Halo did that, but that does not make it a good quality game, by fact. No amount of numbered success will equate to it being closer stapled as factually good. To prove my point, Britney Spears has sold 31 million albums to Halo's 20 million games sold.
Now, if we apply your logic (Perhaps lack thereof) to that, she can't really be considered someone who makes crap music, based off the fact that she's sold that many albums. She's sold more albums than Halo has sold games. Your assumption that it factually isn't mediocre simply because so many of the MAJORITY AND GENERAL POPULACE chose to invest time in it, is ludicrous. The last thing you should be doing is using the majority to indicate what is and isn't good quality.
Sometimes the two coincide by chance, and something of great quality (Subjective ALWAYS) becomes successful; The Dark Knight, for example. That doesn't mean there's a set formula, or that its overwhelming positive response means that someone with a good argument as to why it sucked to them, is any less credible.
You are proposing that because it generated SUCH a response, there simply must be something there that elevates the quality by fact, and you're wrong on a general level.
As I said, Harry Potter books: "I don't read, but I've gotta say, those Harry Potter books are amazing.".
No, their ability to hook you in doesn't therefore mean all the books that didn't are inferior or lesser. It means you needed something specifically designed to make you feel good about yourself before you dared dip your feet into the literary water. Halo isn't any different. Non-gamers praising it doesn't actually give it any factually advanced quality on any other game, and if that's what you're implying, then you're being kind of redundant.
If you'd never watched a movie in your life, but then Superhero Movie coaxed you into a cinema journey, would you argue its artistic merits and quality over the likes of Apocalypse Now, The Godfather, Wall-E, There Will Be Blood or Citizen Kane? I sincerely doubt that you would.
Your general point is that it's quality because it shifted units. The world is full of unit shifters in every avenue of media and art that don't scream "quality.".
There isn't much need for me to dissect such an argument, because by suggesting it, you've defeated your own point.
Sales and figures mean nothing beyond "Here's how many people paid.", so to use them as indication of quality is useless. I am one of the 20 million people who bought A Halo game. If you feel that every copy bought was liked, then you're deluded. People rate how hype indicates that they rate it. Halo was Emperor's new clothes if it was ever seen. Same with Grand Theft Auto.
"Crap doesn't sell.", haha. Legendary. That might actually go in my sig.
$207,283,925. Do you know what that is? That's the overall gross of The Fast & the Furious. I rest my case. Crap sold.
Success doesn't indicate quality, major fail.
Prove me factually incorrect.
You cannot, because rating and success does not indicate factual quality. It indicates that a lot of people AGREE that it was quality, not that the quality is factual.
I say, factually prove it. Not its success, its quality. Success doesn't equal quality. For reasons stated previously.
I've brought civil and concise point after civil and concise point, you've chosen to retaliate with ignorance and accusing me of being conceited. Not once have to countered my points, and never shall you, because your argument boils down to the claim; "Sales and success indicated good quality.", and that is factually wrong as a general statement.
Their success is a fact, the quality isn't. Success does not mean quality, so the two are not intrinsically linked. Can you prove otherwise?