pastro243 said:
Your first parragraph is like you need a game to sell trillions and appeal to many people to be considered innovative, making games that are actually good but niche and dont appeal to large groups of people seem bad. Oh, and the way you talk about quality being nothing but an undefined word is the same way you could talk about gameplay being good or bad, it seems to me that people have the stupid idea in their minds that a good looking game is the same as a game with no gameplay. There is a lot of fail there, it gives me the idea you need a game to sell millions to be considered good, I hope you dont think the same about movies where you would think transformers 2 is a great movie or in music which would mean you consider the jonas brothers good. Actually, quality of a game can be known because it excells in what its meant to do, if its a shooter that doesnt make shooting good, its bad quality, if its a fighter thats unbalanced its bad quality, if its an online game with crappy online its bad quality. So Id tell you to apreciate people can find good games on sony consoles even if these dont sell as much as the nintendo first party games, and stop the fanboy debates to make others people choice of consoles look bad when its clear both nintendo and sony console owners can get great things from their companies of choice. Oh, and to many people here, before you post try to think a bit, if you think before you post you can actually avoid stupid comments and insulting others. To the thread, its clear the ps3 isnt the answer that would cover all of the wii and 360 fans tastes even with move because it lacks the software that made them choose their consoles, that, added to the fact that the ps3 costs money, makes them avoid getting one. |
If you took quality at face value and just applied the word with no clarifications then quality = sales, sales = quality. Quality would in that instance mean the sum of all positive attributes of a game like accessability, value, fun, novelty etc. You have to qualify the word quality for it to mean anything aside from the sales success of a commercial product.
As for innovation, if noone bothers to copy something then its probably no good. If a game is 'innovative' but it barely sells then again those innovations are probably not worth copying and won't mean anything in the longer term.
Graphics != fun game. If you drew a graph and placed graphics on one side and sales on the other then you'd see no real causation between an increase in visual fidelity and sales/appeal. Therefore its a pretty dumbass move to remove important gameplay features to cater to a desire to create a graphical masterpiece, pretty simple stuff really.
The reason why Nintendo are like so much better than Sony at this game is that they make higher quality software. Quality meaning it has a ton of appeal and a lot of people like to play it. They are rewarded with excellent attach rates and good overall sales for their console because of their good work. They create games you cannot get anywhere else which also have a great deal of appeal for a wide range of people. In many ways you don't need the Sony 1st party efforts as you could ignore most of it and replace the rest with an equivalent multiplatform game. In addition to this, the Sony titles tend to be throwaway titles which people are only inclined to play a few times before putting away due to their reliance on cinematics, story, graphics which are onyl good for the first or second time through at most.
