Shouldn't success be measured by the games?

[Bodhesatva]

naznatips said:

Bodhesatva said:

Why would we need to divide it into markets? Take Halo, as an example. It sells well here, and in certain European countries, but poorly everywhere else. Yes, that absolutely means that this game is less good than it would be if everyone in the world liked it. A better game would do better in Japan. Regions shouldn't matter. The better a game sells, the more that speaks to its quality.

You're saying that the picture is fuzzy, and thus we can't reach conclusions. I'm saying the picture is fuzzy, but we can reach conclusions anyway.

Make sure we note that: I'm not arguing that the picture isn't fuzzy. I'm arguing that all pictures are at least partially fuzzy, so where do you draw the line? Where does a picture become so fuzzy that "fact" becomes "opinion?" VGChartz is consistently 10-15 percent off, on average, on a monthly basis. NPD states they're 1-2 percent off. And this is just what they tell us is true: what if they're wrong? They could lie. It would require a vast conspiracy, and while I don't think a vast conspiracy is likely, it's possible. As in .00001 percent, but that's possible.

Clearly, you draw the line before I do. I think I can objectively and conclusively say that Bioshock is a better game than Motorstorm, as an example, because it excels in all the metrics we've presecibed. Bioshock against Halo, though? That is, in my opinion, too fuzzy, so that's about where I'd draw the line, personally.

Given that there is nothing absolute, everyone draws the line for "opinion" and "fact" in different places. I draw the line at a different place than you.

 

No, regions do matter. They absolutely matter, and you know that. The Japanese reject games of certain genres on principle. Halo sold poorly in Japan, but so do all FPS games. Is an entire genre of games now bad in Japan, just as an entire genre of games (casual games) are bad in America based on reviews?

I am not arguing that there is an absolute. What I'm saying is that there are just far too many variables in quality. You said sales, reviews, and legs all add up to equal quality, and yet those things all 3 correspond only rarely. Many games sell to different markets. Again, you yourself made an entire topic about how out of touch reviewers are. There is no general analysis of quality.

And what do we do about games that were reviewed highly, but then had those reviews retracted later? Black & White and FFVII come to mind, both of which appear on many official review site's "most overrated games" lists. We trust reviewer's opinions the first time. Do we trust them again the second? Does that not invalidate the first opinions? What about things like longevity? Is it still fun to go back and play Final Fantasy VII?

My problem with this Bod is you are trying to simplify something that has too many variables to be simplified.

I understand what you're saying. I'm saying there aren't too many variables. There are lots of variables, but not too many. We just... disagree.

Here's a reasonable and easily understandable analogy. Lots of people on NeoGAF hate VGChartz on principle, but there are a few who object to it in a reasonable fashion. Their objection: data that is off +-15 percent on a consistant basis is not worthwhile. For data to be worthwhile, to them, it needs to be NPD/Media Create quality, or within +-5 percent.

And that's a reasonable opinion, I think: they draw the line at a different place than we do. Similarly, what you think is too fluid and inconsistent is something that I think is concrete and consistent enough to be calculable.