I gave a fair comparison just a few posts up, The general consensus was the competition always performed better in most cases, and when looking further you could claim the competition had higher reviews from critics as well.
That's interesting, because some of your comparisons are flat out misaligned and indicate your lack of understanding what game genres and sub-genres are.
Alex Kidd<<<<< Mario, Mega Man, Metroid, Castlevania, etc.
The only fair comparison here is Mario. Mega Man is an action-platformer with heavy emphasis on weapons-based action, the Alex Kidd games are not designed this way. Metroid is similar but also focuses on exploration. Again, the Alex Kidd (as well as the Mario games, at least to a large extent) are not designed with this type of structure in mind or as a goal. Castlevania, similarly, is an action-platformer with a focus on macabre themes and melee-based weapons...I don't need to repeat myself again.
Virtua Fighter<<<<< Tekken, Tobal, Bloody Roar, etc
I need remind you that the original Tekken was, in terms of mechanics, actually a VERY simple game and lacked a lot of the depth of Virtua Fighter. Plus by the time it came out, it was actually up against Virtua Fighter 2, a game with even more depth than its predecessor. Additionally while the character designs in the original Tekken were "unique", they were mocked by a good number even at the time, and look straight up cheesy today. The Virtua Fighter character designs are plain (almost to a fault), but they have a more timeless design.
Tobal was a very different type of fighter; it used a basic Punch/Kick/Block system similar to VF (as well as Zero Divide, an underrated series of fighters from that gen IMHO), but again, was very simplified and provided less nuance. It was also designed specifically for the console market, unlike VF and Tekken, and it's arguable part of the reason it did not see an arcade release is because in terms of mechanical depth and movelists, it would not have fared very well against more robust competition. Tobal, therefore, has more in common with "anime fighters" like the various DBZ (and later Naruto) style games; they aren't trying to provide robust competitive gameplay the way VF, Tekken, or SF did.
Bloody Roar? The series has a bit of a cult following, but there's a reason it is not played regularly at FGC events this day and age like the latest Tekken and several of the VF games are. The Bloody Roar games basically used beast transformations as a gimmick; it was appealing and a cool hook in the first couple of games but the series hit a wall by the time even the 3rd game came out. It has more in common with Tobal in the fact that it did not aim to have a lot of depth. I suppose, one could call it a more refined style of fighter that Battle Arena Toshinden traded its moment of fame off of.
In any case, due to a lot of those differences, the only valid comparison here is Tekken, and it's arguable that Tekken did not start to reach near the depth of VF2 (let alone VF3) until Tekken 3's release. And while the series has traditionally done well in the West, in terms of scene presence it wasn't as strong as VF in Japan, and generally has been seen as having lesser depth and game mechanic options/complexity. That perception continues to this day, actually (but I strongly disagree with people who imply Tekken is just a "button mashing fest". It's anything but).
Daytona, Sega Rally, Metropolis, Crazy Taxi<<<<< Driver, Midnight Club, Ridge Racer, RUSH, Crusin, Need For Speed, Colin Mcrae, Wipeout, Screamer, etc.
Again, some of these comparisons make zero sense. Driver was a pseudo-GTA style game and (arguably) laid the groundwork for GTAIII just as much as GTA 1 and II did. It aims for a completely different vibe and atmosphere than an arcade racer like Daytona or Metropolis, even. Midnight Club was not a contemporary release to the items on the left of that comparison, coming just a bit afterwards. It has its own flair and there are people who could perfectly prefer it for that just as those who wouldn't prefer it for that very same flair.
Cruisn' only really had a notable limelight with the original arcade game and that was partly because it ran on hardware people thought the N64 would go on to use. Of course, that didn't end up happening. Its performance in arcades was pretty decent but Ridge Racer and especially Daytona reviewed much more strongly and were bigger draws to boot. Cruisn's N64 port was seen as dated even at the time it came out, and was not a fully accurate port of the arcade game, either. The later Cruisn' games never really captured attention in the same way the original did, and the series' reputation is generally one of a fun & cheesy arcade racing franchise.
Need for Speed is a bit of an odd one because, for starters, the Saturn did get a port of the original, and also the fact that a lot of the later NFS games went in a very different direction from a lot of the games on the left of your comparison. I think the last NFS game that really "felt" like classic NFS was Hot Pursuit 2; after that the series chased the nightracing import car scene popularized by Fast n' Furious, and seldom returned to the more wholesome style of the earlier titles.
I have zero way in seeing how Wipeout is a similar type of racer to Daytona, Metropolis etc. to be compared to them. It's a futuristic-themed scifi-style racing game, again going for a completely different vibe and angle than the others. It's more closely related to F-Zero and Extreme-G. Screamer? That is a fun little racing series, but was PC-only, and in terms of racing mechanics or physics does not really reach the heights of something like Daytona, Sega Rally, or Ridge Racer, which were seen as the cream of the crop of arcade racers for the '90s. It's arguable how much of that vibe Screamer was aiming for, but it holds up better to second-tier arcade-style racers like some of Jaleco's late '90s 3D racers, the Cruisn' series, etc.
Shining Force, Phantasy Star, Beyond Oasis<<<<< Secret Series, Star Ocean, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, YS, etc.
This one feels like you leaning very strongly on ad populm fallacy-style arguments, and/or personal/anecdotal perspective. Generally not a good idea. Realistically speaking, nothing approached the popularity of FF or DQ in those days (including various other JRPGs from other developers), so it is a bit fruitless to use their popularity alone as a means to imply the items on the left were not good. Popularity does not wholly correlate to quality, especially in an industry where marketing and advertising (and nostalgia) comprises SO MUCH of the contributing factors to a product's success or failure.
