But that's not what matters at all. What matters is the following point: was it worth buying to the people who are worth listening to?
How does one determine who is worth listening to? Are you implying that there is an objective standard for subjective value metrics, or that value metrics themselves are objective, or that people with a given value metric should listen only to people who share that value metric (bordering on tautology with this one), or that certain value metrics are invalid?
I would like an answer as to the course of this conversation. From what I gather, this ignoramus introduced the debate of 'quality' following Rol's assertion that 'the market decides what is outdated' - with the hidden premises that 'the market decides what the market wants' and 'what the market wants is not outdated' - which is a simplification, but none the less a different claim than that which was inferred.
Of course, it is a common fallacy to equate the trends of the market with quality (simply replace 'outdated' with 'quality' and the form of the argument remains the same) but this did not happen in this case.
On topic; I really must say I've grown to appreciate this game more and more. While I still have reservations as regards everything from combat, to aesthetics, to controls, I'm still impressed with the brisk pacing of the gameplay coupled with the atmospheric cinematic qualities (which is always impressive given an interactive context). Whether the direction is a good one or not, I think the designers did a competent job bringing it to life in this game.