Poll: is a movie or game's quality measured by how much money it makes
- Thread starter redeemer09
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes and no. Generally, a high quality film or game will generate above average sales if it is marketed properly. Some of my favorite games are very popular (WoW, Myst, Sims, Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, BF 1942, Baldur's Gate, Dungeon Siege, Half-life etc, etc.). Those games sell a lot of copies because they are, in my opinion, very good games. They either introduced something new or did something old very well. Sure, none of the games in that short list are my absolute favorites of all time or anything (Baldur's Gate is close), but that's not because they are bad...that is because I have an eclectic taste in entertainment.
As for films, well, there are WAY too many movies out there to begin with. Marketing is what makes most movies popular simply because it is the only way to stand out in the pack. At any given point there are 15-20 different new releases out in theatres. Games are a little easier as, excluding the indie games that have gained in popularity lately, there might only be 15-20 new releases over the span of a month or more and 5 of those will be garbage like Barbie's New Dildo or some shit.
Basically, the majority of people on this site are nerds and it isn't cool in the world of nerds to like the "mainstream" things. Once something gets too popular, nerds shun it.
P.S. I don't mean to use the word nerd in a derogatory way.
As for films, well, there are WAY too many movies out there to begin with. Marketing is what makes most movies popular simply because it is the only way to stand out in the pack. At any given point there are 15-20 different new releases out in theatres. Games are a little easier as, excluding the indie games that have gained in popularity lately, there might only be 15-20 new releases over the span of a month or more and 5 of those will be garbage like Barbie's New Dildo or some shit.
Basically, the majority of people on this site are nerds and it isn't cool in the world of nerds to like the "mainstream" things. Once something gets too popular, nerds shun it.
P.S. I don't mean to use the word nerd in a derogatory way.
Quality is largely subjective. As I'm sure many people have done, I'm going to use Transformers as an example. Widely hated on this forum, but it pulls in millions of millions. However, if you talk about construction, narrative and everything, how much money it makes is by no means a measure of quality. Look at Black Swan, brilliantly written, performed, just amazing. And that one gained tremendous popularity for such an "arty" film. In my opinion, one of the best movies of the year, of the decade. But beaten out by poorly written films like (once more) Transformers. I mean come on, the sequels contradict each other so much. Sorry for beating on Transformers so much (like you care) I don't see many bad movies, I rarely go to the cinema and if I do I wait to hear the opinions of a few people with similar taste to mine.
Good games tend to make lot of money. Example, WoW, Minecraft... Etc...
Bad movies tend to make lot of money since majority of movie goers don't have high standards.
Making money does not equal quality, it equals popularity.
Bad movies tend to make lot of money since majority of movie goers don't have high standards.
Making money does not equal quality, it equals popularity.
Quality? No, not really. It does, however, often indicate that the movie/game did something right. Of course, that could be as simple as an extremely catchy hook in an otherwise terrible pop song.
Anyway, my point is that while it's fairly obvious that a lot of money made or copies sold doesn't equal quality, it also doesn't mean something is bad. Take the much maligned Call of Duty for example. It may be a formulaic piece of team based FPS/gun porn but, if you actually give it a chance, you'll see that it's a reasonably balanced experience with a low level of entry, quick payoffs and tight gameplay.
Put simply, money made does not equal quality BUT money made also does not definitely equal a lack of quality.
Anyway, my point is that while it's fairly obvious that a lot of money made or copies sold doesn't equal quality, it also doesn't mean something is bad. Take the much maligned Call of Duty for example. It may be a formulaic piece of team based FPS/gun porn but, if you actually give it a chance, you'll see that it's a reasonably balanced experience with a low level of entry, quick payoffs and tight gameplay.
Put simply, money made does not equal quality BUT money made also does not definitely equal a lack of quality.
No, I strongly disagree with that. Quality is(more or less) subjective. The only true measure of something's quality is what you think of it, not what everyone else does.
The reason why I said no is because of one simple point... hype. Hype can make something look seriously good but when you actually see it, get hold of it or play it the hype is impossible to live up to.
If Hype = Quality then you should expect some major up and coming games to be played on a holodeck with graphics near realistic and be able to do practically anything. At the same time, match the overhype with the threat of being banned from reviews if you even hint they are rubbish then immediately you create a situation where people abandon gaming in their droves.
They know in some cases what they send out isn't quality so they overhype it to make it everyone buy it. By the time the news has spread that the game is rubbish they've made a million plus.
At this point PR kicks in as damage limitiation to reduce the effects of the public hating which reduces the effect for a while but not for long. Even so by the time the game hits "Catch the plague if you touch it!" status, its already made three million which they class as a success and use the same tactic over and over again.
OK disclaimer, when I use the term HYPE, I mean manufactured hype by companies.
