Squilliam: "Sales do indicate a degree of quality in a game"
No, in a strictly logical way they don't. Gaming history is full of tie-ins with no redeeming quality that sold well because of their name.
Unless you define "quality" as catering to whatever desire a certain demographic can have, including playing a game that has Spongebob as the main character, however bad the game itself can be.
And that's only a step away from saying that quality is giving the customers exactly what is needed so that it is bought, making the whole quality vs sales issue a tautology.
I said indicate a degree of quality. A well made game can sell badly, but no badly made game can sell well. Badly made means not fit for purpose or barely fit for purpose. If the audience enjoys terrible childrens shows then whilst they are terrible (to me) they aren't unfit for their purpose. Sales can also indicate whether the game finds its market and you can apply a value judgement on that as to whether or not it was successful. Sales are an important consideration which has to be weighed next to the other metrics you may use such as reviews and personal opinion.
I believe that reviewers aren't always in touch with reality. Between developers and publishers influencing scores to the fact that they tend to belong to a similar and incestual demographic and fanboyishness on these forums it can be hard to pick reality from fantasy. Sales numbers give an objective window for comparison. Interpretation is another matter entirely, but there is a certain honesty in people putting that $60 on the table and walking out with the game rather than simply talking it up or down.
Tease.
