Support NeoGAF

[bender]

Fuck me running, the answer is no. Pokemon sword sold millions and sucks so hard it makes superman 64 look like a decent game.

 

[martino]

no, most game with huge sales do it because of marketing....so conformism and social proof are a part of those sales.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

According to what I read here every day, large sales numbers = quality if the game is RDR2 or a Sony exclusive.
The equation isn't valid if the game is, say, Animal Crossing.



(Real answer: good games often sell well. A lot of games that sell well are "good enough". Of course sales do not equal quality.)

 

[Wandering Leopard]

Quality and popularity are very different.

If something is popular or is a fad it could sell a lot eg. Pokémon Go.

Quality (or how much people enjoy something) depends on the individual.

I mostly agree that 'quality' games will sell better than 'poor quality' games.

 

[Bryank75]

Consistency in high quality results in a great reputation for the developer / publisher. Examples being Nintendo, PlayStation, Capcom etc.

You know when you buy a Nintendo console that you are going to get Nintendo quality games, there is a level of expectation there.

Unfortunately current PlayStation leadership do not understand the principle as deeply as Nintendo do...... they did deals to get Destruction Allstars and Godfall and those were way beneath the bar....at the same time they decided to put some of their games on PC, diminishing the value of their exclusive games and what their hardware means to people. Making their games less than unique to their system.

Games that PlayStation put on PC will never get to a level comparable to Nintendo IP's, because they have cheapened them and made them too accessible.

The most important things are quality, patience and exclusivity, after you know you have an IP that resonates..... Sony do not have patience and they gave up their exclusivity.
Jim Ryan want's his 'highest profits ever' before he retires in a few short years..... that is why he is sacrificing the longterm health of these franchises.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Going by the top 3 selling games I would say.... quality doesn't matter.

 

[Three]

Quality isn't subjective but enjoyment is. A buggy game with bad graphics doesn't become quality because you like it. It's still a low quality game but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

 

[Hezekiah]

All you need to do is take a look at Animal Crossing.

 

[Fess]

Is Minecraft the highest quality game of all time?

Good sales is usually related to popularity, great PR, word of mouth, and maybe quality in that specific genre, maybe.

 

[xpresstuning]

Genre preference aside (If a game is great but it isn't something you would play, you should still be able to appreciate it)

I believe we know the answers should be "Not always" and "Yes, of course quality matters".
Is it really obvious though? I was discussing with a friend and he pulled out the "the game sold millions so your criticism is invalid" point, and I thought, maybe, yeah, whatever I found lacking in the game wouldn't have changed the sales numbers, so why should the developers/publishers care?

Edit: thinking about it a little more, I think sales represent mass appeal more than anything. But the question can still be rephrased as "If mass appeal is a greater proof of success/viability than actual quality, then of what use is this 'quality' to devs/publishers"?

No criticism is invalid, as long as it's honest because every single honest opinion is fundamentally the only thing that matters for any individual. I wouldn't give a shit if someone enjoyed Skyward Sword, and i didn't, for example. That wouldn't sway my experience, and my opinion on that video game. I can respect the other opinion, and move on. "Oh but it sold so well!" Ok? The game still is a piece of shit, that doesn't change my opinion.

You're right, the amount of sales generated is representative of how much appeal the game has with a broad, diverse demographic. But it also represents how much consumer awareness the product managed to pull in.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Superman 64 sold a million copies at N64 cartridge prices.

 

[MastaKiiLA]

No. COD, Madde, FIFA, and others say otherwise.

That said, quality is subjective. However, I voted for the almost never option, in order to appear more edgy.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Frogger was the 27th best selling game on PS1 at 3.4 million copies. Yeah, Frogger.

List of best-selling PlayStation video games - Wikipedia

 

[R6Rider]

Sales generally mean nothing. People buy the same garbage FIFA, MADDEN, and NBA 2K every year.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

Quality is a difficult thing to quantify in the entertainment industry, particularly the video game industry.

Like, there are objective delineations of a "quality" video game; is it well coded, does it run well, are the controls tight, is it mainly free of bugs, is the image quality sound.

Then there are far more subjective concerns; is it original, is the art style decent, are the gameplay systems interesting, is the story/dialogue well done, etc.

Games like TLOU2 are a prime example, every single objective concern gets a resounding tick, regardless of how you feel about the subjective aspects.

TLDR - yes and no.

 

[Woggleman]

It just means that game is popular.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Edit: thinking about it a little more, I think sales represent mass appeal more than anything. But the question can still be rephrased as "If mass appeal is a greater proof of success/viability than actual quality, then of what use is this 'quality' to devs/publishers"?

