| Nirvana_Nut85 said: There seems to be a significant amount of people who take meta numbers as a way of deciding the quality of a game. It's obviously not meant to be taken as dogma but from what I've found it is fairly accurate for alot of games out there. They seem to be in the top 2000 of most visited website so there must be a significant amount of people who find the site informative. |
The problem with metacritic here is that it doesn't represent every gaming audience or the market for that matter. Why is it that each masterpiece that comes out have such a significant difference in market share ? Why is there such a discrepency between the last of us or GTA V in terms of sales ? You see sales paint a very different picture when a crowd is trying to identify quality. Crowds aren't going to use metacritic but rather their intuition for choosing a game. That is where metacritic becomes worthless in attempting to be a scale for game quality. The majority of gamers all around do not use metacritic as a scale for game quality and the majority of the reviewers do not represent the gaming audience.
| Nirvana_Nut85 said: I never said that my "vote" counted more than a casual. A purchase is a purchase. At the same time when it comes to a matter of opinion or to take advice on the quality of a game, who would you ask? A soccer mom who purchases Wii Play and says it's the best game out there or someone who has been gaming for 20 years? Yes, it does come down to personal taste but it could be compared to asking fininacial advice from someone who has been successful in their own respective industy or some guy living in his parents basement at 30 because he smoked to much weed :S |
One does not simply ask for an advice or an opinion of a so called "more experienced gamer". The same situation applies for metacritic. The so called "more experienced gamer" has obvious biases in comparison to the market.
@Bold Ok now that example is just overexaggerated and not relatable to the differences at hand. 
Your comparing something as sensitive as money to an opinion on the quality of the game. False equivalence principle on your part.
| Nirvana_Nut85 said: Yes, alot of Japanese companies have seemed to lost their magic when it comes to game development. Nintendo however is not one of those companies (I will agree that NSMBU was not their best effort). The problem was they attempted to appeal to Nintendo fans, casuals and tried to win over some of the PS3/360 crowd and they failed. Their marketing of the console was horrid so the casuals did not jump in, for the PS360 fans it wasn't powerful enough and for alot of Nintendo fans the games were not there at the start. The WiiU lacked software quality however they are just starting to make up for it (they should have waited until Nov 2013 to release). It would be unwise not to try the system because of it's low sales( Xbox,Gamecube &Dreamcast had great games despite low sales). A few hours of SMW3D and you'll be signing a different tune. The game is truly innovative and there does not seem to be too many people who have played it that disagree. |
Why is Nintendo not one of these japanese game companies ? Nintendo obviously didn't have faith in the WII U succeeding because they knew damn well that the audiences are incompatible. Nintendo knew that third party support was not the way to go because they knew the gamecube had flopped epically hard. Financials don't lie. Marketing means very little in the end if the WII U could not supply quality software. I tired of having to say this again but hear I go "software sells hardware". All it ultimately comes down to purchasing a console is the software. It is not the masses job to simply support the console early on in a blind manner. Why exactly would it be unwise to not try a system ? See your problem is thinking that the so called "experienced gamer" should be the only one to hold the definition of quality is that the market responds very inconsistently from it. The reason why masses don't try other consoles is because the majority of them can only have one console per generation for other reasons. I'm not saying it would be unwise to not try out low sale consoles per se but if we go back to the mantra "software sells hardware" then it's obvious that the masses don't see alot of quality to purchase the system. The ones who are buying super mario 3D world are the fans so ofcourse you'll see a bias in their analysis so I wouldn't take the fans word for a measure of quality.
