theprof00 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. |
What the problem is is that you want a handicap. There are casual wii titles that are AAA on MC.
The criteria for a game to be AAA is first and foremost, this? Could the game possibly have been improved without using more space. That is, was is tested enough to the point where a tester couldn't find anything to improve on?
Mario and Sonic at the Olympics completely outdoes Wii sports and yet you claim that wii sports is the triple a game. If anything it should be S&M that is included, not wii sports. But then again M&S could have been better. The problem you run into is that later on in the lifetime of the console, better games come out, and if you've given wii sports a 92, then what do you give a game like de blob? SMG? conduit?
