise. I'm saying that if they are going to be ordered the way they are, they may aswell be numbered. If they're not numbered, the list should be alpha-sorted to completely remove the implication of it being a reliable ranking source. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Online

I think we should remove Metal Gear Online from the list. It says that it has 1 million members but this is a list tabulating games sales, not how many members they have playing it. Metal Gear Online was included in MGS4, so it is double counting the numbers on MGS4 and MGO. For this reason I believe it should be taken off the list. --Xander756 (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamefaqs

Everyone knows what Gamefaqs is. But do you think we could make it an unreliable source like VGChartz is? Just suggesting.GamerPro64 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Gamefaqs is already unacceptable for use as a source since most of the site is user-created content. -Zomic13 (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
already assumed it was chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is implicitly known that user-generated sites (GameFAQs, Digg, N4G, etc) are unreliable unless they have some kind of editorial done by the heads of the site. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

layout

anyone reckon the layout is a bit messy? i was thinking about using a table similar to:

Game Title|Total Worldwide|Japan|US|Others

maybe also have a tick column for confirmed sales rather than shipped.

I think it'll keep it tidier, be able to sort by name, sales in total/country, console in the 'combined' list.

what you guys think? chocobogamer mine 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_video_games&oldid=258644493"