By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fatslob-:O on 07 March 2015
Edit Thread
Wyrdness said:


Sorry but this is by far the most flawed argument I've ever seen, firstly marketing and hype is more then enough to make a game sell quality stopped selling games generations ago because the majority of people don't follow games avidly they just hear the hype and buy what they're told is cool that's how a mainstream market works other wise the type of games developers would be putting out would be far more diverse and polished.

Shrek 2 was a poor game and for someone who earlier wanted to avoid using critical reviews you've sure been quick to jump to them, your logic is sales equals quality and buying a game at launch is appreciation, I'm going to be blunt that's rubbish as under your logic Shrek is a better more appreciated game then the likes of ICO, Okami, SOTC etc... Appreciation is actually acknowledging not only the game's quality but what it did for its time long after, I'm willing to bet most of the people who bought the Shrek games have long forgotten them and moved on but the games I've mentioned are still touted today by the industry and those who bought them as great games. Every console that is market leader has had loads of shovelware a fair amount of which sells well, you're trying to tell us that Carnival Games on the Wii is better then most of the games on PS3 and 360 as well as almost all PS4 and X1 games? Sorry I have to be direct in highlighting how broken that mode of thinking is.

You trying to suggest that playing a game isn't the way to determine it's quality is so bizarre it's almost as if you're not serious, so a majority of people both critics and consumers playing a game and deciding it's great is flawed now? Even if we added more varibles from reviews and so on like you did with Shrek it further goes against your stance on the games you're arguing against.

GC sold as much as the original Xbox, I doubt it would have sold that much if it was just as expensive plus it's marketing was poor, what happened with the Wii was good marketing to a different type of consumer which coupled with a cheap price and good first party lead to a success.

It's only flawed because because it doesn't suit your point of view. Following games avidly just means biasing the evaluation. You seriously underestimate consumers all around. They aren't ignorant, they simply respond to their desires. The sooner you understand that, the sooner you can see how shoddy your point is ...

I didn't want to use reviews but I wanted to play devil's advocate. "Appreciation" is simply valuing a product, nothing more and nothing less. For every guy that likes ICO, SotC, Okami, and etc there's hundreds of others who don't give a damn including me. I don't like the Carnival games but if their better than most of the games we love then so be it ...

Again, playing the game doesn't mean we can truly determine it's worth since that's evaluated at an individual basis and that biases the results. The only variable I vouch for is sales and profits, nothing else ...

Price could've been prohibitive but the sweet spot was always $300 so it wouldn't have meant much if GC launched at a higher price and marketing didn't mean jack when all the GC could sell to are the Nintendo fans ...