Just about every gamer like to play the ‘my game is better than yours’ game, or at least so it would seem when looking at online forums and irc channels. Whether it’s Counter Strike being superior to Unreal Tournament, or World of Warcraft decimating Guild Wars, there are plenty of game comparison discussions raging across the internet.
And as you would expect from an anonymous medium, many of the participants in these discussions are less than capable of holding a – mature – debate over a topic.
You might consider this entry a rant on my part. I admit that I, occasionally, do join in on these discussions; and I’ve seen some truly astounding – and flawed – arguments being thrown onto the table. In this post I’d like to take a look at the most over-used, and illegitimate, argument of them all: “My game is better than yours, because it has more players.”.
The argument
You’ve undoubtedly seen it used many times in game-comparing debates on the internet: “My game is better than yours, because it has more players.”. Many people appear to believe that certain games are more popular because they are better, like Counter Strike or World of WarCraft, but this is not true. Nor is popularity, or strength of numbers, a valid argument in any debate.
Why is this argument flawed?
The answer is deceptively simple: the quality of a game is completely unrelated to the amount of players it has, or the amount of copies it has sold.
Many games are simply unknown amongst the general gaming public, such as Savage and Battle Realms. This important factor instantly makes them less popular than any more well-publicised game, regardless of their quality.
You might be arguing that World of Warcraft is better than Guild Wars, because it has more players. But how many of those millions of players purposely chose World of Warcraft over Guild Wars? Certainly not many, perhaps a few thousand. The vast majority of World of WarCraft players most likely do not even know that a game called Guild Wars exists, let alone whether it may be better or worse. (in this case: neither, both are great, but very different, games)
But the most immediately convincing example is that of Shiny Entertainment.
Back in the beginning of this century, Shiny released an innovative game that received high marks across the world: Messiah. It sold a few hundred thousand copies and barely (if at all) broke even. Their next project was a movie tie-in called Enter the Matrix. This game sold millions of copies and was the most successful game Shiny had ever created, but it is also universally recognized as one of the worst games ever developed.
Popularity equals quality? I think not.
An explanatory example
Imagine that you could buy one of these action games, but not both. Which would you choose?
Game #1
- Totally innovative, you take the role of a weak person, but can inhabit other people’s bodies
- Mostly bugfree
- Striking visuals for a game of its time
- A sizable singleplayer campaign with tons of replayability and a decent story
- Scored high ratings everywhere
Game #2
- A very generic third-person action game, which uses a popular movie franchise as it’s basis
- Exceedingly buggy, even after patching
- Tiny singleplayer campaign that doesn’t offer much in terms of replayability
- Horrible graphics for it’s time
- Received horrible ratings all over the globe
It’s obvious which game you’d choose right? Exactly: game #1, a.k.a. Messiah, by Shiny Entertainment. And not game #2, a.k.a. Enter the Matrix, by the same developer.
Yet game #1 sold a few hundred thousand copies and game #2 sold millions. Clearly, sales do not equal quality.
An explanatory example #2
You can buy one of these two MMORPGs, but not both. Which do you choose when you have only these factors to base your decision on?
Game #1
- A well known company has developed this game and you’ve likely played some of their previous games
- It’s a new title in a well known franchise
- A lot of your friends play it, talk about it all the time, and continually try to get you to play it with them
- You’ve seen loads of advertising, news and information about it
- It’s the most easily accessible game in it’s genre (and by extension caters to the lowest common denominator)
Game #2
- It’s been developed by a newly founded company, which consists of many important members of the company behind game 1, but you most likely do not know this
- It’s a completely new game, without a related franchise or any similar games (it’s innovative!)
- No one you know plays it
- You may have heard of it in passing, but haven’t seen too much about it
- It’s a totally original game, and rather complex, so it’ll be a rough start
In all likelihood you’ll have chosen game 1, which is Blizzard Entertainment’s World of Warcraft. Undoubtedly a great game, but in this case you’ve chosen it purely based on circumstantial reasoning. None of the factors raised were in any way indicative of either game’s quality or level of polish. And there is no way to know whether you’ve made the right choice, or whether game 2 might have been better for you.
And in this case, game 2 is obviously Guild Wars, developed by ArenaNet. But hey, who cares, you chose game number 1 – and it had nothing to do with the level of quality of either product.
And there you have it: popularity has nothing to do with the quality of a product, or the truthfulness of a statement. Or to quote the gnome: “Oh, and let me remind you that the belief the earth was flat, was quite popular some time ago…”
Indeed it was. And it goes to show that the popularity argument is simply, not valid. So in the future, you would do well not to bother with these kinds of non-arguments. And if you ever see anyone use it, do refer them to this post for a little lesson in debating, however small a help it may be…
You can also Digg it - Stumble it - Save it to del.icio.us - Reddit - Twit it or e-mail it
Leave a Reply