Why do we gamers allow game developers and "journalists" determine what games are quality and what ones aren't? People vote with their dollar. We can argue about aesthetics or content all day long, but at the end of the day, the quality of a game is decided by sales.
Disagree? Wanna argue about definitions or how video games are art? Argue all you want, but you're going to be going up against some of the most respected businessmen out there. Armand V Feigenbaum has said in his book Total Quality Control that "quality is a customer determination", and it's not up to the designers, the marketers, or the reviewers/journalists to determine what is and what is not quality. David A Garvin states that "the quality of a product is determined by the consumer and is in "the eye of the beholder"."
Even after reading the thread title, you must be laughing to yourself and thinking "Wait, so are you saying that Mario Kart on the Wii is a higher-quality game than Mass Effect 2 because it sold more?"But this adds nothing to our discussion. Wait, so are YOU saying that Mass Effect 2 is a higher-quality game than Mario Kart Wii because it has cutscenes, more dialog, and guns? This all boils down to opinion, and ultimately, consumers voted with their money. Mario Kart offers more quality and value to more people than Mass Effect does. This doesn't mean ME2 is a bad game or even that Mario Kart Wii will always be the "better game" on an individual basis. Plenty of people are going to enjoy Mass Effect 2 more than Mario Kart. It does mean - however - that to the public, Mario Kart Wii has more quality, and based on sales, more people are enjoying Mario Kart Wii. It's really quite simple. But we gamers don't like this logic.
I think this is why gamers huddle around review scores so often, even though we're being completely illogicalabout it. If someone like me says "high sales equals high quality", isnt' the counter-argument going to be "popularity doesn't determine quality"?
Wait, so then why do we use the opinion of someone else (a reviewer) and combine all those scores together into an average (on Metacritic, for example) and then use THAT as some sort of gauge of quality? Isn't that the exact same kind of popular vote, except that the reviewers are only awarding meaningless numbers, whereas the market is actually giving a popular vote with their money? Doesn't it make MORE sense to find out for yourself what games are good instead of relying on the "popular vote" of a small collection of videogame reviewers? These days, a game gets anywhere from 30 to 50 "professional" reviews that are added to sites like Metacritic. However, when a game like Mario Kart sells 26 million, here you have a case of 26 million people who voted "yes" with real money against 30-50 reviewers who may or may not have voted "yes" with their review scores. BTW, Mario Kart Wii has a Metacritic score of 82 and therefore has a lower score than dozens of current-gen titles. It's sales - however - have made it one of the best-selling stand-alone titles in the history of videogames.
Our opinions on reviews really make no sense. Now, if you happen to trust a particular reviewer (like, if his/her game preferences line up with yours), then that's fine. However, then it's no different than hearing a game suggestion from a trusted friend. It has nothing to do with the reviewer's status as a reviewer.
If there is anything I'd change about this gaming generation, it would be the blind trust in reviewers.
Log in to comment