Shouldn't success be measured by the games?

[Bodhesatva]

naznatips said:

Bodhesatva said:

naznatips said:
Okay, well now that we've gotten this far, how far are you willing to take your analysis of quality? Are you willing to take 2 games you have determined to be good like say, Halo and Wii Sports, and decide whether one is better than the other? Or at that point do you consider the data to have too many variables to be more specific?

I already gave an example for this, actually. Bioshock > Motorstorm in an objective manner, I personally believe. BioShock vs. Halo, though? That's too fuzzy. So, personally, that's about where I draw the line.

Yes, I read that example, but there is a reason I picked Wii Sports. It's because Wii Sports and Halo are completely different in target audience. So what I'm really trying to find out is: Are willing to compare quality between a game targeted at adolescent males and a game targeted at families, or do you try to keep your deductions on quality between games of similar audience.

That particular one is tough, precisely because I think many would agree that historical perspective will matter a particularly great amount on Wii Sports. Also, Wii Sports has sold more, but Halo has a better critical average, so it's difficult to decide how to weigh what.

However, there are many examples of cross-genre discussions I'd agree with.

Is "The Sims" better than "Stranglehold?" Yes. Is "Rock Band" better than "Ninja Bread Man"? Yes. Is "Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction" better than "Brain Age?" That one is too close, for a variety of reasons, for me to give an objective opinion.

Hope that helps show where I draw the line.