The most overrated game developer?

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="TaCoDuDe"]How do sales have anything to do with how good a developer is?AdobeArtist

Here's the difference between games and hardware.

All games are scored, that's how we determine the good ones from the bad. A score is a measure of quality, not sales.

When it comes to consoles, the market leader is determined by market share, which indicates the most favored by the entire gaming community. This is something that can't be scored, so this is where we go by sales.

In other words, for games we go by scores because there are scores to go by, but there aren't scores for the consoles themselves.

[QUOTE="toxicmog"][QUOTE="Heith"]Why are Bioware and Bungie on there? I'd say square enix, their last few FF games were horrible and sold and were reviewed based off brand name, 5 years ago I wouldn't say this.. but today, they are overrated big time...fuzzysquash

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"][QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"]

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"] A lot of people just base it on Quality. Which doesn't make sense to me. if EA make 15 games in one year and get 4 AAA that year, and Bioware makes 1 game in a year and gets a AAA. People will say Bioware is better. How? that why Bioware is overrated.fuzzysquash

Umm.....because that one AAA from Bioware is probably higher quality, deeper, longer and a more memorable experience than any of those 4 EA games?

Just because a game is AAA doesn't mean it's the same quality of experience as any other.

Plus you're comparing EA, which is the industry's largest developer/publisher which specializes in churning out quantity against a little Canadian studio that focuses on producing quality.

[QUOTE="SoulKillah"]Bungie...only good game seems to be their halo franchise...bustos86

True. Only one good franchise. but the Winner of this pole is EA.

 :| What are you talking about? Have you ever heard of Marathon or Myth?

[QUOTE="fuzzysquash"][QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"][QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"]

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"] A lot of people just base it on Quality. Which doesn't make sense to me. if EA make 15 games in one year and get 4 AAA that year, and Bioware makes 1 game in a year and gets a AAA. People will say Bioware is better. How? that why Bioware is overrated.shungokustasu

Umm.....because that one AAA from Bioware is probably higher quality, deeper, longer and a more memorable experience than any of those 4 EA games?

Just because a game is AAA doesn't mean it's the same quality of experience as any other.

Plus you're comparing EA, which is the industry's largest developer/publisher which specializes in churning out quantity against a little Canadian studio that focuses on producing quality.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="TaCoDuDe"]How do sales have anything to do with how good a developer is?shungokustasu

Here's the difference between games and hardware.

All games are scored, that's how we determine the good ones from the bad. A score is a measure of quality, not sales.

When it comes to consoles, the market leader is determined by market share, which indicates the most favored by the entire gaming community. This is something that can't be scored, so this is where we go by sales.

In other words, for games we go by scores because there are scores to go by, but there aren't scores for the consoles themselves.

Their products are scored. The game scores are a reflection of those that made said game. But again, there are no scores for consoles, so you couldn't apply the same idea to detrmine who is a better console company.

[QUOTE="fuzzysquash"][QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"][QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"]

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"] A lot of people just base it on Quality. Which doesn't make sense to me. if EA make 15 games in one year and get 4 AAA that year, and Bioware makes 1 game in a year and gets a AAA. People will say Bioware is better. How? that why Bioware is overrated.shungokustasu

Umm.....because that one AAA from Bioware is probably higher quality, deeper, longer and a more memorable experience than any of those 4 EA games?

Just because a game is AAA doesn't mean it's the same quality of experience as any other.

Plus you're comparing EA, which is the industry's largest developer/publisher which specializes in churning out quantity against a little Canadian studio that focuses on producing quality.

When is the last time EA developed a AAA game? 

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="-Ramirez-"][QUOTE="TaCoDuDe"]How do sales have anything to do with how good a developer is?shungokustasu

Don't expect an intelligent explanation from Ramierez. He can't back up his ludicrous claims that the hundreds of AAA scores KOTOR got was purely out of "pity".

