Seriously? Sales?

So Wii Sports and Call of Duty are the greatest phenomenons due to sales?

How the hell is this still going on after all these years. Yes, when you love a franchise, you want it to sell well just as much as any fan of a game or company will lick their ass. Im a pro in this regard. But sales by no means says anything about the game if not showing a good marketing campaign. Unless we manage to filter out the word of mouth based upon the sales lmao.

Now if you analyze the games and share your opinion, well then atleast it is rather more personal hence people giving shit about reviews, but hopefully its reviewers who shares similar taste to themselves and not for example Bob from Welikegames who gives every game a 3/10 and only writes a score without any motivation (yes I just made that up).

Wake up fellas. Halo 4 would sell better but that does not make it the better game. The fact that you have to resort to these manners clearly shows a sheer desperation. Albeit one can argue that I show something similar as I am writing this. I choose however to believe that I am doing this because one decent person will see this and go "Fair enough" / "Good point" and thus fullfilling the purpose of a forum -> To share my thoughts.

He did say "Halo is so lucky". Why would Halo feel lucky to have the holidays to itself when it still would have outsold LOS by a big margin?

And dont degrade my comment to a stereotype. Halo 4 has been in developement for over 3 years. It isnt a cut as paste campaign and a 1-2 year rush job like COD is. And Halo online options are way more varied and numerous then COD.

I wasnt so much referring to online, but the rich experiences you can get from online. CODs online has a one track mind, very unlike Halo online.

Ive always operated under the one-two punch mentality: sales and meta. When I priase a game for its sales, chances are the meta is very respectable. Every mainline Halo is 90+ anyway so I fail to see your point. Its AAA in quality and sales. Wii Sports is 70's meta and COD is high 80's meta, rendering those examples refutable.

I dont really think that is what he was saying and I don't believe quality applies when talking about Halo as every mainline halo has scored above a 90.  People are going to defend something when someone says it's "Lucky".  Halo redifined the FPS genre so i don't really consider that lucky, I consider that an achievement.  

So Modern Warfare 2 having 94 Meta has it just as good as Halo 3 and since sold better => IS the better game?

Wow.

I'll go 92-93 on Meta but I really wouldn't be surprised if I was off in either direction a point or two. Goty? Who knows but it will be my goty regardless. That's easy though cause I don't play too many.

Granted MW2 was arguably the peak when the series wasn't getting too stale (it really only took off in 2007 and 2008 COD was a WW2 shooter).

90+ is 90+. No need to sweat the numbers if its above that. Its all AAA so you still didnt refute my comment how Halo has quality and sales to back it up.

But I will say this: Sales = Winner, not better. COD wins over Halo, but its all 360 so really, 360 wins. By comparison, the competition loses.

And all though I do cite meta, quality is always in the eye of the beholder. Many gamers would argue that MW2 was a better game. Many would argue for Halo. When 2 games are above 90, any argument can have merit because they are both surpurb games. Point: "Better" is subjective when dealing in 90+ games.

But clearly your citing the 360 version....cant give me any PS3 examples? :). Your really taking this to a different track. Halo mainline entries have 90+ quality and sell several millions. It can stand up to any PS3 exclusive like the LOU.

Usually I do agree with you because you seem to have reasonable arguments and you think a lot like me but this time it just seems your saying what you're saying because it's on 360.  When you look at todays Halo vs todays Call of Duty, Halo will win in quality everytime.  MW2 vs Halo 3 was very similar sale wise and metacritic wise there for a lot of people will argue which one is better.  As you said this was call of Duty at its peak.  MW2 ran very smooth and brought in new features with new weapon streaks etc
 
It also didnt take very long for people to get mad at MW2 due to balancing problems and horribly designed maps.  If reviewers would go back and review MW2 months after it was released it is very doubtful that it would have gotten a 94 where as Halo 3 still had bungies support years after the games release.  That is the difference between a good and bad company. 

