Avinash_Tyagi said:
One date is not intrinsically better than another, more sales are intrinsically better.
Objective sales are more important, if I were to say that Ico was boring and I hated it, that would be my opinion, and whether it was better than another game, would be merely opinion, but when I say that consumers preferred Zelda, that Zelda sold far more than Ico, that is irrefutable, the market spoke and Ico was shown to be less demanded than Zelda
|
Your first sentence has nothing to do with your logic, nor with my rebuttal. We're not comparing dates in quality or sales in quality. We're comparing dates chronologically and sales in quantity to determine quality of games.
As for the rest:
"Zelda sold more than ICO" is a hard fact.
"Consumers preferred Zelda" is a non sequitur. Do you have statistics about the preferences of all the people that bought and played both? Because that's the only way that would make that a fact. People who only played one can't logically give us any informed opinion regarding how the quality of the games compare.
Please see the fallacy of your method. There is a correlation between quality and sales (yes, statistically good games will tend to sell more than bad games). And there is a correlation between game release date and quality (yes, statistically games are getting better with time). But just because dates and sales are hard factual number doesn't mean those correlations are complete. The amount of correlation can be minimal.
There are other factors that correlate to quality besides date, and there are other factors that correlate to sales besides quality.
Unless you think that Stephen King is a better writer than, say, Tolstoj. I'm pretty sure King sold more books last year.
