Faxanadu said:
Picko said:
Mountie said:
Picko said:
Mountie said:
If end of gen Wii has sold the most, then yes it is the best. Buying a Wii = 1 vote. Buying a PS3 = 1 vote. Pretty simple really.
OT, GTA:SA is still by far the highest selling 3rd party console game. |
Since when has mass popularity been a sign of superiority? The highest selling movies and music tend to cater towards the lowest common denominator. The most popular television shows tend to do the same thing. Why would videogames be any different? Popularity is in no way an accurate indicator of quality. The highest selling console could just as easily be one of the worst as it could be one of the best. In terms of the quality of its game library it is unlikely that the Wii will even approach the quality of SNES let alone be considered the best console ever. |
Quality is subjective. The easiest definition of the best console is the one that the most people want to own and play. I think Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft would ALL agree with that definition. More often then not, things that are "mainstream" are superior. "The highest selling console could just as easily be one of the worst as it could be one of the best." I disagree. Selling tens of millions of consoles is not a fluke or a fad. You've essentially said that the Wii caters to the lowest common denominator. Ouch. A bit elitist don't you think? |
Actually I think you'll find that Son, Nintendo and Microsoft all believe that their particular console is the best console. Things that are "mainstream" are rarely superior. Is a Ford superior to a Ferrari? Is Star Wars superior to Citizen Kane? Has Britney Spears ever released an album musically superior to The Beatles? Console A selling more than Console B says nothing about quality whatsoever. It has no value as an indicator of quality or superiority. Hence it has no value in determining what the best console is. "I disagree. Selling tens of millions of consoles is not a fluke or a fad." Nobody argued that it was (well at least not in this thread). "You've essentially said that the Wii caters to the lowest common denominator. Ouch. A bit elitist don't you think?" I believe you'll find that I said no such thing. However the "blue ocean" strategy indicates that Nintendo is directly appealing to the lowest common denominator. There's really no way that one can argue against that seeing as Nintendo has made its strategy very clear. Now the Wii could become the greatest console of all time but it is not as simple as seeing more copies that those consoles that came before it. Consoles are about the quality of the games and that is how consoles must be judged and for that reason alone the Wii has a long way to go before it can even be mentioned in the same breath as the Nintendo consoles that came before it, let alone the consoles from other manufacturers. At the end of the day sales are a good indicator for whether a console is successful, its not a particularly good indicator of whether a console is better than another. |
ouch at the brit vs beatles analogy. If there is the word bestseller defined in a dictionary, it would say bestseller = beatles music. They were a very high selling pop group. |
I figured that Britney may have a had at least one album sell more than some Beatles album. Hence the language I choose. The analogy only required a Britney album to outsell a Beatles album whilst simulatenously being inferior musically. According to Wikipedia I was correct.
But yet the analogy would work better if it was "Is [insert generic pop band] better than [insert critically acclaimed indie act]?" Unfortunately, music isn't one of my more knowledgable areas :D
But whatever, there's plenty of evidence that sales are not necessarily a good indicator of quality, which is all I wanted to point out.
Debating with fanboys, its not
all that dissimilar to banging ones
head against a wall
