This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]So the Wii is automatically better than the Xbox 360 and Wii Sports is the best game of all time? Thank you for once again ending System Wars William! :roll:I actually agree with you for once.
oldkingallant
That actually is not what TC said at all and Wiisports is bundled, its not counted as individual software in any place besides Japan.
[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]:| Really now? So because something sells better, it's better? So someone makes a perfect game and everyone who ever plays it says it's the best game ever, but only 1,000 people play it. Then some bad game with crazy marketing sells millions and a lot of the people who buy it dislike it. The one that sold more is better? Fatal missteps in logic there.i agree with you TC..people speak with their wallets..
wii sports brought more joy and gaming to world than uncharted 1,2,3 and soon part4 combined
same for mario kart and wii fit..
its just that hardcore gamers like everyone here at the forum want a different gaming experience.
oldkingallant
if something sells better then it means that more people think its better than the game you like..
the perfect game? are you serious?
wii sports didnt have a major marketing campaign... the wii would like to play commercial was it..
point is...a game's quality is a subjective matter...someone could spend 5million on a game and some guy invents tetris which sell millions... tetris is the better game that everyone voted with their wallets.
so a person who buys a game but ends up hating it counts the same as somebody who buys it and loves it?
CaseyWegner
In terms of business yes. You can't make assumptions that go outside of provable data. What you do is budget game # 2 with the assumption all the buyers of game 1 aren't coming back but some will. I mean, how else am I going to know this point? Its meaningless.
[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]
so a person who buys a game but ends up hating it counts the same as somebody who buys it and loves it?
ActicEdge
In terms of business yes. You can't make assumptions that go outside of provable data. What you do is budget game # 2 with the assumption all the buyers of game 1 aren't coming back but some will. I mean, how else am I going to know this point? Its meaningless.
so it just proves that sales =/= quality.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]
so a person who buys a game but ends up hating it counts the same as somebody who buys it and loves it?
CaseyWegner
In terms of business yes. You can't make assumptions that go outside of provable data. What you do is budget game # 2 with the assumption all the buyers of game 1 aren't coming back but some will. I mean, how else am I going to know this point? Its meaningless.
so it just proves that sales =/= quality.
Correct. Sales = quality is not the right phrase. Sales equals interest is a much more accurate phrase because no one buys a products for entertainment that doesn't interest them but people will certainly buy things that did interest them but they ended up not liking.
:| Really now? So because something sells better, it's better? So someone makes a perfect game and everyone who ever plays it says it's the best game ever, but only 1,000 people play it. Then some bad game with crazy marketing sells millions and a lot of the people who buy it dislike it. The one that sold more is better? Fatal missteps in logic there.[QUOTE="oldkingallant"][QUOTE="KBFloYd"]
i agree with you TC..people speak with their wallets..
wii sports brought more joy and gaming to world than uncharted 1,2,3 and soon part4 combined
same for mario kart and wii fit..
its just that hardcore gamers like everyone here at the forum want a different gaming experience.
KBFloYd
if something sells better then it means that more people think its better than the game you like..
the perfect game? are you serious?
wii sports didnt have a major marketing campaign... the wii would like to play commercial was it..
point is...a game's quality is a subjective matter...someone could spend 5million on a game and some guy invents tetris which sell millions... tetris is the better game that everyone voted with their wallets.
At least TC's starting to make a bit of sense and is providing strong backing, this is just... what? No that doesn't mean jack, given a group of 1,000 people if all 1,000 hear about a game coming out, while only 100 hear of another game coming out, which one's going to sell more? Notice this scenario mentions absolutely nothing about the quality of each game. Why would you assume the one that sold more is better? Is it not possible that more people heard about it and just bought the one they knew existed? By the way I don't know why I didn't use this example earlier: I bought The Conduit. Does that mean I enjoyed it and "voted with my wallet" that it's better than some games I haven't bought? **** no it means I got caught up in hype and bought a game due to strong marketing.[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
In terms of business yes. You can't make assumptions that go outside of provable data. What you do is budget game # 2 with the assumption all the buyers of game 1 aren't coming back but some will. I mean, how else am I going to know this point? Its meaningless.
ActicEdge
so it just proves that sales =/= quality.
Correct. Sales = quality is not the right phrase. Sales equals interest is a much more accurate phrase because no one buys a products for entertainment that doesn't interest them but people will certainly buy things that did interest them but they ended up not liking.
Thank you, this is exactly right. Public interest and awareness of something is gauged by its success on the market, if people have never heard of a game obviously there's not as much interest and therefore it sells less.Duh. The Conduit = Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time even though I thought the former sucked and the latter was amazing. :Pso a person who buys a game but ends up hating it counts the same as somebody who buys it and loves it?
CaseyWegner
Well then this is a case of misreading/misinterpreting a post... sorry :oops:. I'm all for adding in subjective opinion but all the stupid crap that makes the folks over at Giant Bomb feel so smug and above us is what separates it from a general games discussion thread. So I think we're actually in complete agreement here and I scanned your post too quickly.[QUOTE="oldkingallant"][QUOTE="NeonNinja"]
I never said to get rid of it. I said in more serious discussions people should use their own opinions rather than a reviewer's opinion.
