I can't believe anyone would actually think this, it seems more than a bit silly. Marketing and timing have a much greater effect than pure product quality. There are countless films that have great acting, script and generally have artistic merit that very few people see because they're not marketed and no one knows about them. The wealth of quality indie titles (in all entertainment mediums) that go unnoticed due to a lack of marketing budget or not knowing the right people is astounding.

And whilst everyone can have an opinon, an informed opinion carrys more weight when determining quality.



Around the Network
DeadNotSleeping said:
vlad321 said:
DeadNotSleeping said:

@Vlad321: porn as a genre may be highly successful, but individual films do not generate much revenue in comparison to films released in mainstream theaters, or even indie titles for that matter.  But someone already pointed that out.

As for the other things you have mentioned, the TARDIS cookie jar needs not a response but it shall get one anyway.  The purpose of a cookie jar is to hold cookies, it is not a form of entertainment.  Doctor Who is a form of entertainment however, and sales of its merchandise contribute to the success of the franchise and series.  If someone hated Doctor Who they likely wouldn't buy it, perhaps preferring an R2-D2 cookie jar instead, contributing to the success of Star Wars.  Formula works.

Then your acceptance of quality referring to Heart of Darkness and Shakespearean sonnets, while also admitting enjoyment of RA Salvatore's work.  It is entertaining enough for you even though it isn't the most entertaining.  It lacks all the qualities you seek but possesses enough.  If you were only alone.  Many love his work, many hate it, including my friends who have an irrational hatred towards Drow.  Or perhaps a rational hatred now that I remember what Drow are like.  Anyway. 

Since your opinion is just one among many, its quality is measured by its cumulative success in sales.  Weighed against other books, say, Lord of the Rings, which is far more successful, it is easy to say it is of less quality than Tolkien's masterpiece.  Your personal, individual opinion is irrelevant against cumulative data.  If his stories managed to somehow outsell Harry Potter, what you recognize as quality would not be aligned with what the masses consider quality, and that's a more definitive verdict, weighed by how much the population is willing to spend.

Were you willing to spend money on Shakespeare or Heart of Darkness?  If so, you have already supported its financial success and have voted with your wallet.  If not, you have already acknowledged that your personal tastes do not reflect the quality of the work, quality determined by the masses' spending habits.  I recognize that it is quality even though I do not enjoy it.  But if it didn't have that selling power, then it would not have been quality.  I would have simply believed it so by judging it on certain traits, traits that are not enough to be considered objectively good, my opinion drowned out by the many.

Your opinion of Transformers is exactly that: your opinion.  A droplet in a sea of people who continue to spend money on it.  Your opinion is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, as is mine when I choose to spend money on things I like.  I think Firefly is one of the greatest tv shows of all time.  Many people do.  But not enough for some piece of goh seh at Fox to greenlight a second season.

The test of time is the most accurate assessment, that much I can agree.  But that's because it has far, far more data than works of recent years. 

Nice way to dodge the porn question, because I already replied to the exact same thing you brought up. Porn as entertainment sells more than any other entertainment. Answer me how it is of higher quality than the other entertainment media.

The rest of what you wrote is fairly nonsensical. I also paid for Transformers, and it still remains the bucket of shit it is. Because I paid and was entertained by Salvatore, it doesn't mean his books weren't shitty as hell. It is beyond idiotic to measure Shakespeare or Salvatore or Transformers or Heart of Darkness by sales because they can get sales while being incredibly bad, or not get sales while being extremely good. Since those 2 options exist, your whole argument crumbles and becomes pointless.

I dodged nothing.  Porno moves and mags do not outsell mainstream movies and mags.  The ones that sell the most within that genre are the ones with the better photgraphers, writers and models than their counterparts.  Those who appreciate blurry, pixilated, messy images of unhealthy people are in the minority compared to those that prefer shots with someone who knows cameras and film with pretty people in the frames.  Thus those do better.   And while porn enjoys a massive audience, people are less likely to spend as much money on it versus other forms of entertainment. 

You paid for Transformers.  In your opinion, it is a bucket of shit.  So I imagine you didn't buy the Blu-Ray, rent it, plaster you walls with posters or badger your friends into doing the same, so you cast your ballot with your wallet.  But many did.  And since money is objective, your subjective opinion holds less value.  RA Salvatore's work succeeded in entertaining you and many others, so it rightfully has earned its commercial success and that makes it objectively good no matter what you think of it. If it is objectively terrible it will not succeed.  It is objectively good, it will.  And by following the money, Quality can be measured.

At this point you have exhausted so many failed arguments to the contrary that I will not correct any subsequent deficiencies in your logic.  Deny the formula if you wish.  Your opinions do not define reality; an uncomfortable truth that I honestly expect no one to adopt.

Ok, maybe you have failed to read what I have said so I will make it clearer to you. I am not talking about a movie or a magazine, I am talking about pornography, the entire medium. Alright, now did that clear it up for you?

As for the second paragraph, it seems like it's another nonsensical argument. I know plenty of people who saw Transformers, and yet it is still viewed as a bucket of shit by all of them. If sales = quality, then that would not have happened. Your logic in this is so laughably bad that I  am starting to think my hamster will understand this better.

