Ubisoft dev: "Wii is a refurbished Gamecube"

[Zlejedi]

Metallicube said:

Zlejedi said:

Metallicube said:

Read my #2 above. Nintendo fans buy things because they are Nintendo products. Nintendo fans buy Mario games just because its Mario. They are retro fans.

 

Other than that, 'younger' gamers are more likely to get the cheaper kiddy console for Christmas than the slightly older ones who have to get a job and buy it themselves. The Wii doesn't outsell because its better, it sells better because its targeted to a younger audience (other than the retro gamers).

Uh huh.. And who exactly are you to say whether or not the Wii is "better," are you the god of gaming or something?

Quality is relative. The only TRUE and universal way we can measure quality is through sales, because it shows that the product is appealing to the most people. If Wii TRUELY was not "better" than its competition, at least in some ways, it would not outsell them. Simple as that.

Selling to young people has nothing to do with Wii selling 30 million more than its nearest competition. Last I check there are just as many young people in the world as older people. In fact these days there seem to be MORE young adults playing videogames than children.

That's a good joke. By your definition McDonald offers some of the higgest quality food in the world. And that's what Wii precisely is - cheap well advertised hamburger for masses which will fill your gaming stomach but won't be a choice for most people who like to eat good dishes (core gamer).

Ok, so then what is quality?  See what I mean.. ANYTHING you answer, will be your opinion, which means it is relative.

What is it about Resident Evil 5 for instance that makes it so superior to Just Dance? What if a 12 year old girl loves Just Dance but can't stand Resident Evil. Is she right or are you? You both have equal fun when playing your respective games, so who's to say one opinion is more "valid" than the other?

 Again, I realize we all have our own definition of quality,variety is the spice of life and all that, but what I am saying is the only way something relative like "quality" can truely be MEASURED in a concrete way is to look at what the MOST people like, in other words, SALES. It is the biggest sample size.

Think of a politician; if a politician recieves the most votes, they are generally viewed as the best politician suited for office. Sales work in a similar way, as people are voting with their wallets. They are investing their hard earned money in them, and thus saying "this is what I view to be best, and I'm showing my support by spending my money on it."

Think of many of the works of art, artists, entertainers, authors, books, games, movies, etc. of the past that we currently consider to be the standard of quality in our society. They are likely people/things/ideas that recieved the most popularity and thus have withstood the test of time in society. The things that weren't as popular faded, and were forgotten, because they weren't as liked. The things that stand the test of time are generally the things that recieve the most acclaim, or sales. And it's these things that are viewed in the grand scheme of things as being of the most quality.

The McDonald's comparison is laughable. Much of its food is notoriously BAD for you. Thus it is of less quality (for the human body at least).. Is playing Wii "bad for you?" I doubt you could make a serious argument that it is. In fact, it is actually quite good for you. Just look at Wii Fit :)

Quality in games is very easy to define- the games with highest quality are those that push the hardware restrictions to the boundaries of what's possible for the system. Therefore SMG1&2 are top quality games even if i don't want to even touch them with 10 foot long pole Just Dance is low quality which happens to be fun for some people.

Also political analogy would be correct if we lived in ancient Athens but since Romans invented populism it's hard to assosiate word quality with politicians. Especially when president election in USA can depend on who looked better in tv debate.

Now you mention books  but can you honestly say that Twilight saga is high quality book ? It's written like a crap and yet sells shitload of pieces. Also a lot of what we know as quality authors or painters died in poverty because they had problems with finding buyers for their stuff.

With the current day trend if something sells well it's usually sign it's accesible mainstream product , high quality stuff usually doesn't sell nowhere near it.