I think I died a little inside.

You missed the context. If the food was objectively bad, it wouldn't be even edible. The point was that it's decent food for that price and convenience. A dollar burger and dollar fries aren't much, but they are two freakin' dollars. A ten dollar burger with a side of fries is much better, but also costs five times as much.

Again, it's a you get what you pay for principle.

That's determinig value though, not quality.

I wasn't denying that. I'm stating that if their food didn't have some basic level of quality, then it wouldn't have much of a value as even a fast food place.

It does not have a basic level of quality, McDonald's just does an admirable job hiding it.

Nor sure if you're joking, but I'm not. If it really did that, no admirable job would hide it for long. It's the same reason special effects laden movies open big, but don't have legs. Or games that rely on graphics and gimmicks don't have legs.

MacDonalds would not have lasted so long if it's food was as bad as some of you claim. It's just food that is a fraction as good as restarant food, but also a fraction of the price, and a fraction of the time waiting for it.

That some people think it tastes good enough for what they paid for it doesn't actually mean the food has a basic level of quality. For example, people think they are eating 100% beef burgers where in reality it's nowhere near that, there's hardly any real meat in McDonald's burgers. There's often a difference in what people think is the truth and what really is the truth. In this case, McDonalds' food quality is much lower than most people perceive it to be. You are familiar with the concepts of advertizing and customer manipulation, I hope?

"That some people think it tastes good enough for what they paid for it doesn't actually mean the food has a basic level of quality. For example, people think they are eating 100% beef burgers where in reality it's nowhere near that, there's hardly any real meat in McDonald's burgers. There's often a difference in what people think is the truth and what really is the truth. In this case, McDonalds' food quality is much lower than most people perceive it to be. You are familiar with the concepts of advertizing and customer manipulation, I hope?"

Well then we are using differing definitions of "basic quality". I meant they still are enough to count as burgers and fries.

Oh, and I didn't claim they think it tastes good enough. I just stated that a lot of people think the food is worth it for the price, which isn't a lot. Again, if they charged as much as a diner without raising the food quality accordingly, they would go out of business.

If people would be more educated about what McDonalds food (and many more "non-food") really is, they would go out of business as well. But McDonalds has an excellent marketing department and has built up an near indestructible brand.

"If people would be more educated about what McDonalds food (and many more "non-food") really is, they would go out of business as well. But McDonalds has an excellent marketing department and has built up an near indestructible brand."

That's really vague, and going way beyond this thread. You don't like MacDonalds, but it does not change the fact that reviews don't decide the quality of a game. The customers do. This is so because they are expected to shell out $30-$60 (or other currencies) for games en masse. Claiming the reviews decide the quality is to claim that people have a say in whether they like something that they buy.

Not that you are doing that, but the very notion of reviews deciding the quality of a game basically does that.

So we will decide if Xenoblade is a good game, not the reviewers.