What have been the two most universally panned games in recent months? Aliens: CM and CoD Vita.

They've spawned hundreds of blogs detailing where they went wrong and why they failed. Every journalist and reviewer can't wait to share their dislike with the world. There have been plenty of mediocre games that have sold badly, but these have been singled out for sustained press coverage of their post-mortem.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-vita/call-of-duty-black-ops-declassified
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/aliens-colonial-marines

And yet:

http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/41322/USA/

350k US debut for Aliens CM

http://www.vgchartz.com/platform/43/playstation-vita/

Second highest selling Vita game, notably far above the beloved Gravity Rush or P4G.

What does this mean? Bad review no longer affect sales. The pre-launch press could not have been worse, yet these games sell well while well-reviewed games like DMC miss expectations.

And the hardcore gamers on forums that pick up the narrative that these games are bad are also wrong. Other people clearly enjoy these games; the value they see in it led to these sales, and they didn't let the opinions of the forums stop them purchasing it. You may not enjoy it but others do.

The future drive of game demand no longer comes from the kind of person who frequents this site, and analysis/debate  of why future games succeed or fail needs to stop being about the values and ideas of game reviewers or core gamers (e.g. "graphics", "technology", "the story", "DRM"). It needs to be about the values of the greater audience who are spending the money.

"What does this mean? Bad review no longer affect sales. "

I don't think so. You have to ask yourself what they would have done had they reviewed well instead of poorly.

I think its more to do that the developers managed to cash in on the goodwill of the consumers. People have been playing COD games for years and expect at least a general level of quality to be there, which there is. By releasing a bad game like this, the COD brand took a hit as people who bought the Vita game will be cautious before buying another COD game.

Similarly for Aliens, consumers trusted in Gearbox to deliver a good game because of the other good games they made like Borderlands, but now they'll be more cautious of the developer. Plus the Aliens series is probably going to take a hit in the video game market for this bad release.

To me, it says that brand name is a powerful force. CoD is the biggest shooter series ever, and Aliens:CM has the combined brand name of Aliens and Gearbox.

I agree. Big brand-name FPSes are just going to sell better than certain types of games, no matter how flawed they might be, but that doesn't mean their potential isn't diminished by poor reviews or word of mouth.

bad reviews affect legs of the games.

The alternative I'm presenting is that these were GOOD games that served the needs of their customers, who are not your kind of person. Reviews need to adjust their values to review those games well on their terms, or die.

You're saying customers would buy a game they don't enjoy, en masse (and then not the next one). Can you give an example of that happening in the past?

Similarly with the branding example, I think consumers are smart enough not just to buy any game with the name on the box of something they like.

CoD Black Ops II seems far more frontloaded on a well-reviewed platform, PS3 (49% FW sales)

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/44951/call-of-duty-black-ops/Global/

than on PSV (20% FW sales)

There we go, nothing more to say.

Still plays into my idea that reviews don't matter, if that means people buy anyway.