misterd said:
Zucas said:
Not to get all theoretical here, but theoretically bad games are determined by good games. Meaning if all the bad games were "ridden" of then you'd rate the left over games on the same scale. Narrowing it down a bad game would be something we'd rate in the 80's now. Meaning technically it is impossible to get rid of bad games cause quality in our world is based on a scale that is not proportional to how the actual title is but more or less in relation to the entire market itself. Meaning for their to be good games, theoretically there has to be bad games. |
First, just because there must be bad games doesn't mean we have to BUY them. Note that I didn't say we should BAN bad games or outlaw them, but boycott them. Besides, I disagree with your premise. If I were to get rid of The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, and Citizen Kane, it would not make The Adventures of Pluto Nash any better. Similarly, dropping Ocarina of Time wouldn't have helped Superman 64. Sure, skimming off the top films WILL make good and even mediocre films more palatable, but true crap is unsalvagable. The weakness in your argument is in trying to fit all rankings on a relative scale. While we can argubly distinguish between "good" and "great" by which we enjoyed more, we typically define "Bad" as something that gives little or no pleasure. If all we had were crappy videogames, we would not think them good. Rather, we would stop playing videogames because they failed to entertain. |
I don't think you understand what I was saying. I never said we compare good games and bad games individually. We don't say that this game is better because it's better than that game.
I stated as a whole games are reviewed in comparison to the market as a whole. OOT got high reviews cause comparatively to the market it was very innovative, new, and better. However if OOT had released and their were numerous games already out like it that had done something like that or was better in play, then it wouldn't get as high of review scores. Theoretically you could say given those circumstances everything else would drop down a notch proportionally which would give what I just said.
Remember this is thinking theoretically. Your taking it as if this is happening. All I'm trying to say is quality, like in any other market, is based on how good it is comparatively to the rest of the market, not how good it is individually. I mean if you went off how good something is by itself, then where would you know to start, especially if its a new product. Thus it has to be done that way.
So as I said in theory without bad games that are reviewed bad the games that are reviewed well wouldn't have those same scores. Cause no longer could you say well look how much better that works over the market, cause now your in a market of only those same quality. Thus seeing that we'll still have the same reviewing scale, the scale will be "tougher" as that's all it has to work with and you'll get those titles with lower scores. Same if it was the opposite way. Theoretically of course becuase I can't predict the future.
But it all goes back to the concept that quality is comparison not individual.
