Experienced gamers are likely to find fault in areas where someone who is more mainstream likely doesn't. That doesn't mean that the games experienced by the latter are any worse than the games experienced gamers like. Infact in my experience it is the experienced gamer who would be more likely to overlook basic intangible faults whereas someone who doesn't play games as much isn't as likely to accept them, things like bad controls or confusing level design. For instance SMG2 camera angles and level designs make platforming a lot easier in 3D than most platformers, however no core gamer really picks up on that fact conciously.

I'm pretty sure most core gamers can recognise a bad camera angle however. With SMG2, recognition of camera angles may not be conscious, but experience counts for a lot which is why it may not be conscious. If you play a wide range of platform games, good camera angles become an expectation and I think poor camera angles stand out more. If you're a fan of the genre though, you'll recognise but accept these more basic faults thus gaining more knowledge and experience of the genre.

However, in the opposite side, their are a number of games that we can find fault with that have gone on to sell millions. The first Assassin's Creed for instance (which I actually enjoyed) had a lot of basic problems, but it's marketing was done superbly and it did shine in certain areas. Had it not been for the marketing however, I doubt it would have sold as well as it did.

The other point is that smaller games are likely to be overlooked by less experienced gamers. Unless you're actively engaged with gaming news, media and frequent forums such as this one, a number of games will simply pass your radar. I'm thinking Indie games like Galactic Civilisations, Mount & Blade, Darwinia and Minecraft. There are quality titles out there that won't have the huge sales of big budget titles, so I don't see how sales can be any measure of quality when most people aren't even aware of everything out there.

It's like saying Avatar and Titanic are the best films ever created because they made the most money, when there are potentially thousands of brilliant films made every year that most people will never even hear of.

Going back sort of on topic, the games we tend to discuss here are reasonably high budget console releases. If one game recieves less marketing than another game it is usually because the publisher didn't see it as a cost effective investment over and above any other title they have coming out and that is usually because they don't see a game as being as compelling. They money can be spent if they so chose so in that case the marketing angle is a red herring relative to the real differences between various console releases. On the PC that might be different but theres always room to apply a context to how well a game sold, like for instance a low budget self published PC title which sold over 1M copies.

Since these are entertainment titles a high quality title is one which gives the market more of what it wants and a low quality title gives the market less. If the market doesn't appreciate say 7.1 sound with occlusion in Uncharted 2 then that doesn't really add to the quality of the title since most people don't even play with surround sound turned on. What people want is fun and value for money the actual means that a title will go about bringing that fun to people doesn't really matter and the same goes for how that experience is prolonged whether its replayability, multiplayer or long single player campaigns.

neither to be honest, but if i had to pick it would be reviews, as some good games get low sales.

well, mass effect 2 on ps3 for me is put on hold because ive ordered hyperdimention neptune instead, ME2 is higher reviews and will have higher sales but does that make it a better game for me?

none, reviews lead to sales, and that is stil not a good reason 2 get games

none. i trust myself.

I think you're underestimating the effect of marketing on the sales of a title. Spending more money doesn't automatically equate to good sales (even with a good game) if the game is marketed poorly. The publisher can spend as much money as they want but if they make poor decisions like releasing in a crowded release window or poorly targetted advertising (or even external events that mean delaying a release), a game will sell poorly.

Take the average Call of Duty player for instance. How many other games do they even know of? There are hundreds of titles for each console, many are more critically acclaimed than the current Call of Duty releases and offer similar value, but many are unaware of their existence. I agree people want fun and value for money, but a lot of people just aren't aware of the alternatives.