I'm all for jumping in a thread and pointing out damage control. I'm also all for having a serious discussion about one of my hobbies. But I never said to get rid of it as you assume. I specifically stated in my original post that I wish more people focused on their personal experience for some of the more serious discussions here. It always makes for a more entertaining and generally friendlier debate.
NeonNinja
:P
It happens. The problem with online forums is that typos/grammar don't always give the tone you're aiming for. :)
Yeah, stupid internet. Damn Al Gore for inventing it! :lol:umm.....heard of advertising?
heard of the power of brand?
seriously.
As a business man you use sales, as a gamer you might use reviews but as a person who knows what they like you don't need either. 1 is not better then the other without context which you are not providing here. I do not read reviews and haven't for 2 and a half years and my gaming purchases are completely fine. I also don't buy based on popularity. I buy based on buyer interest and knowledge that I have aqcuired because that is the best way to do it. If I run a business I don't give 2 ***** about user enjoyment until it comes back to affect my bottom line. If i'm a gamer I'm not getting paid so whydo I care what the masses think. Get it?ActicEdgeYour behavior is normal. It's the way I buy games, too. Your mindset is going to inadvertently add more sales to a game that the public decides is quality, not reviews, since your perception of quality is what you use (and it's what the vast vast majority of consumers use). People like to use the "so you're saying Mario Kart is a better game than Forza?? LOLOLOLO" argument, but no one is saying that. We're simply looking back and observing sales. Apparently, more people saw value in Mario Kart than in Forza. Since a lot of commentary amongst gamers is about what happened in the industry past and how that might affect the future, it's a very useful to be able to see the market in such a simple and accurate way.
Trust me we've tried mentioning those things and apparently TC has found a utopia where only good products sell and the bad stuff gets ignored 100% of the time :P.umm.....heard of advertising?
heard of the power of brand?
seriously.
FeedOnATreeFrog
More appealing to a general audience does not equal higher quality.
Minecraft is a beta product that has a $0 advertising budget and no brand. It has sold over 1 million copies. Alan Wake was a long-hyped game from a respected game studio and was advertised on TV channels and internet websites. It sold about 600,000. There's something to be noticed here. There has to be a better explanation than "LOL MARKET HYPE!"umm.....heard of advertising?
heard of the power of brand?
seriously.
FeedOnATreeFrog
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]As a business man you use sales, as a gamer you might use reviews but as a person who knows what they like you don't need either. 1 is not better then the other without context which you are not providing here. I do not read reviews and haven't for 2 and a half years and my gaming purchases are completely fine. I also don't buy based on popularity. I buy based on buyer interest and knowledge that I have aqcuired because that is the best way to do it. If I run a business I don't give 2 ***** about user enjoyment until it comes back to affect my bottom line. If i'm a gamer I'm not getting paid so whydo I care what the masses think. Get it?MrmccormoYour behavior is normal. It's the way I buy games, too. Your mindset is going to inadvertently add more sales to a game that the public decides is quality, not reviews, since your perception of quality is what you use (and it's what the vast vast majority of consumers use). People like to use the "so you're saying Mario Kart is a better game than Forza?? LOLOLOLO" argument, but no one is saying that. We're simply looking back and observing sales. Apparently, more people saw value in Mario Kart than in Forza. Since a lot of commentary amongst gamers is about what happened in the industry past and how that might affect the future, it's a very useful to be able to see the market in such a simple and accurate way.
except people buying a game they don't end up liking contribute to your definition of quality. :|
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]As a business man you use sales, as a gamer you might use reviews but as a person who knows what they like you don't need either. 1 is not better then the other without context which you are not providing here. I do not read reviews and haven't for 2 and a half years and my gaming purchases are completely fine. I also don't buy based on popularity. I buy based on buyer interest and knowledge that I have aqcuired because that is the best way to do it. If I run a business I don't give 2 ***** about user enjoyment until it comes back to affect my bottom line. If i'm a gamer I'm not getting paid so whydo I care what the masses think. Get it?MrmccormoYour behavior is normal. It's the way I buy games, too. Your mindset is going to inadvertently add more sales to a game that the public decides is quality, not reviews, since your perception of quality is what you use (and it's what the vast vast majority of consumers use). People like to use the "so you're saying Mario Kart is a better game than Forza?? LOLOLOLO" argument, but no one is saying that. We're simply looking back and observing sales. Apparently, more people saw value in Mario Kart than in Forza. Since a lot of commentary amongst gamers is about what happened in the industry past and how that might affect the future, it's a very useful to be able to see the market in such a simple and accurate way.
No, its games I find quality. Sometimes me and the public agree,(Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Mario Kart, FF7 etc) sometimes we disagree, (Bit Trip runner, Muramasa etc) but I make my own decisions that are swayed little by people outside my gaming circle. There is no doubt that more people saw value in Mario Kart over Forza just by the fact that Kart sells in 1 month what Forza take 6 to do and Kart does this consistently. It doesn't mean kart is better but to the people who are consistently choosing kart, its by no means worse either. Gamers have a superior to though attitude though, they don't make for the best debate buddies.
