View Single Post
Old 08-28-2009, 04:19 PM   #45
RaychelSnr
Executive Editor
 
RaychelSnr's Arena
 
OVR: 57
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 4,846
Blog Entries: 490
tpaternitl,

Your post has nothing to do with the points at hand. Your points are good, but they aren't what was being argued in the article, not even close.

I wasn't arguing the case for the consumer, as I am a firm believer in more choices being better for the consumer. I'm not arguing the point of price, as that definitely was the case with more competition. There is no doubt the consumer wins on both of these options when direct sport competition is going on. What I was arguing was the notion that games are automatically made better if two games are made for the same sport. The stats don't back up that notion.

Your second point is right in line with my ultimate conclusion at the end of the article. Direct sport Competition ISN'T the only thing which drives game quality and it definitely isn't the most important.

Your third point is the same thing everyone else is saying. If you don't think aggregate review scores are the best way to measure game quality, then show me another method which is better and is quantifiable. Gut feelings and individual subjective opinions don't count.

The point of the article is discussing the simple fact direct-sport competition (NBA vs. NBA) isn't as big of a factor as many would have you believe in the end product rating. I believe that despite all of the people trying to say otherwise, no one has yet to come up with better evidence to the contrary that direct-sport competition doesn't effect game quality in the way people have assumed.
RaychelSnr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisements - Register to remove