Michael-5 said:
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 |
The problem with that is 1-2% actually bother to have a voice. And most likely hardcore gamers.
Just because women like to play JD2, does that mean we should exclude their opinion?
As for the user ratings system online, they are massively broken. Fanboys downvote all te time. BF3 fans downvote COD MW3 and vice versa. Even on VGC it Happen. UC3 was voted heavily down as was Gears 3. Its pathetic but it happens.