[QUOTE="KBFloYd"][QUOTE="oldkingallant"] :| Really now? So because something sells better, it's better? So someone makes a perfect game and everyone who ever plays it says it's the best game ever, but only 1,000 people play it. Then some bad game with crazy marketing sells millions and a lot of the people who buy it dislike it. The one that sold more is better? Fatal missteps in logic there.oldkingallant
if something sells better then it means that more people think its better than the game you like..
the perfect game? are you serious?
wii sports didnt have a major marketing campaign... the wii would like to play commercial was it..
point is...a game's quality is a subjective matter...someone could spend 5million on a game and some guy invents tetris which sell millions... tetris is the better game that everyone voted with their wallets.
At least TC's starting to make a bit of sense and is providing strong backing, this is just... what? No that doesn't mean jack, given a group of 1,000 people if all 1,000 hear about a game coming out, while only 100 hear of another game coming out, which one's going to sell more? Notice this scenario mentions absolutely nothing about the quality of each game. Why would you assume the one that sold more is better? Is it not possible that more people heard about it and just bought the one they knew existed? By the way I don't know why I didn't use this example earlier: I bought The Conduit. Does that mean I enjoyed it and "voted with my wallet" that it's better than some games I haven't bought? **** no it means I got caught up in hype and bought a game due to strong marketing.ok let me reverse your point.
if one game is advertised more than the other but the one that wasn't advertised as much ends up selling more..then you would say the quality is better than the one with more advertising?
yes you voted with your wallet on the conduit.. you thought.. hey..this gameis going to deliver a hardcore experience on the wii and i like that... anyway..the conduit is a bad example because it didnt sell...so nobody liked it.
just because a group of people on the internet think a game is better doesnt mean the whole world does... the proof is in the sales on what people want..
if the whole world thought urine tatsed better than pepsi but i didnt... then to me its not true but the majority would be right...doesnt mean you have to agree...JUST ACCEPT IT.
[QUOTE="FeedOnATreeFrog"]Minecraft is a beta product that has a $0 advertising budget and no brand. It has sold over 1 million copies. Alan Wake was a long-hyped game from a respected game studio and was advertised on TV channels and internet websites. It sold about 600,000. There's something to be noticed here. There has to be a better explanation than "LOL MARKET HYPE!"umm.....heard of advertising?
heard of the power of brand?
seriously.
Mrmccormo
different prices, different systems, different genres...
Trust me we've tried mentioning those things and apparently TC has found a utopia where only good products sell and the bad stuff gets ignored 100% of the time :P.oldkingallantSo then what bad products are selling? I'm sure we can all lament our favorite "good products" not selling as much as we like, but what bad products are selling?
except people buying a game they don't end up liking contribute to your definition of quality. :|CaseyWegnerMy definition of quality from the very first post is that the consumer decides on quality, and they vote with their money. When people buy a game they don't end up liking (which is almost impossible to track and is really more of a theoretical argument), that is nothing new. People get disappointed with products all the time. However, the product still has a higher quality in the consumer's eyes than a product that they didn't even bother buying in the first place. Sales are not the only gauge of quality. "Disappointment" is not the only gauge of quality, either, but we cannot easily track that, and there are other gauges of quality that are hard to track, like "the quality was low so they didn't even buy it in the first place". Oops. Now we're back to sales, because we can tell that a lot of people didn't bother to buy it when it sells 50k copies. Apparently the game didn't match up with what the market judged as "quality". And once again sales is the best number we have to judge what the market dubs "quality" and "crap".
Let's be perfectly honest here, sales and/or review scores do not reflect quality. It would be idiotic to depend solely on either one for gaming purchases. People should think for themselves when determining what to buy for themselves because all those people buying popular games, and reviewers who review games do not know what you like and what you don't. It's ok to notice sales and score in helping one decide what to buy though, but they should never be the only deciding factor. That's just simple common sense.
At least TC's starting to make a bit of sense and is providing strong backing, this is just... what? No that doesn't mean jack, given a group of 1,000 people if all 1,000 hear about a game coming out, while only 100 hear of another game coming out, which one's going to sell more? Notice this scenario mentions absolutely nothing about the quality of each game. Why would you assume the one that sold more is better? Is it not possible that more people heard about it and just bought the one they knew existed? By the way I don't know why I didn't use this example earlier: I bought The Conduit. Does that mean I enjoyed it and "voted with my wallet" that it's better than some games I haven't bought? **** no it means I got caught up in hype and bought a game due to strong marketing.[QUOTE="oldkingallant"][QUOTE="KBFloYd"]
if something sells better then it means that more people think its better than the game you like..
the perfect game? are you serious?
wii sports didnt have a major marketing campaign... the wii would like to play commercial was it..
point is...a game's quality is a subjective matter...someone could spend 5million on a game and some guy invents tetris which sell millions... tetris is the better game that everyone voted with their wallets.
