naznatips said:
Sales have a defining source. After that, we extrapolate opinions. Sales numbers may not be exact, but they are something we can meassure. You could argue that gamerankings is our basis, and yet it clearly is not a concrete determinant of game quality. You say Halo is widely accepted as a good franchise, but I would say that Wii Sports is far more widely accepted as a great game. I'm basing that on sales. Some would base opinions on gamerankings. The problem is in a quality discussion, we don't have a single accepted medium of quality analysis. All we have, are direct opinions. With sales, we have a mediator for our opinions and analysis. We have a solid and tangible collection of evidence in between all that. Show me the solid evidence we have for quality analysis. Gamerankings sure isn't it. Any statistics class will tell you that 50 reviewers are not enough data sources to have even a slight grasp on popular opinion. Especially not in gaming, where you yourself have criticized reviewers for being so out of touch. You say it's generally agreed upon that the 360 has the best current lineup, but there dozens (including myslef) that would argue against that right here simply because the 360 lacks platformers and adventure games that they consider quality. If you say the Wii has sold the most worldwide, who is going to argue with you, past those who don't believe any data at all. Those people would be impossible to discuss with anyway. When you discuss quality you just add way too many variables such as individual tastes, mass market appeal, and coverage of genres. I understand we can take this too far Bod, but there is a gross difference between sales and quality analysis. That difference is the data set we have available for the discussion. |
What is this defining source?
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">