In the case of video games, there's no independantly defined set of criteria that can be used to determine if a game is "good" or "bad". Judgements of quality in games are purely subjective.
However, "popularity" is much easier to determine. If a game makes large amounts of money, it usually means that there's a large amount of people playing it. Revenue and active logins are not subjective.
Nobody can seriously argue that WoW is not popular and makes tons of money. But many will argue that it's not actually a "good" game, because they don't enjoy playing it.
Popularity is an indication of how many people feel that game X is a "good" game. My opinion of game X may be quite different, but that's not going to change the opinions of the 5M players of that game...
The game can't be good, because I do not like it, therefore it must be popular!
Seriously....
On the contrary money matters a lot for MMOs - online games that don't make money get shut down.
Without money MMOs won't get patch updates and further development
studios that make enough money can make more games so ultimately without any money - games would not be made anymore.
But is "making the most money" a measure of "good?"
I don't think anyone has ever made that argument in a serious manner.
I will make that argument any day and in all seriousness.
I doubt it. However, "Anyone ever" was hyperbole. You may value how much money a product makes over anything else.
I don't think the majority of people do, instead the OP is conflating the use of a metric with an opinion that "games are only good if they made money."
When people post earnings data for a game, they typically are not actually saying "my game is the best look at all the money it made."
Instead they are saying "Look at how people have voted with their wallets in favor of game."
So when people say things like "WoW is a bad game even if it makes a lot of money" People who post earnings or subscriber data are saying "Clearly a lot of people disagree with you based on their continued spending on WoW."
I also amend my statement slightly, it was late when reading this post for me and I read it as
But is "making the most money" the measure of "good?"
Rather than what the post actually said.
When have you ever started playing a game, enjoyed it, looked up how much money it made and then decided that it didn't make enough so it is a terrible game and stopped playing.
Probably never, you probably didn't even value how much it made enough to even look up its sales numbers, and if you did if you where enjoying it already and if it had only sold 1 copy, and that was to you, you still enjoyed it for your own reasons.
Narwrynn said: When have you ever started playing a game, enjoyed it, looked up how much money it made and then decided that it didn't make enough so it is a terrible game and stopped playing.
Probably never, you probably didn't even value how much it made enough to even look up its sales numbers, and if you did if you where enjoying it already and if it had only sold 1 copy, and that was to you, you still enjoyed it for your own reasons.
This is the same retardedness of the argument I pointed out above - being a good game does not mean YOU must enjoy it.
There is nothing to doubt, the argument that money made is a measure of success is sound.
F2P really muddles everything that people have discussed in this thread. A game's sales is a reasonable metric which tells a story of how "good" it is (it's not the whole story, but it's a significant part of it). But F2P allows games to makes money without being good at all because they get most of their money from a much smaller percentage of the player base.
And if you go by number of people playing, it's still a bit of a false flag because the price of entry is still zero. So F2P games can in fact, be monetarily successful while also being terrible.
Narwrynn said: When have you ever started playing a game, enjoyed it, looked up how much money it made and then decided that it didn't make enough so it is a terrible game and stopped playing.
Probably never, you probably didn't even value how much it made enough to even look up its sales numbers, and if you did if you where enjoying it already and if it had only sold 1 copy, and that was to you, you still enjoyed it for your own reasons.
This is the same retardedness of the argument I pointed out above - being a good game does not mean YOU must enjoy it.
You are completely incoherent. Go drink coffee and come back.
To respond to your edited version: "There is nothing to doubt, the argument that money made is a measure of success is sound."
I was talking about how good a game is not how successful it is. You are very slightly changing the argument to straw-man me into an opinion I do not hold.
Obvious troll is obvious so I'm done with you now.
If you really want to argue this in you next post admit to trying to attack an opinion I do not hold.
I got straw-maned hard like 8 times in this thread already. Not going down it again.
Also why do you think fast food is more deadly than cyanide?
Here's the deal, in the grand scheme of things it all comes down to whether an individual finds it worth their TIME to play a particular game. Doesn't matter if it is free, not free, good, bad, fun or unfun... it's a simple matter of whether they WISH to spend their time playing it. This is why it's ALL subjective. Some people enjoy the mindless clicking as a stress release. Others see it as a way to pass the time away (they have too much free time). Everyone seems to think that some sort of divine intervention needs to happen in order for someone to fire up a game and play it. Hell, the mere act of complaining about a game is a game in and of itself. It's how they CHOSE to spend their TIME.