KBFloYd
ok let me reverse your point.
if one game is advertised more than the other but the one that wasn't advertised as much ends up selling more..then you would say the quality is better than the one with more advertising?
yes you voted with your wallet on the conduit.. you thought.. hey..this gameis going to deliver a hardcore experience on the wii and i like that... anyway..the conduit is a bad example because it didnt sell...so nobody liked it.
just because a group of people on the internet think a game is better doesnt mean the whole world does... the proof is in the sales on what people want..
if the whole world thought urine tatsed better than pepsi but i didnt... then to me its not true but the majority would be right...doesnt mean you have to agree...JUST ACCEPT IT.
In terms of enjoyment, there is no right or wrong. The world can like urine if they want, they aren't right, they are different. If I like Pepsi i'm not wrong, I'm different. I'm not going to accept personal taste which is something built fundamentally on subjectivity is wrong and you aretravelling a very strange path ifyou think anyone should.
I agree. On a related note, Avatar is the best movie ever made, vastly superior to movies like Casablanca, The GodFather, and The Shawshank Redemption. My proof of this is it made more money.
Vaasman
it grossed more in the theater....but what about vhs..dvd..bluray and rentals.merchendising.game adaptations .. all these must be added up...
i bet you godfather, star wars in this case has overall made much more money.
[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]
[QUOTE="oldkingallant"] At least TC's starting to make a bit of sense and is providing strong backing, this is just... what? No that doesn't mean jack, given a group of 1,000 people if all 1,000 hear about a game coming out, while only 100 hear of another game coming out, which one's going to sell more? Notice this scenario mentions absolutely nothing about the quality of each game. Why would you assume the one that sold more is better? Is it not possible that more people heard about it and just bought the one they knew existed? By the way I don't know why I didn't use this example earlier: I bought The Conduit. Does that mean I enjoyed it and "voted with my wallet" that it's better than some games I haven't bought? **** no it means I got caught up in hype and bought a game due to strong marketing. ActicEdge
ok let me reverse your point.
if one game is advertised more than the other but the one that wasn't advertised as much ends up selling more..then you would say the quality is better than the one with more advertising?
yes you voted with your wallet on the conduit.. you thought.. hey..this gameis going to deliver a hardcore experience on the wii and i like that... anyway..the conduit is a bad example because it didnt sell...so nobody liked it.
just because a group of people on the internet think a game is better doesnt mean the whole world does... the proof is in the sales on what people want..
if the whole world thought urine tatsed better than pepsi but i didnt... then to me its not true but the majority would be right...doesnt mean you have to agree...JUST ACCEPT IT.
In terms of enjoyment, there is no right or wrong. The world can like urine if they want, they aren't right, they are different. If I like Pepsi i'm not wrong, I'm different. I'm not going to accept personal taste which is something built fundamentally on subjectivity is wrong and you aretravelling a very strange path ifyou think anyone should.
im just saying you have to accept that maybe urine tastes pretty good if so many like it... im not saying he has to agree with it though.
Interesting that you mention Godfather and Casablanca, considering they've made millions upon millions over the years through VHS and DVD releases, combo packs, licencing rights in videogames, TV advertisement, etc. It would have been better to use an unpopular movie from the 80s that no one remembers, because that is the fate of a "high quality" (according to intellectuals and reviewers) low-selling movie. The same goes for videogames. Anyone remember Bubsy? He was hyped as the next jump forward in platformers, and plenty of gamers spoke up and said "this is way better than that Mario crap or that Sonic crap". In the end, it was all smoke. Bubsy was forgotten and Mario and Sonic prevailed.I agree. On a related note, Avatar is the best movie ever made, vastly superior to movies like Casablanca, The GodFather, and The Shawshank Redemption. My proof of this is it made more money.
Vaasman
[QUOTE="Vaasman"]
I agree. On a related note, Avatar is the best movie ever made, vastly superior to movies like Casablanca, The GodFather, and The Shawshank Redemption. My proof of this is it made more money.
KBFloYd
it grossed more in the theater....but what about vhs..dvd..bluray and rentals.merchendising.game adaptations .. all these must be added up...
i bet you godfather, star wars in this case has overall made much more money.
Are you attempting to poke holes in my infallible logic? Hah don't waste your time, you cannot penetrate the intense density of my skull![QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]except people buying a game they don't end up liking contribute to your definition of quality. :|MrmccormoMy definition of quality from the very first post is that the consumer decides on quality, and they vote with their money. When people buy a game they don't end up liking (which is almost impossible to track and is really more of a theoretical argument), that is nothing new. People get disappointed with products all the time. However, the product still has a higher quality in the consumer's eyes than a product that they didn't even bother buying in the first place. Sales are not the only gauge of quality. "Disappointment" is not the only gauge of quality, either, but we cannot easily track that, and there are other gauges of quality that are hard to track, like "the quality was low so they didn't even buy it in the first place". Oops. Now we're back to sales, because we can tell that a lot of people didn't bother to buy it when it sells 50k copies. Apparently the game didn't match up with what the market judged as "quality". And once again sales is the best number we have to judge what the market dubs "quality" and "crap".
