RolStoppable said:
What is the definition of quality? A product that is worth its price.
That's not how quality is defined. How would you then measure quality of any art in the public domain. Quality is measure by its degree of excellence, which, in most cases, is entirely subjective.
If there is a delicious dish served at a restauraunt that was almost universally loved and it quitupled in price - it wouldn't suddenly be of lesser quality, but rather less valued.
On another note: You use the word 'worth' in your definition, which is, of course, entirely subjective.
1. This is why it's better to listen to the consensus of people who paid for it (sales) 2. than those who get not only to play it for free, but even get paid for it (professional gaming journalists).
1. Sales, however, are not necessarily a consensus on a people's opinion on a product so much as it is simply representative of how many people felt compelled to buy that product for whatever reason.
2. I haven't made the argument that it is better. I think both measures are unreliable.
Now this is not to say that a game that doesn't sell well is automatically bad. Like you said, there are things like timing, marketing etc. that can have a huge influence on the success or lack thereof. But a game that achieved huge sales numbers must have at the very least some sort of quality to it.
Agreed. I'd mentioned that there is no doubt a correlation between the two (just as there is with professional reviews). However, it's the strength of that correlation which is in doubt.
1. You aren't happy with this train of thought because hype and marketing can distort the picture greatly? 2. You are right, that's why it might be a good idea to discard the sales of any game in its first two months. After that time period the dust has settled and the game has to sell on its own merits. However, this way of looking at it makes the comparison only more favorable for the Wii.
1. I'm neither happy nor am I unhappy. As I had said before, quality is subjective. I could not care less of a game's sales and especially its critical reception. Assessing it myself or from someone from whom I have similar tastes is the most reliable way.
Secondly, I don't think that that is a fair stipulation. There are far too many variables involved. For example, if a sequel is to be released of a well-loved game, people will purchase the game heavily leaning on the fact that they believe the developer to be reliable. The game may not expand much further due to several reasons - namely, accessibility. I fully appreciate what you're saying here, but it is grossly oversimplifying.
2. Responding to this part would make the assumption that I believe sales to be so conspicuously indicative of quality. I do not.
Beyond ignoring launch sales and only looking at long term sales, it would also be a good idea to factor in the selling price over this time period. Simply put, the longer a game is able to hold on to a high price tag, the higher its quality has got to be.
Quality is something different to different people. This is undeniable (you need not ask more than five people to find this to be true). The difference between our stances is that you are making an absolute statement, while I am not. Quality is perceived and can, hence, have no objective measure.
To summarize: A game that doesn't sell well isn't necessarily bad, but a game that sells for years at its initial RRP of $50 or more can only be a quality title.
Based on personal experiences, that would seem to most often be the case. There is no doubt a correlation. There are, however, more variables than simply quality - accessibility being the most important I can think of at the moment.
I apologize for the half-witted response and, perhaps, the confusing format... it was written in a hurry.
|