Ask some one to prove their ridiculous statement that "success" and "good" are the same thing Good - to be desired or approved of Success - the accomplishment of an aim or purpose.
Reply: People don't spend money on things that are not "worthy"
Yo, man you can say larceny-theft is the best crime all you want but just because it is the most common crime doesn't make it the BEST crime.
Do you realize that only person talking about crime here is you...?
You truly need your head to be examined.
Do you understand the arguments you made against me where all, literally all, of them where aimed at arguments I never made?
Nothing you said respond to my points. None a signal thing
I say "good" and "success" are not synonymous. You "prove" they are by talking about peoples spending habits. Their spending habits? What does peoples spending habits have to do with if something is successful?
Are you slow in the head?
The larceny-theft things was me taking your dumb argument that popular = good = successful.
Larceny-theft is the most common crime, therefore it is the most popular there for the most successful therefore it is good. Therefore you think larceny-theft is the BEST crime.
Kind of annoying to have someone reply to argument you are not making, huh?
Edit: So go back read my post and reply to something I actually said.
No? Because you can't your arguments hold no merit.
Popular, successful, and good are not synonyms by any stretch of the imagination.
If your goal doesn't include profit, then how much money you made in not in indicator of success.
The goal of Browser Quest was not to make loads of money. It was to showcase the potential of HTML5. So it does not matter that Browser Quest didn't make any money it was still a success. Edit 2: It also doesn't matter that Browser Quest was never a very popular game, it was still a good game. It doesn't matter that only a relatively small number of people played it.
Larceny-theft is the most common crime, therefore it is the most popular there for the most successful therefore it is good. Therefore you think larceny-theft is the BEST crime.
...so most common now substitutes for making most money?
Because there is no difference in making money legally and illegally, thus same context and arguments applies.
"Good" is a personal value judgement that implies approval.
Perhaps we should abandon the words "good" and "bad" in the interests of political correctness. Perhaps "like" and "dislike" are more appropriate terms, given that they are an unambiguous expression of personal values...
Larceny-theft is the most common crime, therefore it is the most popular there for the most successful therefore it is good. Therefore you think larceny-theft is the BEST crime.
...so most common now substitutes for making most money?
Because there is no difference in making money legally and illegally, thus same context and arguments applies.
But I am the one slow in the head, right....
Again you edit out way over half my post and don't respond to any of my actual points.
...so most common now substitutes for making most money?
This is my point. I'm not the one saying they are the same thing. You are. I wan't agreeing with your dumb claim. I was mocking it. It just went over your head. You, in one of you first post, mocked that some one said sale numbers indicate popularity not quality.
The game can't be good, because I do not like it, therefore it must be popular! Seriously....
You then stated directly that good and successful are the same thing:
Narwrynn said: I was talking about how good a game is not how successful it is.
Gdemami said: Those are one and the same thing - nothing incoherent there.
I'm not arguing that they are not all the same thing. You are.
Good and successful are not the same thing. You never proved they where. Popular and good are not the same thing. You never proved they where. All you do is make a bold claim and say anyone that doesn't share your opinion is a retard. Now if you want to backtrack your opinion, and say that good and successful are not the same thing we can get back on point.
Edit: If A = B & B = C, then A = C. If "popular" games are "good" and "successful" games are "good" then "successful" must be "popular." You are arguing this not me. I think all 3 words have different meanings and are not necessarily dependent on each other.
Which was made obviously clear in the huge part of my comment you edited out.
I'm not arguing that they are not all the same thing. You are.
Good and successful are not the same thing. You never proved they where. Popular and good are not the same thing. You never proved they where. All you do is make a bold claim and say anyone that doesn't share your opinion is a retard. Now if you want to backtrack your opinion, and say that good and successful are not the same thing we can get back on point.
Oh, did prove it. They are the same.
Just because you cannot make a relevant and valid counter argument - your crime nonsense, does not make me wrong or not proving my point.
I'm not arguing that they are not all the same thing. You are.
Good and successful are not the same thing. You never proved they where. Popular and good are not the same thing. You never proved they where. All you do is make a bold claim and say anyone that doesn't share your opinion is a retard. Now if you want to backtrack your opinion, and say that good and successful are not the same thing we can get back on point.
Oh, did prove it. They are the same.
Just because you cannot make a relevant and valid counter argument - your crime nonsense, does not make me wrong or not proving my point.
Comments
However, "Anyone ever" was hyperbole. You may value how much money a product makes over anything else.