P.S. I am still awating on a response that pertains to marketing and other real world limitations.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

DeadNotSleeping said:

The prime directive of entertainment is to entertain, and all of the arts are entertainment.  


Right off the bat you're inaccurate.  The purpose of all arts isn't just to entertain.  Entertainment can of course be on the menu, but it is not the only directive nor arguably the prime one for every art form, at least as I take your meaning of entertainment.  You seem to be talking about light or popular arts only, and you seem to be considering only popular entertainment as a guide.

Is the purpose of Shindler's List to entertain?  Is it fun watching the kids hide in shit to avoid being taken from their parents or captive Jews being shot arbritarily in the head?  Is Citizen Kane or 2001 a comedy to roll about laughing at?  Is United 93 or Waltz with Bashir nothing but entertainment?

The arts can have many goals, and particularly outside games a great deal of art is not concerned with entertainment.

Sure for MacDonalds and an expensive film like Transformers 3 its all about volume, satisfying a lot of customers with something fairly basic, generic and relatively appealing to all.  But what about single high quality resteraunts or films like Le Prophet - they are simply not offering nor trying to offer the same and cannot be judged using the same metric.

Games do seem primarily an entertainment medium, of course, but even within games there is already enough differentiation to make it impossible to apply one metric for success.  Take something like Heavy Rain or Silent Hill 2, which can both be fairly bleak experiences, are they really trying to entertain in the same way as Super Mario Galaxy or Halo 3?  Can you really compare something like Limbo or Braid or Flower with CoD using only one metric for success?

Sorry, but I just see sterotypical generalisation and oversimplification in your arguement.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

DeadNotSleeping said:

In ages past, only certain styles of art were considered acceptable.  The sculptor Rodin was believed incompetent by critics and people alike because his sculptures did not subscribe to typical conventions of human body proportions.  Van Gogh was likewise unsuccessful introducing his new style.  Both are now considered paragons of the arts, geniuses before their time.  The lens in which the public eye views their work has changed, and with that change, the value of their masterpieces has skyrocketed.  Who was right?  The societies of old, or our present one?  If in five hundred years they are widely regarded as hacks again, would that be true?

I'm not sure I understand. Right in this post you are ascribing to sales =/= quality. Nobody liked them, therefore they were shit.

Psychologically speaking, most people judge the quality of entertainment using their own tastes as a measuring stick; if they enjoy it, it is good.  If not, it is bad (simplified, but mostly an accurate assessment).  When sagas like Twilight appear and musicians like Justin Bieber enrapture massive fanbases, the natural response from those who do not share those tastes is borderline homicidal rap. 

I'd like to see exactly what psychology you're referring to. There is a theory I'm aware of in that "what I like is RIGHT, and people that disagree are WRONG", but I haven't seen what you're talking about.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If something is good, people will hear about it.  And if they appreciate it enough, money will exchange at some point.  If not, those coins will be exchanged for something better sooner or later.  That’s just how people work.  You’re not going to go to a restaurant and order something that you wouldn’t feed your dog, you’re going to get something that you like or hope to like, a decision probably made by a past experience.  By following sales trends, success can be measured.  If something is objectively terrible, the money will stop flowing.

This is a major crux of your argument, and a huge problem to boot. Wherein does expectation deviate from quality? A lot of your point rests on "continues to sell". This is a good statement, but still far from true. Many things continue to sell for other reasons than quality, "mere exposure effect" comes to mind ie; preference based on familiarity. You seem to be saying that hype somehow fits into your idea, but it really doesn't. It's a piece of counter-evidence that you're shoehorning into your theory. 

Call of Duty has succeeded.  It has entertained those people.  It is fun.  And it sells accordingly.  Smaller games may be more enjoyable to a smaller crowd but the goal of entertainment is to entertain as many people as possible for as long as possible.  That’s just the objective way of looking at how my own personal tastes hold up versus the world.  I have made the cognitive leap to understand that collective opinion on subjective matters outweighs my own even if I refuse to change my mind.

What I subjectively think is good may not be objectively good, what I think is subjectively bad may not be objectively bad.  Same goes for you.  Think about that the next time you walk past the line of Twilight fangirls at the theatres only to park yourself in a mostly empty room.  Think about that when someone says that they enjoy a game you think is terrible.

Sales=Quality.  If you have a better measuring stick that is an objective method of assessing the quality of entertainment, please...enlighten me.


Please read bolded.

While I commend you for stepping up and saying, "my opinion =/= reality", You're conclusion is false. Sales =| quality. Do not "dumb it down" for the mainstream. What you really want to say, is "prolonged sales is related to quality". In that, you are 100% justified.

If you are a student of psychology, I would take this opportunity to remind you of the effects of social conformity. Look at the Asch experiments, and look at cognitive dissonance. Psychologically, people tell themselves they like something even if they don't, because of conformity.