Anyways, although I think call of duty is much better on 360 than it is on PS3 due to XBL being far superior over PSN Ps3 players still have Call of Duty so they are making profits as well.  Maybe not as much as Microsoft, specially when it comes to DLC but I sa both sony and MSFT wins on that front.  

Your best point though is Halo mainline entries always get above a 90 which shows the consistency of quality where as Call of Duy has become stale.  Last of Us is very different from Halo and I'm looking forward to it as I've said before but the guy who said Halo was "Lucky" is just being ridiculous.  Not because Halo sells more, but because both of these games will most likely have a 90+ metacritic but Halo will probably last for many people around 100's of hours, where Last of Us will only last around 20.  As I said Halo has way more content than Last of Us so that is why it's not "Lucky".  

" Point: "Better" is subjective when dealing in 90+ games."
Are you so naive to believe that a game that has say, 89 or hell even 70 can't be better to somebody over a 90 because it is objectively wrong?

If so.. "Wow" once again.

"But clearly your citing the 360 version....cant give me any PS3 examples? :)."
Not sure what you are getting at here. PS3 examples of what?

Awards and critical wise, Uncharted series are one gem of this generation and they sell pretty damn good. The gap between Halo Reach for instance and Uncharted 2 (despite being about a year apart [rather that then Halo 3's 2 year apart]) are like 3.5M. The gap between Reach and Black Ops are about 4.5M.

Now granted, all games I would say are "good" and it comes down to personal preference (despite Black Ops not being 90 meta and despite Uncharted 2 having a record of 96 meta), whereas the sales does not add jack shit to the equation of our perception.

Otherwise, going by your definition and I quote

"When 2 games are above 90, any argument can have merit because they are both surpurb games. Point: "Better" is subjective when dealing in 90+ games."

So we have established that 90+ games (I'd say that isnt even required but whatever, for the sake of making my point I will "agree") :
Comes down to your own opinion.

Would you not say that a game above 5 Million in sales is considerd selling "well" and in the end also boils down to own opinion?

Im not trying to piss on the fact that Halo sells well and is well recieved no => my point is that the sales doesnt tell you ANYTHING regarding its quality.

Black Ops having the lowest meta followed by Reach followed by UC2

Yet the sales are the exact opposite

Also going back

"Comparing Last of Us and Halo is ridiculous but as I said before Halo will have a ton of content while Last of Us will be played once and be done with"

How is it ridicilous when you don't even know the MP aspect of TLOU? What says quantity of the content in Halo equals the quality in TLOU? Yes we've been through this and we know Halo will be a quality title. But how delusional can you be to believe that TLOU doesnt stand a chance because of the wording "content" and "content" alone. Perhaps TLOU will revolutionize gaming for all we know. WE CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW BECAUSE WE HAVE YET TO PLAY THE GAME. Vice versa applies to Halo 4 albeit we've seen glimpses of that atleast and the game has leaked.

If you fully read my last post I said that sales has nothing to do with quality. It is about winner and loser (when compared to another game), what gamers want, the line between running your mouth off on a forum and actually practicing what you preach.

Im sorry if you associated sales with quality because I sure dont.

"How is it ridicilous when you don't even know the MP aspect of TLOU? What says quantity of the content in Halo equals the quality in TLOU? Yes we've been through this and we know Halo will be a quality title. But how delusional can you be to believe that TLOU doesnt stand a chance because of the wording "content" and "content" alone. Perhaps TLOU will revolutionize gaming for all we know. WE CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW BECAUSE WE HAVE YET TO PLAY THE GAME. Vice versa applies to Halo 4 albeit we've seen glimpses of that atleast."

You dont have to be a rocket scientist to know that the main content from LOU is the campaign.

Halo has quantity AND quality, yup it has both. It always did. Just saying this all started with some guy saying that Halo was "lucky" that it didnt have to compete with LOU.

I responded that in sales (Aka winner), Halo 4 would crush LOU. Content wise.......we dont know wnough about either game but I think Halo can stand up to any game in terms of gaming awards. Thats all.