A Nintendo action RPG, good idea or bad?

[Nuvendil]

fatslob-:O said:

Wyrdness said:

Nope it's flawed because of the reasons I've pointed out and you've yet to counter any of them probably becaue you realize how contradictory your point is to begin with. You may not care about those games but many do which is why your appreciation argument is just a broken as your sales argument you're using to tell us Carnival Games is quality, gaming is niche industry and the are billions in the world who don't care for it does that make the industry any less relevant? No, it's even funnier that the RPGS you're arguing against are heavily successful which under your logic makes them appreciated and contradicts you by default.

Playing the game is the only way for people to determine the worth your argument is like saying trying out a new restaurant is not the way to find out is their food tastes good and again if the only argument you go for is sales and profit then you've already been derailed in your own argument hard.

Marketing is the key to why a number of products sell as every market leader has had good marketing for initial momentum to build on, GC had little of it and even then it still sold as much as the Xbox and turned a large profit (something you yourself have said is what you look at right), Wii and GC would never have sold as much at a higher price point, the cheap price allowed consumers to try them out with out hurting their wallets and with first party games it was always worth a punt.

You have yet to point out what's contradictory about my argument. It's not only me that doesn't care about those games, MANY don't either. Using the internet gaming community as a reference for appreciation is flawed on your part since it doesn't represent the reality. It's amusing how you keep claiming that my arguments are broken without even elaborating. Heavily successful ? Now that's an overstatement if I've ever seen one ... 

Comparing game quality to taste in food ?! What an irrelevant comparsion you've made right there. The only one derailing here is you because you do nothing but keep pitting these useless strawman points against me ...

Marketing is only one aspect but it's not the main one. FYI, most of GC's so called "profits" came from the GBA. Again the sweet spot was $300 so been cheaper than that didn't much in the end ...

Buddy, the logic that sales=quality is just absurd.  This isn't the case in any art form.  Titus Andronicus was more popular than some of Shakespearean masterworks in his day.  There are generic art works produced en masse that make more money than some artists of the Renaissance did; heck, Leonardo didn't make too much money on his art at all.  James Patterson is one of the best selling authors of all time.  Transformers movies make huge ammounts of money compared to Citizen Kane.  But to say that these better selling, more popular works are superior for that reason only would be ridiculous.  It assumes that there are absolutely no objective standards or underlying principles, a very bold assumption that has no real basis; underlying principles of technique at the very least have been the foundation of these art forms and all art forms for a long time.  Even where it seems they aren't there, they are.  Enjoyment of a thing is subjective, and certain aspects are subjective, but the whole is not subjective.  Sales are not a reliable metric for quality, never have been and never will be.  You can easily sell to the masses inferior crafts on the basis of convenience, marketing, or the mob mentality.