Rpruett on 11 December 2008
| Xponent said: The difference here is that what you define as quality is according to a criteria outlined by a small elite, whether they be gaming reviewers, film reviwers etc. What I am saying however, is that quality, being an inherently subjective measure, is in the eye of the beholder. If the majority disagree with an elite minority in a subjective evaluation, that does not make them wrong. If you want to define quality according to metacritic, then fine, but it will clearly disadvantage Wii and DS, because some of the gaming elite won’t even accept casual titles as games at all. But to define quality according to sales is equally valid, and more representative. You can’t deny that it is more representative, and its all subjective after all. |
Little Big Planet is a casual game that got rave reviews on Meta Critic and elsewhere.
I'm not saying you're totally wrong, but quality of a game should not be based off of sales. Quality of a game is/should be based on many areas of criteria. For example, Metal Gear Solid 4 has undeniable quality (Graphics, Sound, Gameplay, Online mode, etc). Wii sports is a cheap game that is packaged with the Wii that shows off the basic controls of a game, sure people own it but your forced to own it.
