| WereKitten said: @Khuutra We agree about the reviews, |
Tssssssssssssss
The point about sales is two-fold. In the first place, sales are a better indicator of public opinion or general consensus or whatever Starcraft called it: sales, especially sales over time, are a much greater indicator of how much people tend to like games, particularly games that they show to friends who then buy it. Word of mouth plays an important role in Nintendo's evergreen titles. If you want to see what the public likes best, look at the games that stay in the top 50 for longest.
The other half of it is that sales are nonthing except for an objective set of facts: there is no interpretation involved in any step of the process of recording sales, unless you want to go so far as to say that people making choices about which games ot buy ruins the objectivity of this set of facts (which I don't believe you would). That reviews themselves exist as they is an objective fact, that Edge reviewed such and such a game in such and such a way is a fact, but hte review itself is still a subjective interpretation of an experience base on certain value sets which may or may not be universal depending on the audience.
My point is that reviews are not objective. Aggregate scores are just objective compiling of subjective pronunciations of quality, and that reviews themselves exist in fact does not change that they are not, nor are they ever objective indicators of quality.
