| naruball said: If masses buy the game because it's fun, then the game is FUN to them, But not necessarily a quality game. It might be a stupid game of no quality which is fun, but not highly regarded. Why use the word quality in the first place, when some people play certain games just for fun. Aren't all games supposed to be fun? Not really. I play Dark Souls because it's challenging, not fun. I play Diablo 3 with friends because it's fun to play with friends, but for me it's by no means a quality game. As for wii play, apart from checking user scores and reading comments by internet people, I don't have any evidence to support that. As a matter of fact, there is no concrete evidence for any game ever released that the masses think it's great or bad. So, it's silly to ask for concrete evidence for that in the first place.Then why use that argument in the first place? Simply because there's a general consensus on games. Super Mario Brothers 3 is ones of the most loved games of all time. Super Mario Bros 2 is not. Edit: Also, haven't you heard of the term guilty pleasure? Is a guilty pleasure something of quality? Or something you enjoy while knowing damn well how bad it is? |
Tell me how it is not necessarily a quality game then ? I can that quality and sales are linked because people have to give something of value in exchange for a product. If a game were truly of higher quality then why do the masses reject it ? It's really clear that they don't see any quality in it whatsoever so they will not shell out another $60 just to get. How can something of irrelevance have any meaningful quality ?
Oh but there is evidence that will tell what the masses see as quality and that is through sales. Once again the masses just like gamers have to give something of value once again in order to obtain a product. If the masses don't buy a game then it's obvious that they think it's a bad game because they don't see any value whatsoever. The reason I used the argument in the first place is a way to define quality. Each and everytime some form of art in a certain part of entertainment keeps redefining what quality means. What is considered quality music today would be incompatible with what quality was defined back then among the critics.
@Bold How do the masses know what they are doing is bad ? How do you know that it is "gulity pleasure" ? Ever heard of the term "customers never lie about what they want" ? How can you consider a game to be bad ? If you mean bad by critics and forum lurkers and the like around here then that is laughable at best. It's really clear most critics are fake.
Again the best indicator to quality is sales.