you're making too many assumptions. there is absolutely no way to track somebody's enjoyment of a game but that works both ways. somebody can hate a game, think a game is okay, think a game is good, think a game is great, or think a game is the best they've ever played but all of these opinions count the same because all you are looking at is the fact that they bought the game. it's silly.
you're assuming that somebody buys something because it is quality and doesn't buy something because it isn't quality. they don't know until after they buy it though. somebody buys something because they hope they will like it. the word "disappointment" exists for a reason.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]
ok let me reverse your point.
if one game is advertised more than the other but the one that wasn't advertised as much ends up selling more..then you would say the quality is better than the one with more advertising?
yes you voted with your wallet on the conduit.. you thought.. hey..this gameis going to deliver a hardcore experience on the wii and i like that... anyway..the conduit is a bad example because it didnt sell...so nobody liked it.
just because a group of people on the internet think a game is better doesnt mean the whole world does... the proof is in the sales on what people want..
if the whole world thought urine tatsed better than pepsi but i didnt... then to me its not true but the majority would be right...doesnt mean you have to agree...JUST ACCEPT IT.KBFloYd
In terms of enjoyment, there is no right or wrong. The world can like urine if they want, they aren't right, they are different. If I like Pepsi i'm not wrong, I'm different. I'm not going to accept personal taste which is something built fundamentally on subjectivity is wrong and you aretravelling a very strange path ifyou think anyone should.
im just saying you have to accept that maybe urine tastes pretty good if so many like it... im not saying he has to agree with it though.
I don't have to accpet it tastes good though, I just have to acknowledge people like it, that's it. Accepting something as fact because its popular opinion isn't intellegent.
[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
In terms of enjoyment, there is no right or wrong. The world can like urine if they want, they aren't right, they are different. If I like Pepsi i'm not wrong, I'm different. I'm not going to accept personal taste which is something built fundamentally on subjectivity is wrong and you aretravelling a very strange path ifyou think anyone should.
ActicEdge
im just saying you have to accept that maybe urine tastes pretty good if so many like it... im not saying he has to agree with it though.
I don't have to accpet it tastes good though, I just have to acknowledge people like it, that's it. Accepting something as fact because its popular opinion isn't intellegent.
actually it is intelligent because you use something called reason... like GOD.. you may not believe it but you have to say..hey..maybe all those millions of people are on to something.
what your doing is say..meh..all those people are wrong.. i know its bulll..to me..thats close minded and that is not intelligent.
Is TC saying Black Ops is best game of all time?
Is TC saying Black Ops is best game of all time?
Urworstnhtmare
No, he's saying Wii sports is the best game of all time!
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]
im just saying you have to accept that maybe urine tastes pretty good if so many like it... im not saying he has to agree with it though.
KBFloYd
I don't have to accpet it tastes good though, I just have to acknowledge people like it, that's it. Accepting something as fact because its popular opinion isn't intellegent.
actually it is intelligent because you use something called reason... like GOD.. you may not believe it but you have to say..sometimes alone in the dark...hey..maybe all those millions of people are on to something.
what your doing is say..meh..all those people are wrong.. i know its bulll..to me..thats close minded and that is not intelligent.
Sorry but no, popular opinion in a domain that is not provable is not something you have to accept as fact. On arbitrary issues it can be conceded I suspose like food.It can never be fact however because it can never be objectively proven which is essential for something to even be fact. Reason is irrelevant. Many people believe there is a God, I do not have to (speaking from a perspective I personally do think there is but irrelevant to the point) accept they are right because there is nothing to prove they are. When you die you will essentially find out the truth (or I suspose if there isn't there may not be anything to find) but until then no one knows. Its not close minded to not accpet a truth that is based on everyone elses opinion but yours. If general concensus is purple is the only nice color and I like blue, I'm not obligated to accept the masses are right. What sense does that make?
you're making too many assumptions. there is absolutely no way to track somebody's enjoyment of a game but that works both ways. somebody can hate a game, think a game is okay, think a game is good, think a game is great, or think a game is the best they've ever played but all of these opinions count the same because all you are looking at is the fact that they bought the game. it's silly.you're assuming that somebody buys something because it is quality and doesn't buy something because it isn't quality. they don't know until after they buy it though. somebody buys something because they hope they will like it. the word "disappointment" exists for a reason.CaseyWegnerYou are also making assumptions of your own. For instance, you keep assuming that a person only realizes a game's quality after they buy the game. But you completely ignore those who play it at a friend's house or who rent a game. Part of the Wii's breakout success came from someone playing it for themselves and then making a decision to buy it. You're also assuming that there is a giant portion of a game's purchasers who are dissatisfied with the game. Can you prove that? And if it is the case, that would lead to negative customer reviews and lower sales, not steady sales over a long time period (which is what games like Mario Kart and Super Mario Bros Wii boast).
When a game has very low sales, we can conclusively prove that it didn't meet the mass market's definition of a quality product in one way or another. However, when a game has very high sales, can you conclusively prove that a lot of those customers were unsatisfied? I'm curious to see how you could prove that, because that seems to be the crux of your argument.
