Gears 3 Not nominated for VGA’s Game of The Year

[Michael-5]

selnor said:

Michael-5 said:

selnor said:

And this proves my point. Quality is subjective. 

You may thiink a film is shit. But others may not. 

@ Micheal

Saying any self respecting gamer is another way to say people who agree with my opinion. 

There is no such thing as a self respecting gamer. Just people who agree with what you consider quality and people who disagree. 

Films and game frannchises dont continue to sell unless people love them. At lest not in the milions and increasing each iteration. Sales does mean more people value that game. 

But sales don't tell you how many people really enjoyed the game. A lot of people buy Call of Duty just because it's Call of Duty. Just like a lot of people buy a brand of product just because it's that brand.

Self Respecting Gamer - a Gamer who plays more then CoD and doesn't let personal opinions judge the quality of the game. osama is letting opinions judge the game. You may not like Skyrim, but it's a good game. I for one am not a fan of the game because I don't see much improvement for Melee battles, but everyone I know who actually owns the game has put in 70 hours plus into it, and I have never heard of any game affecting a large amount of gamers like that.

Let me extend the arguement with some examples. Final Fantasy XIII-2 will sell millions just because it's a Final Fantasy game. Yet XenoBlade, a game of much higher quality, will sell crap. Yes XenoBlade is on the Wii (which definatly hurt sales), but still either way, no JRPG really has a chance to top Final Fantasy sales. Is Final Fantasy the hands down best JRPG, or is it the most well know and hyped? Many would argue that the best JRPG ever made was Chrono Trigger, or Super Mario RPG, or even Dragon Quest IX, yet despite best in genre quality, a mainstream Final Fantasy Game will always outsell these.

How are the games medium different from movies? Sales =/= Quality, simple as that.

Yes there can be bias in nominees and winners, but that's why different websites or award shows are more critically acclaimed (this goes for Movies too). Most people don't care about the Grammy's for instance, but an Oscar. Same with games, I don't care much for Spikes GOTY, but I'm interested in Gametrailers (they only supply videos for Spike), and VGC.

Its not different what makes a good movie?

Or better yet, to you what makes a game quaity?

Brand is diferent from Games or films. A brand is an item. Completely emotionally irrelevant. People stay with a brand because of the item lasting and providing trouble free use. 

People will not Buy a game or film if they thought the last iteration or even last 2 iteratons were bad. A person will only buy a game or film if they enjoy it. As is an emotional attachment. 

What is COD on now. 4th ieration this gen? It sold over 6 million in its first 2 hours. Are you telling me that a game which  people average over 300 hours of gameplay and had more people que for than any other game is not viewed by the majority as the best game of the year?

I disagee with movie awards also. 

Sales is the only way to show where people are wlling to spend there money. Which is a good guage of where people WANT to spend there money. Sometimes a new frachise will need word of mouth and longer to grab peoples attention. 

But someone who tries to say x game is better for y reason and should get game of the year, completely misses te point quality is an emotion iinvolving taste. 

Skyrim for some people has 300 hours gamplay. Others will do 2 hours and move along. I know loads of people who are well over 300 hours on MW2 and black ops. Yet some like me and you have tried it and moved on.

Content, game world, hours to completion etc etc are all subjective on the individual. 

A quality game is preobably different among different people, but I would think some more universal aspects of what makes a quality game are: Level of polishness and refinement (Glitchy = bad), Unique content (Number of Multiplayer maps, sizes, story duration, etc), quality of campaign (Pacing, is the objective clear, is the game interesting enough to keep at it), and unique experience (Did the story move, or shock you? Was the game fun?). The last aspect is subject to bias, but that's what makes award shows unique.

Anyone can look up which game sold the best, if Game Awards were based on sales, why would people need to have an award comittee? Why not just look it up?

Sales =/= how much people enjoy a franchise. High sales could be due to high advertizing, wide appeal, accessibility, and other factors.

Do you think 5 or 10 year old kids who buy CoD bought it because they know it's good? They bought it because everyone else is buying it.

What about Just Dance 2, do you think it sold over 8 million units because it's such an amazing game? It's a good game, but because most of the sales go to women (who normally wouldn't play games) it sold better. In Fact 80% of Women gamers play games on the Wii (one of Nintendo old E3 Press Conferences), where only 20% of female console players play on PS3/360. Does this mean that most gamers (typically male) will find Just Dance 2 or 3, a great game? NO!

Accessibility also plays a factor in sales. Mario Kart 3DS won't sell well this year because not many people have a 3DS, and it's releasing in December. Yet if Mario Kart DS and Wii sales are anything to go off, Mario Kart 7 will outsell Modern Warfare 3's sales. So shouldn't this then be GOTY?

COD is easy to pick up, and has a wide appeal, people play it for an hour at a time when they get home, you can't do that with an RPG or other genre game. Also quantity =/= quality, people who play CoD play for multiplayer mostly, there is not story, plot, or anything in multiplayer, just mindless action. Since when does mindless action become an indicator of a good game?

Having a wide appeal is not an indicator of quality. Yes MW3 already has sold about 15 million units combined, and is on track to 25 million units (which is likely to be less then Mario Kart 7), but the metacritic user score is 3.2/10, and the combined website score is a mere 88/100, which isn't special for games. It doesn't matter that more people bought the game because sales aren't universal (people will buy the game because it's the only game they know, because of advertizing, or because everyone else is getting it).

Like I said before, if 15 million people played the game, and the average score is 3.2/10, is that a good game? Just because everyone is playing it doesn't mean it's good. I'd rather give GOTY to something people show that they like, having low sales does not tell us what games people don't like. Reviews and user opinions tell us that. Sales =/= Quality, Sales == Quantity, which are two completly different indicators of success. How you don't see that, I don't know