@Squilliam
So, in the end, you are for the tautology where quality is defined by sales results.
Being 'fit' for some selecting criteria means being defined by those criteria. Some terrible children show may be fit for a combination of their requests and the market pressure, but that doesn't make it any less terrible ( do you remember the Mattel Chocolate Robot Show from the Simpsons episode?).
On the other hand a much better show, still aimed at children, might be better in every way, from production values to narrative and even serve an educational purpose, and still be less 'fit' for the market. Or even for the public: the children will most probably like the Mattel Chocolate Robots more than being read fairytales, exactly as they like eating candy more than eating fruit.
I don't want to go all the way to the "McDonald sales" argument, because that would be stretching it, but would you say the very same for movies, or books? That ticket sales and book sales give an _objective_ window for comparison between movies and between books? That spending those 12$ for the ticket or those 8 to 30$ for a book make it a more "honest" evaluation than a crytical analysis?
That would mean, I suppose, that Stephen King and Clive Cussler are better authors than Faulkner or Nabokov. And that literary critics are not in touch with the reality, because the reality that a review or critic should certify is that defined by the sales.
How come this sounds ridiculous for literature, but should not be ridiculous for videogames?
