| kowenicki said: The only thing I can say is that, co-incidentally, the games that sell the most seem to be the ones I enjoyed the most. there are exceptions of course but this is mainly the case. Crap games rarely sell well. Isnt that an indicator of quality? (again despite a few exceptions) |
No, maths' logic and statistic incarnations are against you on this.
- If you meant: "this supports the idea that a better selling game is generally of higher quality, in general"
If quantity A being very low correlates well with B being low, it does not imply that higher B makes higher A more likely in all regimes. The relation can be totally non-linear and include other parameters, as effectively it does in this case.
"Very heavy people rarely run 100m in very low times. Isn't that an indicator that the better your 100m time, the lighter you are?"
The answer is obviously no, because being very heavy is most likely an impediment, and yet great times come from technique, muscle development etc. The best you can say is that a great time is very unlikely to be performed by a 150Kg athlete, but that does not imply that if an athlete runs the distance much better than another, then he's likely to be lighter. I.e. you're only predictive on extreme cases, but not on "normal" ones.
- If in a more limited way you meant: "this is a case where sales are an indicator of quality, in specific"
A=>B does not mean in general B=>A
Thus even if all crap games sold badly (and it isn't so), that would not imply that all badly selling games are crap. A 200Kg person being fisiologically unable to run 100m under 10s does not imply that everybody who can't run 100m under 10s weights at least 200Kg.
And in this thread we're talking about the reverse implication, ie from sales to quality.