[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
I don't have to accpet it tastes good though, I just have to acknowledge people like it, that's it. Accepting something as fact because its popular opinion isn't intellegent.
ActicEdge
actually it is intelligent because you use something called reason... like GOD.. you may not believe it but you have to say..sometimes alone in the dark...hey..maybe all those millions of people are on to something.
what your doing is say..meh..all those people are wrong.. i know its bulll..to me..thats close minded and that is not intelligent.
Sorry but no, popular opinion in a domain that is not provable is not something you have to accept as fact. On arbitrary issues it can be conceded I suspose like food.It can never be fact however because it can never be objectively proven which is essential for something to even be fact. Reason is irrelevant. Many people believe there is a God, I do not have to (speaking from a perspective I personally do think there is but irrelevant to the point) accept they are right because there is nothing to prove they are. When you die you will essentially find out the truth (or I suspose if there isn't there may not be anything to find) but until then no one knows. Its not close minded to not accpet a truth that is based on everyone elses opinion but yours. If general concensus is purple is the only nice color and I like blue, I'm not obligated to accept the masses are right. What sense does that make?
so then facts dont exsist? i mean..nothing can be completely proven.. what if we are all just dreaming and when we die is when we really wake up..
me talking to you is a collective dream.. ever played that one part in fallout 3 where your dad is a dog?
i think we reached a point in this discussion where we have to end it lol.
You are also making assumptions of your own. For instance, you keep assuming that a person only realizes a game's quality after they buy the game. But you completely ignore those who play it at a friend's house or who rent a game. Part of the Wii's breakout success came from someone playing it for themselves and then making a decision to buy it. You're also assuming that there is a giant portion of a game's purchasers who are dissatisfied with the game. Can you prove that? And if it is the case, that would lead to negative customer reviews and lower sales, not steady sales over a long time period (which is what games like Mario Kart and Super Mario Bros Wii boast).[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]you're making too many assumptions. there is absolutely no way to track somebody's enjoyment of a game but that works both ways. somebody can hate a game, think a game is okay, think a game is good, think a game is great, or think a game is the best they've ever played but all of these opinions count the same because all you are looking at is the fact that they bought the game. it's silly.you're assuming that somebody buys something because it is quality and doesn't buy something because it isn't quality. they don't know until after they buy it though. somebody buys something because they hope they will like it. the word "disappointment" exists for a reason.Mrmccormo
When a game has very low sales, we can conclusively prove that it didn't meet the mass market's definition of a quality product in one way or another. However, when a game has very high sales, can you conclusively prove that a lot of those customers were unsatisfied? I'm curious to see how you could prove that, because that seems to be the crux of your argument.
yes.. word of mouth... if its good..word will spread which equals sales.
You are also making assumptions of your own. For instance, you keep assuming that a person only realizes a game's quality after they buy the game. But you completely ignore those who play it at a friend's house or who rent a game. Part of the Wii's breakout success came from someone playing it for themselves and then making a decision to buy it. You're also assuming that there is a giant portion of a game's purchasers who are dissatisfied with the game. Can you prove that? And if it is the case, that would lead to negative customer reviews and lower sales, not steady sales over a long time period (which is what games like Mario Kart and Super Mario Bros Wii boast).[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"]you're making too many assumptions. there is absolutely no way to track somebody's enjoyment of a game but that works both ways. somebody can hate a game, think a game is okay, think a game is good, think a game is great, or think a game is the best they've ever played but all of these opinions count the same because all you are looking at is the fact that they bought the game. it's silly.you're assuming that somebody buys something because it is quality and doesn't buy something because it isn't quality. they don't know until after they buy it though. somebody buys something because they hope they will like it. the word "disappointment" exists for a reason.Mrmccormo
When a game has very low sales, we can conclusively prove that it didn't meet the mass market's definition of a quality product in one way or another. However, when a game has very high sales, can you conclusively prove that a lot of those customers were unsatisfied? I'm curious to see how you could prove that, because that seems to be the crux of your argument.
Enslaved received poor sales, but the game is fantastic. Call of Duty gets great sales, even though they're all near-identical. Sales mean nothing.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
[QUOTE="KBFloYd"]
actually it is intelligent because you use something called reason... like GOD.. you may not believe it but you have to say..sometimes alone in the dark...hey..maybe all those millions of people are on to something.
what your doing is say..meh..all those people are wrong.. i know its bulll..to me..thats close minded and that is not intelligent.KBFloYd
Sorry but no, popular opinion in a domain that is not provable is not something you have to accept as fact. On arbitrary issues it can be conceded I suspose like food.It can never be fact however because it can never be objectively proven which is essential for something to even be fact. Reason is irrelevant. Many people believe there is a God, I do not have to (speaking from a perspective I personally do think there is but irrelevant to the point) accept they are right because there is nothing to prove they are. When you die you will essentially find out the truth (or I suspose if there isn't there may not be anything to find) but until then no one knows. Its not close minded to not accpet a truth that is based on everyone elses opinion but yours. If general concensus is purple is the only nice color and I like blue, I'm not obligated to accept the masses are right. What sense does that make?
so then facts dont exsist? i mean..nothing can be completely proven.. what if we are all just dreaming and when we die is when we really wake up..
me talking to you is a collective dream..
i think we reached a point in this discussion where we have to end it lol.