Which of these games people prefer is ultimately down to their preferences and subjective tastes, but it's worth noting that the Shining and Phantasy Star games received very good reviews from critics at the time, and are still regularly discussed and played for a reason. Same with the YS games, but using your flawed rhetoric for a moment, by the measures of popularity, the YS games would be judged as worst than any of the others in your comparison. Which just goes to show the inherent flaws in using ad populum fallacy (or similar) argument points.
Gunstar Heroes<<<<< Contra, Metal Slug, Super Smash TV, etc.
Again, this is something that reeks of ad populum on your end. Gunstar was made by ex-Konami staff, and seen by many as an excellent run-and-gunner. It reviewed quite strongly, but had limited distribution partly due to Treasure being such a small developer (they likely were not able to order a great deal of cartridges). It's seen as one of the best games of the generation, and for good reason, and sits in great company with the best Contra and Metal Slug releases, while featuring game design concepts very unique unto itself.
Why is Super Smash TV in this comparison? It is, again, a VERY different type of action-shooter, with more in common with Robotron 2084. Arena-based, single-screen action shooters with virtually no emphasis on platforming. That doesn't sound like any of the other games in your comparison, does it? By the same token, it isn't AIMING to be like them, either. That's something you should really try to remember.
Sega GT<<<<< Gran Turismo, Forza, Grand Prix Legends, EA F1, etc.
This is probably one of your fairer comparisons and I think most would agree Gran Turismo and Forza outstrip Sega GT in terms of game mechanic refinement and the such (even if both Sega GT and Forza shit on Gran Turismo 1 and 2 in terms of graphics; if you meant GT3, you should've specified). The other ones are up for debate, the EA one in particular, as EA developed/published a few mediocre F1 racers during both 5th gen and 6th gen.
House of the Dead, VIrtua Cop<<<<< Time Crisis, Area 51, FMV games, etc.
If you're going to ignore sub-genre classifications in your comparisons, at least keep it consistent. Virtua Cop - Time Crisis is a fair comparison, but which one would be considered better comes down to the preference of the player. They both make some different aims in terms of game mechanics to set themselves apart, but the general consensus tends to side slightly with the Virtua Cop series in those comparisons.
Area 51 would be more comparable to HOTD, maybe? I've never seen them as that comparable other than both being light gun shooters. In terms of visuals, HOTD certainly holds up better as it isn't using digitized sprites for the enemies. Also, Area 51 uses prerendered 3D backgrounds as video footage (or some variant of that), which is a pretty clever choice for a game in a genre known for being on-rails. However, that can also impact the feel of verisimilitude in the player's soaking of the game world, at least the way Area 51 does it (and that's mainly down to the digitized sprite approach).
Even so, one's an alien invasion/military combat brigade themed shooter and the other is a macabre zombie horror themed shooter; in terms of things like music, dialog, atmosphere, character and enemy design, story bits etc. they're going to naturally deviate greatly. In other words, there's no reason a sensible player can't appreciate them both.
...and, uh, what FMV light-gun shooters are in this comparison of yours? In terms of actual game quality there's not a single one that holds up to any of the other games you listed. I'm also very certain there are none that have earned anywhere near the revenue or sales numbers as the games in your own comparison, as well. The fact it's listed here at all, like another person mentioned, feels like a complete troll move.
----
If there's one last thing to note of, it's your seemingly insulting/standoffish/antagonistic tone. Not to anyone in the thread, really (at least from what I've noticed), but to the topic itself. I've noticed that people who respond in these kind of topics the way you and the OP do, generally had at least some type of connection with these things in the past (whether personal, financial, or some mix of both), and came out feeling burned or done wrong, having your trust betrayed, etc.
That in itself is okay to feel; a LOT of people felt that way with SEGA inbetween all the add-ons and bad calls with advertising, etc. However, the people who went through that at the time are probably adults now, at least in their late '20s if not older. Part of being an adult means being able to discuss these kind of topics (or any topic, honestly) like an adult. Someone who expresses a difference of opinion in a way that betrays some tinge of pettiness or lingering spite is, frankly, not displaying a great deal of maturity. We've all been hurt or let down in the past but with this topic in particular, enough time's passed to move on from that and to be able to discuss it in a more respectful and well-minded way.
No one really has anything against people who simply don't prefer a style of game, or a particular offering, etc. If they can articulate that like an adult and keep their positions relatively well-reasoned, respectful, on-topic with as much of the wider scene outside of themselves as possible then that at least deserves respect even if you and others see things differently. But bringing up random bits of proposed data or information, in a way belying an antagonistic spirit, and with very little in the way of objective and balanced subjective analysis, shows off a child-like mentality and tendency.
TL;DR: some folks really need to stop thinking this is still a 1992 playground. You're an adult now; whatever your opinions are, at least construct your points with the level of effort and mutual respect/understanding an adult would.
EDIT: It's highly likely you would try to argue I am interpreting your statements/comparisons wrong, but you clearly flavored your initial statements with subjective/personal taste that indicating a viewpoint regarding quality, then backpedaled to imply in terms of sales (which is not even completely accurate itself in a good chunk of the comparisons) instead.
You only did this because
@SpongebobSquaredance called out your lack of consistency in your conflicting argumentative points.
