By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Vetteman94 said:
MDMAlliance said:

All of your posts are condescending not only to me, but to pretty much anyone who doesn't share your answer.  

The thing is that the statistic seemed to be counting only Americans and only "consumers," which could easily be only people who play video games.  That in itself skews the data.  When we count people who don't even play games or are not these "consumers" I doubt more of them know pacman.  I do know Pacman is popular, but simply knowing how much Mario is seen outside of gaming compared to Pacman gives Mario the definitive advantage.


SO because I dont share the same thinking you or others do, its condecending?  Why the hell should I care about that.   

And Pacman is seen outside of gaming as well

Why must so many people here think so narrowly?  
You should look again at your choice of words, it has NOTHING to do with your "thinking."  

And Pacman isn't seen outside of gaming as much as Mario is, especially now.  Pacman is more or less a relic than he was over a decade ago.  Of course he still exists, but you have to be joking yourself if you think pacman is being advertised in and out of gaming more than Mario is currently.

So, the real issue here is that if we assume that the proportion of how many people know pacman over mario is the same everywhere as it is in America, then there's really no telling for sure if pacman or mario is more recognizable.  What you were saying is that there is no doubt it's pacman and anyone who thinks differently is wrong.  The data you're pulling from doesn't necessarily say that.  

Also, whenever a source says it comes from a poll, you have to question whether or not that poll had statistical bias within the data.  It's something even professionals have trouble with.