i would say killzone 2 would get a lower score if it would release this week and not few years ago and would easily get less as kz 3. same with most other games from years ago. since you think the same about reviews beeing more harsh from year to year we can't really say that with this example

a better example would be forza 4 and gt 5, it released later and got still a higher score and is selling much less

Yes

Good topic, but Killzone has no 343 industries behind it. No real tallent at Guerilla, and Sony paying reviewers confirmed?

The problem with this thread is that it takes a very interesting concept but takes the worst two examples.  There are many factors that enter consideration with game sales including Brand Recognition.  Everyone has heard of Halo and it has a much broader appeal wheras Killzone isn't nearly as well known.  A better example of the same thread would be merely looking at one top notch quality game (or one series of top notch games) that has mediocre to bad sales.

Take Metroid for example.  Metroid Prime is one of the top reviewed games of all time and every single one (lets leave out other: m for this one) reaks of huge budgets and incredible production value.  And yet the TOP selling one didn't even hit the 3 million mark. The rest barely got over the 1 million. 

In the end it comes down to recognition and appeal.  MGS, Resident Evil (the survival horror ones), or to be more general stealth and survival horror games in general will never have massive sales.  Even though many of them are considered to be truly incredible experiences it will never just reach the level of more mainstream games.  Killzone doesn't seem to have that mainstream appeal.  Also, one has to take into consideration the effects of sequels on a review score.

A review of a game that is on its seond iteration is bound to be more forgiving than one on its 5th iteration. 

All in all its an interesting subject but you need to find a more apples to apples comparison,  might I suggest Killzone vs Resistance?

Yes,but to me it still does not make any sense.Plus I could say the same for Microsoft paying off reviewers like IGN. Claiming Halo 4 to be the best game of the year and the best Halo yet DESPITE this Halo being the LOWEST scoring of the 4 other main games on metacritic.Plus, best game of the year?Yeah right.

Nobody said Microsoft aren't pulling strings for favourable reviews. The swags reviewers get from Microsoft would make Halo fanboys drool.

I'm only waiting for another troll review for Halo 4 that pulls the score down to 86 so that my prediction is right on spot :p

Whatever game is better is completely personal preference, arguing about it will not solve nor change a darn thing.

point n.1

you are comparing first person shooters from two different machines, on one, the ps3, japanese and classic console gaming sells more, on the other, the 360, shooters sell more. the end.
 
point n.2

quality indeed does not equal sales, if that were true Final Fantasy XII would have been the best selling game of all time.

point n.3

I just read man-bear-pig's thread and objectively, due to the vast difference in sales and the subjective difference in quality being pretty close, I have to say that pezus' thread is much less of a flame war attempt than man-bear-pig's

Both quality games; difference in sales, not so great.

Forza total sales for this gen: 11.53m

Gran Turismo total sales for this gen: 12.08m

Both quality games; difference in sales, kinda big.

Killzone 2: 2.87m

Halo 4 (estimated LT sales based on a secret formula): 10.9m

I will say only this: Metacritic score =/= Actual quality of game.

I couldn't agree more. Halo is a much better game and deserves the sales. In the other hand, Killzone 2... I can't play more than 30 minutes! Generic, boring.Is 9.1 the metascore? In my opinion, the true meaning of overrated.

Quality =/= Metascore and both =/= sales.