theprof00 said:
Even with mario kart that only makes 32m. If we are going to start deciding for ourselves what counts as a AAA game without using some kind of actual system then we are going to be getting anywhere. But I'm sure that is the point of arguing this simple little interesting tidbit. If you think we should include MKWii, which, IMO is not as good as DD or 64 except for graphics and controls. They did away with supermoves..... If you think we should include that, then we should include ps3 games that should have beat 90, drakes, ratchet and the orange box. Which would put ps3 AAA games at 26 million, which equals an average of 1.33 AAA games per console and leaves wii with .8 AAA games per console This was meant to be just an interesting fact about what kind of games system owners buy, thanks for raising the shields as always. This.
|
The point is, metacritic scores are simply one way of defining ‘AAA’. Ultimately, these scores are subjective, and represent the opinions of a specific demographic (That is, the hardcore readership), quite removed from the mainstream, as sales would indicate . Obviously, as you imply, it’s impossible to be absolutely objective here.
Contrary to what you suggest, its not a case of simply deciding for ourselves what does or doesn’t constitute ‘AAA’, rather, what I believe RayRay102 is implying is that sales performance is another useful approach for judging quality, particularly from the point of view of the consumer. The results in this case would completely different from the metacritic approach.
By this criteria Mario Kart Wii is indeed ‘AAA’ because it pushes hardware and dominates the charts. The assumption here is that a good game is one that sells well. Nonetheless, sales data is arguably a wider and more representative measure than the views of the hardcore elite.