And to continue our previous debate of quality over quanity, without getting into a superchain post, let me add - I have nothing against AA games. I don't get into that fanboy mentality that anything less than a 9 is crap, AA games mean they are still great. But when I say many multiple games coming out and some of them being average, that also means A games. So maybe 1 dev comes out with 17 games which breaks down as AAAx2, AAx5, Ax10... and then another dev has 4 games in which 3 are AAA and 1 is AA. That to me says the 1st dev while producing many titles, many of them are just fillers, whereas the games by the second dev are fewer but you can count on each being a great gaming experience.

Of course I'm talking general principals here and not by specific examples, but I feel Bioware follows that principle.

As I said I was speaking in general principles and not specific numbers. Again, those 1 or 2 a year by BioWare are great games (8's and 9's), while another dev might also have 2 great games a year and a larger portion that are scored in the 7's, so does the higher quantity really matter that much?

When is the last time EA developed a AAA game?

thirstychainsaw

As I said I was speaking in general principles and not specific numbers. Again, those 1 or 2 a year by BioWare are great games (8's and 9's), while another dev might also have 2 great games a year and a larger portion that are scored in the 7's, so does the higher quantity really matter that much?

AdobeArtist

PS: To grade a whole company based on it's game graded by GS, IGN, or GameInformer is silly to me. You can take it into account, but for it to be the only judging point? No way that's very moronic in my opinion.

Lmao at people coming in here saying Halo is the only game Bungie has ever made and obviously don't know that.klabut

Bethesda... I can't stand how overrated Oblivion is.NATATO

You NEED to play Morrowind. It's much better than Oblivion.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

As I said I was speaking in general principles and not specific numbers. Again, those 1 or 2 a year by BioWare are great games (8's and 9's), while another dev might also have 2 great games a year and a larger portion that are scored in the 7's, so does the higher quantity really matter that much?

shungokustasu

PS: To grade a whole company based on it's game graded by GS, IGN, or GameInformer is silly to me. You can take it into account, but for it to be the only judging point? No way that's very moronic in my opinion.

I don't dismiss the value of quantity. you do want to have a certain amount of titles to play. But when so many games are just A and so many are AA and AAA, the quantity doesn't seem to have as much importance as the quality. And that's what I'm saying, quality is much more important than quantity, whereas you seem to place higher importance on quantity than quality.

But yeah, I guess I do say that sales factors far far less, since that is usually a reflection of personal taste in gamers.

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

As I said I was speaking in general principles and not specific numbers. Again, those 1 or 2 a year by BioWare are great games (8's and 9's), while another dev might also have 2 great games a year and a larger portion that are scored in the 7's, so does the higher quantity really matter that much?

AdobeArtist

PS: To grade a whole company based on it's game graded by GS, IGN, or GameInformer is silly to me. You can take it into account, but for it to be the only judging point? No way that's very moronic in my opinion.

I don't dismiss the value of quantity. you do want to have a certain amount of titles to play. But when so many games are just A and so many are AA and AAA, the quantity doesn't seem to have as much importance as the quality. And that's what I'm saying, quality is much more important than quantity, whereas you seem to place higher importance on quantity than quality.

But yeah, I guess I do say that sales factors far far less, since that is usually a reflection of personal taste in gamers.

I think yours is Quality > Quanity = Sales

[QUOTE="fuzzysquash"][QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"][QUOTE="shungokustasu"][QUOTE="fuzzysquash"]

[QUOTE="shungokustasu"] A lot of people just base it on Quality. Which doesn't make sense to me. if EA make 15 games in one year and get 4 AAA that year, and Bioware makes 1 game in a year and gets a AAA. People will say Bioware is better. How? that why Bioware is overrated.shungokustasu

Umm.....because that one AAA from Bioware is probably higher quality, deeper, longer and a more memorable experience than any of those 4 EA games?

Just because a game is AAA doesn't mean it's the same quality of experience as any other.

Plus you're comparing EA, which is the industry's largest developer/publisher which specializes in churning out quantity against a little Canadian studio that focuses on producing quality.

My judgement is Quality = Quanity = Sales

I think yours is Quality > Quanity = Sales

shungokustasu

Actually mine is more Quality > Quantity > Sales

but close enough :)