Self/user generated hype from gameplay itself creates the reverse, one player plays it who recommends it to another. On its own this means nothing but when two or three say the same thing about the game then they are likely to pick up the demo and try it for themselves and buy it which makes little money at the start and due to the chain reaction of word of mouth it eventually makes a large amount of money.
User generated Hype has one weakness. People that do not like a game may not actually step back and say "I don't like it but I know someone who will". Normally a good reviewer has a list of similar games to compare it to so that if he doesn't like it. He can tell people what type he does and who would like the game.
If Hype = Quality then you should expect some major up and coming games to be played on a holodeck with graphics near realistic and be able to do practically anything. At the same time, match the overhype with the threat of being banned from reviews if you even hint they are rubbish then immediately you create a situation where people abandon gaming in their droves.
They know in some cases what they send out isn't quality so they overhype it to make it everyone buy it. By the time the news has spread that the game is rubbish they've made a million plus.
At this point PR kicks in as damage limitiation to reduce the effects of the public hating which reduces the effect for a while but not for long. Even so by the time the game hits "Catch the plague if you touch it!" status, its already made three million which they class as a success and use the same tactic over and over again.
OK disclaimer, when I use the term HYPE, I mean manufactured hype by companies.
Self/user generated hype from gameplay itself creates the reverse, one player plays it who recommends it to another. On its own this means nothing but when two or three say the same thing about the game then they are likely to pick up the demo and try it for themselves and buy it which makes little money at the start and due to the chain reaction of word of mouth it eventually makes a large amount of money.
User generated Hype has one weakness. People that do not like a game may not actually step back and say "I don't like it but I know someone who will". Normally a good reviewer has a list of similar games to compare it to so that if he doesn't like it. He can tell people what type he does and who would like the game.
There are some great films out there that has hardly any money put in but turned out to be awesome! Mad Max 1 & 2 had hardly any money and were great but Mad Max 3? Millions put in and it was pretty crap.
No. It can be included as one measure, but the sales are hardly ever on their own a good barometer for movie quality.
If anything sales are a measure of how good the advertising and hype around the movie was. If Avatar wasn't hyped as some big budget behemoth it probably wouldn't of done so well.
After that for the movie going public it's all about Technical Quality; workable camera shots, pretty CG if any, and an easy to follow plot line that's accessible to everyone (Which is why most blockbusters feature every genre instead of focusing on one or two.). Also Action, because for many anything that get's their heart racing will usually get at least one thumbs up.
After that there's Artistic Quality, something that people like us care about but a good portion of people don't. This involves how shots and the CG is used and not just how good they look. It's how scenes, characters and camera play work with the story and plot and with in what genre direction it takes.
Really the only time anyone notices the Artistic Quality is if they know or care about the film/video game medium. To everyone else, "It's just a movie, stop looking so much into it," or "You're being too picky, it's just a movie."
If anything sales are a measure of how good the advertising and hype around the movie was. If Avatar wasn't hyped as some big budget behemoth it probably wouldn't of done so well.
After that for the movie going public it's all about Technical Quality; workable camera shots, pretty CG if any, and an easy to follow plot line that's accessible to everyone (Which is why most blockbusters feature every genre instead of focusing on one or two.). Also Action, because for many anything that get's their heart racing will usually get at least one thumbs up.
After that there's Artistic Quality, something that people like us care about but a good portion of people don't. This involves how shots and the CG is used and not just how good they look. It's how scenes, characters and camera play work with the story and plot and with in what genre direction it takes.
Really the only time anyone notices the Artistic Quality is if they know or care about the film/video game medium. To everyone else, "It's just a movie, stop looking so much into it," or "You're being too picky, it's just a movie."
FUCK NO!!!
transformers are successful but they suck
Avatar made the most money (unless you adjust for inflation) and it sucks
the Wizard of Oz was a box office failure (seriously, it was!!) and it's considered to be one of the greatest movies ever made.
to think it's sales equals to it's quality is just ignorant and stupid.
transformers are successful but they suck
Avatar made the most money (unless you adjust for inflation) and it sucks
the Wizard of Oz was a box office failure (seriously, it was!!) and it's considered to be one of the greatest movies ever made.
to think it's sales equals to it's quality is just ignorant and stupid.
There's no way to objectively decide the quality of art.
A good quality chair over a poor quality chair? Plain for all to see.
But a good quality film over a poor quality film? Nobody, not even a well-paid, well-respected critic, can have the conclusive say on that.
If a film or a game has made a lot of money, the only thing we can get from that is that it's popular. Whether or not it's "good" is to be decided by the discerning individual.
A good quality chair over a poor quality chair? Plain for all to see.
But a good quality film over a poor quality film? Nobody, not even a well-paid, well-respected critic, can have the conclusive say on that.
If a film or a game has made a lot of money, the only thing we can get from that is that it's popular. Whether or not it's "good" is to be decided by the discerning individual.