You'd have to define what "quality" means first.
In my book, appeal (appeal in general, not simply mass appeal) is a part of what makes up the quality of a game.

 

[Africa's Toto]

You'd have to define what "quality" means first.
In my book, appeal (appeal in general, not simply mass appeal) is a part of what makes up the quality of a game.

Pardon le bump, but I've been thinking about this again recently.
Appeal making up the quality of the game would be perceived quality, which lasts until you actually play the game yourself. Wouldn't it?

Quality is still too vague, so let's say a combination of technical metrics, overall presentation and "fun factor". And whatever else we could throw in there I guess since we're making this up.

 

[yurinka]

Big sales means it caught the interest of a lot of players, enough to pay that for it. If it's a series and players keep buying it, means they like these series. I'd say that more than quality, sales means popularity.

This doesn't mean you will like this popular game. Each person has different tastes and games are made for different type of players you have different tastes. What is good quality for some players is totally different to what good quality means for other type of players so a game liked by some may be crap for others and viceversa.

So the most popular game in the world may be a kiddy turd to you with no interest at all. And if you love a niche game that nobody else likes doesn't mean the game you like is good and the mainstream games you don't like are bad. It's only your opinion, and a shitty one because you think your dick is the center of the universe and everyone is wrong but you are right.

I think GOTY awards and reviews score average are a better indicator of quality than sales. Because it's the average opinion of people who supposedly has a certain knowledge and taste of the specific type of game they are reviewing or curating for awards/choosing as award winner.

 

[Andodalf]

Frogger was the 27th best selling game on PS1 at 3.4 million copies. Yeah, Frogger.

List of best-selling PlayStation video games - Wikipedia

Frogger is a great game

 

[packy34]

I've noticed over time that the games I like the most tend to not be huge sellers. I only give a shit about sales up to a certain point - the devs seeing a good return on investment. I don't need to see the things I like on NPD every month in order to feel validated.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

I think GOTY awards and reviews score average are a better indicator of quality than sales. Because it's the average opinion of people who supposedly has a certain knowledge and taste of the specific type of game they are reviewing or curating for awards/choosing as award winner.

Reviews are skewed towards streamlining and polish. That's great if you're into these kinds of games, but to me personally, they tend to bore me and are only viable as comfort food. There are exceptions to this of course, as always.

 

[Woopah]

Partially. Quality is one aspect of sales but not the only one.

Having said that, software and hardware sales do matter has they impact what games get made. That's why we have yearly CODs but haven't had a new TimeSplitters in over a decade.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Appeal making up the quality of the game would be perceived quality, which lasts until you actually play the game yourself. Wouldn't it?

As you said its vague stuff.When i talk about appeal i'm refering to certain selling points of the game and how well they deliver those to the player.

Take GoT for example, its biggest 'appeal' is the promise to deliver a medieval japanese setting that looks good, is immersive and that you can explore, aka scratch a samurai/ninja itch that people may have. Considering i usually get mixed opinions on its gameplay or story, i suppose its safe to say this game sells itself solely on what i'm calling appeal here.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

No, there is no relationship between one thing and another.

there is no quality.

quality is something they say to you

so the good game is one that has good marketing behind it.

mainly by paying influencers or supposed experts to speak well about the product, this induces the masses

 

[WitchHunter]

Genre preference aside (If a game is great but it isn't something you would play, you should still be able to appreciate it)

I believe we know the answers should be "Not always" and "Yes, of course quality matters".
Is it really obvious though? I was discussing with a friend and he pulled out the "the game sold millions so your criticism is invalid" point, and I thought, maybe, yeah, whatever I found lacking in the game wouldn't have changed the sales numbers, so why should the developers/publishers care?

Edit: thinking about it a little more, I think sales represent mass appeal more than anything. But the question can still be rephrased as "If mass appeal is a greater proof of success/viability than actual quality, then of what use is this 'quality' to devs/publishers"?

Lots of people eat fast food. Fast food is processed food. Processed food means all the calories will be sucked up by your bowels. Which means you will get fat. Fatness leads to severe health conditions. Your quality of life will decrease drastically over time, you will become miserable. You become a burden to the health system, you will cost a lot. You are not evolved to consume processed foods because it just does not occur in nature. The same applies to "cultural" shit that you are being fed. Your brain needs something to chew on otherwise you will become more stupided with every generation. Your threshold is lowered and in the end you will find yourself in a barn, eating leftovers, like a pig.