Facts exist. They are based off of standards that have been taken to be true. In the numerical system, 1 + 1 = 2. that'sa fact based off the conventions of how the system was created, there is no arguing, its a fact within the system and that's the commonly adapted system thus we take it as fact. The earth circles the sun, that is an observed pattern, it is now accepted as fact. You can deny it but its not based on opinion that can't be validated. Its based off of science and general accepted knowledge which is backed by standards known to be the basis of fact through testing. My opinion can never be fact, why is that a hard concept? 8 million people liking coke doesn't mean coke tastes good because taste is subkective, it means coke is a well liked drink because 8 million enjoy it. The discussion is over though because I'm right, if you can't provide facts that are undisputable through rigourous testing, you don't have facts, you have preference or opinion.
Enslaved received poor sales, but the game is fantastic. Call of Duty gets great sales, even though they're all near-identical. Sales mean nothing.UnrealLegendYour statement isn't really hitting what the topic is about. Enslaved had decent exposure, it had a reasonably accessible world, it was multiplatform (more potential sales), it wasn't overshadowed by the mega-launch of another title, and it had mechanics that gamers have been known to enjoy. Yet, it sold poorly. What does that mean? It means that only a few people thought Enslaved was worth buying. Nothing more, and nothing less. I don't see why these sort of things are dismissed and overlooked while at the same time giving so much credence to arbitrary review numbers given by a handful of "journalists" who work for advertising-funded game sites and magazines.
[QUOTE="UnrealLegend"]Enslaved received poor sales, but the game is fantastic. Call of Duty gets great sales, even though they're all near-identical. Sales mean nothing.MrmccormoYour statement isn't really hitting what the topic is about. Enslaved had decent exposure, it had a reasonably accessible world, it was multiplatform (more potential sales), it wasn't overshadowed by the mega-launch of another title, and it had mechanics that gamers have been known to enjoy. Yet, it sold poorly. What does that mean? It means that only a few people thought Enslaved was worth buying. Nothing more, and nothing less. I don't see why these sort of things are dismissed and overlooked while at the same time giving so much credence to arbitrary review numbers given by a handful of "journalists" who work for advertising-funded game sites and magazines.
Except that has NOTHING to do with the game's quality. If people didn't buy Enslaved because they didn't think it was worth the purchase, how would they know if it isn't worth the purchase without watching or reading a review? There are a lot of people out there who will buy a game just because the cover looks cool as well. :?
I don't know if this is a joke from TC but clearly what he's saying is obviously wrong. He's saying business means everything and then questions what actually is quality, seems like to him the latter is what he's perplexed about rather than actually throwing in a statement out of blindess. If you want solid proof sales does not equal quality just look at some psn/xbl/iphone games. Even at 1-5 bucks, some of them are so bad they don't even deserve to be released on newgrounds, people paying for them are criminals.
Your statement isn't really hitting what the topic is about. Enslaved had decent exposure, it had a reasonably accessible world, it was multiplatform (more potential sales), it wasn't overshadowed by the mega-launch of another title, and it had mechanics that gamers have been known to enjoy. Yet, it sold poorly. What does that mean? It means that only a few people thought Enslaved was worth buying. Nothing more, and nothing less. I don't see why these sort of things are dismissed and overlooked while at the same time giving so much credence to arbitrary review numbers given by a handful of "journalists" who work for advertising-funded game sites and magazines.[QUOTE="Mrmccormo"][QUOTE="UnrealLegend"]Enslaved received poor sales, but the game is fantastic. Call of Duty gets great sales, even though they're all near-identical. Sales mean nothing.UnrealLegend
Except that has NOTHING to do with the game's quality. If people didn't buy Enslaved because they didn't think it was worth the purchase, how would they know if it isn't worth the purchase without watching or reading a review? There are a lot of people out there who will buy a game just because the cover looks cool as well. :?
Who determines game quality? That question is the heart of this thread. Do you? Do reviewers? It's a tough call. However, it's easy to compare sales. When Game A sells 20 million and Game B sells 600,000, it is clear that more people found Game A to be of quality. It's impossible to dispute.[QUOTE="UnrealLegend"][QUOTE="Mrmccormo"] Your statement isn't really hitting what the topic is about. Enslaved had decent exposure, it had a reasonably accessible world, it was multiplatform (more potential sales), it wasn't overshadowed by the mega-launch of another title, and it had mechanics that gamers have been known to enjoy. Yet, it sold poorly. What does that mean? It means that only a few people thought Enslaved was worth buying. Nothing more, and nothing less. I don't see why these sort of things are dismissed and overlooked while at the same time giving so much credence to arbitrary review numbers given by a handful of "journalists" who work for advertising-funded game sites and magazines.Mrmccormo
Except that has NOTHING to do with the game's quality. If people didn't buy Enslaved because they didn't think it was worth the purchase, how would they know if it isn't worth the purchase without watching or reading a review? There are a lot of people out there who will buy a game just because the cover looks cool as well. :?