I don't think the majority of people do, instead the OP is conflating the use of a metric with an opinion that "games are only good if they made money."
When people post earnings data for a game, they typically are not actually saying "my game is the best look at all the money it made."
Instead they are saying "Look at how people have voted with their wallets in favor of game."
So when people say things like "WoW is a bad game even if it makes a lot of money"
People who post earnings or subscriber data are saying "Clearly a lot of people disagree with you based on their continued spending on WoW."
I also amend my statement slightly, it was late when reading this post for me and I read it as
Rather than what the post actually said.
When have you ever started playing a game, enjoyed it, looked up how much money it made and then decided that it didn't make enough so it is a terrible game and stopped playing.
Probably never, you probably didn't even value how much it made enough to even look up its sales numbers, and if you did if you where enjoying it already and if it had only sold 1 copy, and that was to you, you still enjoyed it for your own reasons.
There is nothing to doubt, the argument that money made is a measure of success is sound.
And if you go by number of people playing, it's still a bit of a false flag because the price of entry is still zero. So F2P games can in fact, be monetarily successful while also being terrible.
To respond to your edited version:
"There is nothing to doubt, the argument that money made is a measure of success is sound."
I was talking about how good a game is not how successful it is.
You are very slightly changing the argument to straw-man me into an opinion I do not hold.
Obvious troll is obvious so I'm done with you now.
If you really want to argue this in you next post admit to trying to attack an opinion I do not hold.
I got straw-maned hard like 8 times in this thread already. Not going down it again.
Also why do you think fast food is more deadly than cyanide?
Spoiler-alert: You can't.
People do not spend money on products they do not find worthy, thus money made is a measure how many/much people like the product.
Money made then equals good game.
Why do you support criminals?
Good - to be desired or approved of
Success - the accomplishment of an aim or purpose.
Reply: People don't spend money on things that are not "worthy"
GG. I'm out.
Why do you keep on making retarded arguments...?
Oh, you are out. Good riddance.
Nothing you said respond to my points.
None a signal thing
I say "good" and "success" are not synonymous. You "prove" they are by talking about peoples spending habits.
Their spending habits?
What does peoples spending habits have to do with if something is successful?
Are you slow in the head?
The larceny-theft things was me taking your dumb argument that popular = good = successful.
Larceny-theft is the most common crime, therefore it is the most popular there for the most successful therefore it is good.
Therefore you think larceny-theft is the BEST crime.
Kind of annoying to have someone reply to argument you are not making, huh?
Edit: So go back read my post and reply to something I actually said.
No? Because you can't your arguments hold no merit.
Popular, successful, and good are not synonyms by any stretch of the imagination.
If your goal doesn't include profit, then how much money you made in not in indicator of success.
The goal of Browser Quest was not to make loads of money. It was to showcase the potential of HTML5. So it does not matter that Browser Quest didn't make any money it was still a success.
Edit 2: It also doesn't matter that Browser Quest was never a very popular game, it was still a good game. It doesn't matter that only a relatively small number of people played it.
Because there is no difference in making money legally and illegally, thus same context and arguments applies.
But I am the one slow in the head, right....
Perhaps we should abandon the words "good" and "bad" in the interests of political correctness. Perhaps "like" and "dislike" are more appropriate terms, given that they are an unambiguous expression of personal values...
How about you actually accept the logical and sensible conclusion instead of creating obscure constructs to avoid it?
This is my point. I'm not the one saying they are the same thing.
You are.
I wan't agreeing with your dumb claim. I was mocking it. It just went over your head.
You, in one of you first post, mocked that some one said sale numbers indicate popularity not quality.
You then stated directly that good and successful are the same thing:
I'm not arguing that they are not all the same thing. You are.
Good and successful are not the same thing. You never proved they where.
Popular and good are not the same thing. You never proved they where.
All you do is make a bold claim and say anyone that doesn't share your opinion is a retard.
Now if you want to backtrack your opinion, and say that good and successful are not the same thing we can get back on point.
Edit:
If A = B & B = C, then A = C.
If "popular" games are "good" and "successful" games are "good" then "successful" must be "popular."
You are arguing this not me. I think all 3 words have different meanings and are not necessarily dependent on each other.
Which was made obviously clear in the huge part of my comment you edited out.
Just because you cannot make a relevant and valid counter argument - your crime nonsense, does not make me wrong or not proving my point.
Earth is flat.
Here is the proof:
Earth is flat.
I proved it. Earth is flat.