Let me also remind you that business-wise, business model is far more important than quality in determining sales. It is a fact, a bold fact, that to reach the biggest audience, you must make something simple. The entire entertainment industry knows this. It is no surprise that pop-music lyrics focus on easy to understand messages. Lady Gaga called rebecca black a genius, for the lyrics to friday. The story-line to Avatar, was superficial and overdone.

I think the thing that you are confused about, is the process of deciding what is bad, has more to do with experience than you give it credit for. I can say that Avatar's storyline was bad because I've read that same story a thousand different times, everytime in a slightly different background...whereas other people seeing it the first time might be amazed. Additionally, there is also the process of implementation of the story.  Their execution was superb. It was a well executed version of the story. But, does that mean the story is quality? If compared to others with the same story, then yes, if compared to other stories, then no.

To further answer a question with a question, if there are two car dealership across the street from one another, and one has lower prices and sells more cars, who has the better cars? The answer is neither. One dealership has a better business model. However, what if the costlier dealership has a free "return in a month for full credit" deal, and it's cars sell more? Is that quality of the car? It looks more like value to me. Those are value driven incentives, which increase the quality of the purchase, but not the quality of the car itself.

So, logically, quality is an abstract idea given value by outside forces such as convenience, or price, or even social conformity.

What this leaves you with, is the logical conclusion that sales=quality is a false statement.

It was a good read, though.

 

As to Rol saying that McDonalds is better at the job of fast food, well, that's starting to become collectively untrue. Healthy eating (ie; good food) is exploding, with startups such as Ufood, and loose leafs. What I think you're unconsiously saying is that McDonalds food is perfect for the people who want the McDonalds product. Keep in mind though that McDonalds has been successfully sued for their food being "addictive". The level of calories and sugar contained is like a cigarette. They don't get it anywhere else, and the body begins to crave it. Additionally, to counter your point that McDonalds is better off compared with other fast food chains than with high end restaurants, I would say that Mcdonalds ultimately has a better business model, but not better food than say wendy's or arby's or burgerking.



1. I think it depends on what aspects of a game you are trying to qualify. Focusing solely on sales when judging the quality of a game would be like claiming Starbucks has more quality than Best Buy because there are more of them around. It doesn't make much sense, and there's a whole lot more to it than that.

2. You're leaving out a crucial aspect of sales: awareness. Most people who've played Okami would tell you it's right up there with the Legend of Zelda series, yet it sold a miniscule fraction of what games like Twilight Princess managed to sell, and that's a direct result of the brand's awareness and Capcom's ineffective marketing. Nobody knew the game existed.  Should sales be used as a barometer for quality in this case?



Around the Network

Lots of people will agree that Uncharted is ten times better than Call of Duty but that franchise blows it out of the water in terms of sales. Hopefully when U3 comes out it will sell about eight million copies. That will shut up COD fan boys!



killeryoshis said:
The sky is blue!

Don't need a noval to explain it.

Don't know why anyone will disagree with your title though


ARe you saying you didnt read the thread? I speed readed it. Sadly I do not know how to speed read.

No I read a bunch of it. I think quality can be hooked to sales or it may just be in the eyes of the particular player. While a reviewer plays thousands of games , a lot of regular gamers may not. So when you or I play a game t may be really good. When a reviewer plays something like madden 12 and it is his 5th madden game, he may not be willing to give it great reviews if they have not changed much with the game. But when I play it and the controls are great ,and it is fun I may just give it a 9 when he gave it a 8 or less. Did what I say make sense?



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

Of course sales=quality the fact 360 games sell more then ps3 proves that



vlad321 said:

You are also wrong. For example, Shakespear isn't considered good by many. Many are told he is good but are just too fucking dumb to understand why it's good. It's an idea propagated by the people of higher intelligence down to the idiots of society. It's worked pretty well too, as you can see.

Really? i thought i'm the only person that thinks so, i thought his writing style is pretty average compared to others from his time, but i never knew "LOTS" of people think so, everyone someone mentions shakespeare , i hear a quite sound of someone orgasming, its probably just because of the love stories, i'm not big into the idea of "Love" and love stories, i'd rather enjoy reading something less ... femenine.

Erm offtopic as always

edit: and come to think of it, i also don't like Beethoven as much as i like Chopin and Bach, i don't know i find his music style to be very repetitive, perhaps thats why its so iconic and recognizable

i mean if you listen to this, its basically just three parts repeated over and over and over

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRgXUFnfKIY&feature=relmfu

while if you listen to this for example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvm2ZsRv3C8

its very complex, sure people prefer a repetitive simple easy listening pieces , but i personally prefer when it becomes less repetitive.

AHH , Offtopic of Offtopicness, why do i always do this ? =/



VGKing said:

Wii Sports sold a bazillion copies. Does that its an amazing game? NO. It only sold that much because it was forced on people who bought a Wii. It was bundled in.

P.S. not saying Wii Sports sucks. Just that there's tons of games out there of better quality that sold way less.

And? Wii Sports still has quality. Sales = Quality, but +Sales =/= best Quality.

There could be games with a lot more quality and sold less, but that is because it doesn't appeal to a lot of people, like Wii Sports.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile