08-28-2009, 01:22 PM
|
#8
|
Banned
|
Re: Competition Creates Better Games is Baloney
|
Quote: |
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by MeanMrMustard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The logic in this is ridiculous.
Example 1, comparing Live to 2K:
Live has improved (Because of competition? Maybe so, though the author dismisses this.)
2K has stayed the same - IN REVIEW SCORES - which means that it is, in fact improving. Reviewers, generally, take into account the fact that we expect some level of improvement from year to year. So the same product that produces an 80 in 2K6 might get a 70 in 2K7. To get a B year after year means the 2K crew is doing a good job of putting out a quality new product year after year; i.e. not a carbon copy of the prior version.
Example 2, The Show vs. 2K:
The fact that 2K is slipping proves the opposite point the reviewer is making. There is no competition (on 360, which holds a much higher market share than PS3), so a lack of improvement would be we'd all expect from the ordinary competition theory.
The fact that The Show is improving also corroborates this point. The Show, unlike 2K, has a competitor in 2K on the only system it appears on.
Example 3, Name brands skew competition:
The reviewer fails to note that EA Sports has to do comparatively less than the competition to sell games because of its brand appeal. A 59 in NBA Live will always outsell an 80 in NBA2K.
... And let's not pretend Madden was worthy of an 80+ in 07, 08 or 09.
|
|
|
|
|
|
my point exactly
|
|
|