But history is only another metric, Naz. Again, we're just drawing the line at different places.

You feel that a combination of critical reception, sales, and historical perspective give a reasonable and objective view of quality. If you take away the historical perspective, you feel that this objectivity is no longer valid.

I feel that sales, critical reception, and historical perception give an objective view of quality, as well. However, I feel that even without historical perspective, some form of objectivity is still possible.

Again, where something becomes "fact" and where it is still "opinion" is a line we draw in the sand, and people draw that line in different places. Is Evolution a fact? I think almost everyone would agree that it is, even though I've personally never observed it myself. Is Shakespeare a good writer? I think most would agree that he was. Is Halo a good game? Less people would agree that's fact, but some people would, and I'm included in that group. You draw that line in your place, and I draw it in mine. When you say "there are too many variables," it is your opinion that there are too many variables. It is my opinion that there are not too many variables.

Well the place you draw the line on sales accuracy is subjective, but I would say the most concrete are the numbers given by official shipments. Analysis can be made on the other numbers, but the accuracy of the analysis is of course directly tied to the accuracy of the data. 

The same goes for reviews. The dataset people are using to determine quality (gamerankings, metacritic, etc.) is very small in scope, and has a clearly visible bias against games of certain genres.  Using the dataset of sales to determine quality has a clear regional bias as well.  

So, make your statements about quality if you want, but they are very limited in accuracy and very shortsighted.   

They could lie about official shipments. There could be a vast conspiracy. Again, not likely, but possible that the Wii has sold 5 million consoles, and Media Create, VGChartz, NPD and lots of other sources are all playing a little trick. Again, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible. 

They could just be wrong, off by 1-2 percent because of some accounting error. And lastly, I could read it wrong. Perhaps I'm going crazy. Perhaps what I think I'm reading I'm not actually reading. People hallucinate. How do I know, with 100% absolute certainty, that I'm not hallucinating right now? Heck, it's theoretically possible that the entirety of VGChartz is just a figment of my imagination. Perhaps I'm completely insane.

I would say it's "extremely likely" that those shipment figures are correct, however. I think most would agree that those shipment figures are "fact."

If that's where you draw the line, super. That's not where I do, however.

Bod, it's great and all to use extreme examples to show how everything is subjective, but eventually you need to come back down to Earth and debate directly with my issues. For example:

Do you disagree that there is a visible gaming media bias against games of a certain genre? You yourself made a topic about this bias not long ago...

Do you disagree that there is a regional bias in sales? Where certain countries are less likely to buy certain kinds of games, regardless of genre?

And finally, if you do agree with both those issues, do you still think they are accurate measures of quality? Do you consider a game that has both high sales and high reviews to be better than a game that has one or the other? Are you taking into account advertising, target audience, and platform limitations when you determine quality?

I completely understand your point that we are just deciding different things based on our subjective opinion of where the line is. I just am having trouble believing that your line is so broad that you would let so many clearly visible issues slide just so you can make a generalization.

 Yeah it is...  I played through FF7 and enjoyed it so that's probably why I try to defend it :|  But you're right it's a poor argument.

I have talked specifics, though. I've already said that even with all these variables, we can still reach conclusions. But I'll say it again: I agree with all your variables: I'm really not arguing with a single one. And I still believe we can, in a general sense, objectively reach conclusions about what games are good and which aren't.

This isn't something I'm sayign to win an argument: this is a much bigger issue than just video games, and it's a conclusion I've come to after a great deal of thought and much consideration. Yes, those variables are not too great to make this just "opinion."

Naz, you're quite the nitpicker, and I mean that in a complimentary way. I think it would be more interesting to find out what you and Bod do agree on since the two of you are having such a nice conversation. Instead of debating find common ground. I'm sure there's a lot. Anyways, good read!

Okay, well now that we've gotten this far, how far are you willing to take your analysis of quality? Are you willing to take 2 games you have determined to be good like say, Halo and Wii Sports, and decide whether one is better than the other? Or at that point do you consider the data to have too many variables to be more specific?

I already gave an example for this, actually. Bioshock > Motorstorm in an objective manner, I personally believe. BioShock vs. Halo, though? That's too fuzzy. So, personally, that's about where I draw the line.

Boy everyone is really rambling today...

This is a no win thread... I am with Legend that games are the most important part of a console.

And it is clear that when you go to metacritic and gamerankings 360 is ahead in all categories except in "Mario" games. Sports games have rated high on 360, RPGs rated high on 360, JRPGS really only exist right now for 360, FPS rate highest on 360, 360 is the only one with RTS games, etc.