| RolStoppable said: I guess I've understood it then. The thing is, as much as it may hurt you and others, those games he called not real Mario games are of lesser worth. If that wasn't true, these games would sell in the same ballpark as the games he called the real ones. I think the problem is that most people equate being worth less with being worth nothing. Or just let us turn this around. The Super Mario Bros. games (the real games) are worth more than the others. Sounds less offensive to me. Then again, maybe I didn't grasp it, because I can't say for sure what the problem is. Fire Emblem is worth less than The Legend of Zelda. Doesn't sound wrong me, but those are two different brands. Link's Crossbow Training is worth less than Twilight Princess. Yup, I think that's more like it. Another thought is that you people completely ignore the sales perspective and go strictly by the quality you perceive in these games. But what makes you think that your personal taste is more important than the consensus that is arrived at through sales numbers? All these Mario games launch under very similar conditions: good development budget, good marketing budget, full attention by Nintendo. There are no notable disadvantages for any title, so it's fair game. 3D Mario games are worth less than Super Mario Bros. games, but they are still worth more than the vast majority of other games out there. Khuutra, a word of advice if I completely missed the point here. Think of an example that turns the tables around and makes me see what you people see. |
There is no absolute metric of quality outside of personal experience; other people's metrics of quality should not matter to you, nor do they to me, but on that same token one should not shit on what other people care about.
I don't believe in using analogy when I can just say what I mean to say.
"Worth" in this case is not a measure of financial value.
