It always makes me scratch my head when Gamers (tm) argue that number of players and profit/revenue are a measure of a game's objective quality.
By that reasoning, Candy Crush Saga is a better game than whatever their favorite game is.
Weird furry.
RaccoonRobot
Spicy alt: @LoosfButHornt
It always makes me scratch my head when Gamers (tm) argue that number of players and profit/revenue are a measure of a game's objective quality.
By that reasoning, Candy Crush Saga is a better game than whatever their favorite game is.
I find it useful to keep in mind that what people perceive to be large franchises aren't always and vice versa - And sales, revenue, etc, can be useful metrics for how big a franchise is, but quality? Nah.
In some discussions - why does X game get a sequel every 3-5 years and Y game from the same company winds up dormant for a decade at a time - it's relevant. For talking about what game is better? Well, there's no objective measure of that full stop but if there was then it sure as hell wouldn't be sales or profit margins.
(Though for that the tendency of some sources to lump every Tetris release into a single bucket and pretend that it's a single game when while the core gameplay the differences of the details matter is infuriating. Franchise sales can be useful, but... Please be consistent if you're going to add together all of Tetris's sales in the same bucket we shouldn't be comparing it to individual installments in other franchises is aaaarrrrrgh. I'd go as far as to also apply that to rereleases of the same game - I reject the idea that you can add together the sales of a game and it's rereleases and have a meaningful metric of how that game performed, but obviously for the franchise as a whole they should be added together.)