Who determines game quality? That question is the heart of this thread. Do you? Do reviewers? It's a tough call. However, it's easy to compare sales. When Game A sells 20 million and Game B sells 600,000, it is clear that more people found Game A to be of quality. It's impossible to dispute.Just went through your OP for another run. I think you're confused about the terms 'quality' and 'value'. Value is what consumers thinking about before they lay down the money. As you said its all a matter of opinion, but quality is about polish and how smooth a game runs. You're stating in op that quality is the deciding factor, where it should be value instead.
clear? :)
In all seriousness, how exactly does advertising factor into your argument, considering that accounts for a major part of sales? Also wii sports was bundled free with a wii, can we say it's the best game ever? Probably not, since most people probably just wanted a wii. What about brand value? I'm sure mario games will sell more than an equally advertised and rated game, simply because the brand is associated with good games. You can directly influence sales through means other than the game itself simply being good. For example having your own toy line apparently makes you a better game, and if you partner with a soft drink well then my god your quality skyrockets!
Intrinsic quality is not based on sales for another reason: They are not a good scale. Lets assume for a second that Wii Sports really and truly is the best game ever (lol). It is not just the best game ever though, it is almost twice as good as the next best game ever. That's your argument in a nutshell. People didn't just decide it was the best game ever, they overwhelmingly did. I suppose if you look at it on a one to one basis, you could simply say "game x is better than game y" because thats what numbers say. But with tens of thousands of games, you force numbers to be a literal measurement rather than a simple indicator. Make any sense?
You can't just say "x is the best game ever" using sales as a scale, you have to say "x is the best game ever by such a wide margin that nothing else even comes close to it."
So if sales are untrustworthy, why are reviewers any better? Well for one, they are payed to review games. The quality of reviews is more or less reliable in the sense that becoming unreliable or shoddy is a good way to get fired (or in our case posting your actual feelings amirite gamespot?). Frequently posting flamebait reviews also damages the companies reputation. Obviously nobody would take a site seriously if they consider Big Rigs the best game ever. General consensus helps of course to reduce the potential for bias, which is why it is helpful to consider the opinions of multiple people when using a reviewer.
Oh, and reviewers are single humans, generally unaffected by mass hysteria, which also can drive sales. Did you know people are actually more likely to buy something, just because they think other people bought it? Reviewers don't have that, they get most games free and just review them on a cost to quality ratio, while attempting to be objective.
You know speaking of big rigs, apparently that was on the worst games everyone played list.
That means it outsold the best game no one played that year, Amplitude. Big Rigs literally outsold an unheard of but critically praised game, simply because it was so bad.
You expect anyone here to believe Big Rigs wasn't the worst game of 2003, and generally one of the worst games ever?
Because according to you, it wasn't, and there are many games much worse than it.
Nice.
I agree. Reviews shouldn't be the most important information telling how good a game is. They are misleading anyways. The average score for a video game is 50-74 according to Metacritic. 50! I did a study with the all the FPS GameSpot review scores on 360 and PS3. They both averaged out to 72%. That's high average. 7.0 on GS. 2 points two high to be average or fair I think on GS. So every time you see a score on GS minus two full points then you have a true review score. Do this only if you think reviews are more reliable then sales.
[QUOTE="UnrealLegend"]Your statement isn't really hitting what the topic is about. Enslaved had decent exposure, it had a reasonably accessible world, it was multiplatform (more potential sales), it wasn't overshadowed by the mega-launch of another title, and it had mechanics that gamers have been known to enjoy. Yet, it sold poorly. What does that mean? It means that only a few people thought Enslaved was worth buying. Nothing more, and nothing less. I don't see why these sort of things are dismissed and overlooked while at the same time giving so much credence to arbitrary review numbers given by a handful of "journalists" who work for advertising-funded game sites and magazines.[QUOTE="Mrmccormo"][QUOTE="UnrealLegend"]Enslaved received poor sales, but the game is fantastic. Call of Duty gets great sales, even though they're all near-identical. Sales mean nothing.Mrmccormo
Except that has NOTHING to do with the game's quality. If people didn't buy Enslaved because they didn't think it was worth the purchase, how would they know if it isn't worth the purchase without watching or reading a review? There are a lot of people out there who will buy a game just because the cover looks cool as well. :?
Who determines game quality? That question is the heart of this thread. Do you? Do reviewers? It's a tough call. However, it's easy to compare sales. When Game A sells 20 million and Game B sells 600,000, it is clear that more people found Game A to be of quality. It's impossible to dispute.You are assuming that everyone who bought game A thought it was "quality." What if they hated it? What if they liked it? What if they thought it was the greatest game ever created? If they are buying it, it doesn't mean that they think it is of higher quality, because how could they know? Your logic is flawed and it's pretty clear that everyone is disagreeing with you.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment