| Zucas said: Not to get all theoretical here, but theoretically bad games are determined by good games. Meaning if all the bad games were "ridden" of then you'd rate the left over games on the same scale. Narrowing it down a bad game would be something we'd rate in the 80's now. Meaning technically it is impossible to get rid of bad games cause quality in our world is based on a scale that is not proportional to how the actual title is but more or less in relation to the entire market itself. Meaning for their to be good games, theoretically there has to be bad games. |
First, just because there must be bad games doesn't mean we have to BUY them. Note that I didn't say we should BAN bad games or outlaw them, but boycott them.
Besides, I disagree with your premise.
If I were to get rid of The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, and Citizen Kane, it would not make The Adventures of Pluto Nash any better.
Similarly, dropping Ocarina of Time wouldn't have helped Superman 64. Sure, skimming off the top films WILL make good and even mediocre films more palatable, but true crap is unsalvagable.
The weakness in your argument is in trying to fit all rankings on a relative scale. While we can argubly distinguish between "good" and "great" by which we enjoyed more, we typically define "Bad" as something that gives little or no pleasure. If all we had were crappy videogames, we would not think them good. Rather, we would stop playing videogames because they failed to entertain.
