Riot Of The Blood said:
As you have already acknowledge, that's not the best way to prove anything. Many of Capcom's most iconic franchises do not reach 90%. Nintendo's games get there on nostalgic reasons alone. Nintendo's games are also immune to the criticism given to other developers games due to their past accomplishments. Here's an example: Devil May Cry 4 is a highly percieved action/adventure game. However, the game only ranks in at 83%, and the main reason why are false claims such as it not offering anything new. The same argument could easily be made for The Legend of Zelda:Twilight Princess - GC, a game that ranks in at 95.5%. More often than not, Capcom's games are underscored for fallacious reasons (the game is hard, nothing new, ect). Nintendo's games are almost always given extreemly generous scores.
|
As others have already pointed out, Ring, there isn't much other way to go about this. Here are the ways I can imagine game quality being objectively measured:
Critical reception
Sales to consumers
A game's "longevity," or legs. Sales based on good word of mouth
Nintendo has historically the most number of games rated 90+ on either Metacritic or Gamerankings, by a wide margin. They're the best selling publisher in the world, and their games consistently have long legs.
You're absolutely welcome to your own opinion, I don't want to diminish that. But if there is any such thing as objective evaluation, then there isn't much room for argument here -- Nintendo succeeds under every possible criteria, be it commercial, critical, or lasting success.
Again, for greater emphasis: you're absolutely welcome to not personally like Nintendo games. I don't want to undermine that at all.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">







