I disagree that this is apples and oranges. If anything this is Green apples vs. Red apples (bad analogy I know). Both are games and both are on home consoles. It's like saying that if the Honda Accord is the best selling car in the US that it's sales figures can't be compared to say a Ford Taurus or comparable car. The difference between the capabilities of the consoles is not so great that they can't be compared. (ie. The XBOX isn't a Bentley, and the PS2 isn't a Geo Metro).

Bad car analogies aside, what I'm saying is that (as jasonr114 said) there is a reason joe-six pack buys one thing over the other. Whether it is the brand and the associated quality expectations of that brand, or it is marketing, people still bought the game and that is irrefutable. The only emperical way to argue over what game is "better" is sales numbers. Joe-six pack (bless his heart) has a choice and will chose what is better/cheaper every time.

I agree that some games or consoles don't sell as well as others due to public perception or lack of mindshare (how many people missed ICO because they didn't know anything about it?), but in the case of GTA and Halo this point is moot since both Sony and MS advertised the games into the ground.

Hopefully my point has not been lost in bad analogies. -wink-

with regards to halo/gta

IF both games were on the same console, you could argue that one was "better" then the other based on sales figures.

Because of the difference between the # of PS2/xBox in the homes, you cannot compare the two, that was my intial point.

If you wanted to "level the playing field" and compare "red apples to red apples" it might be best to make a ratio:

ratio1 = #GTA/#PS2
ratio2 = #Halo/#xBox

with these ratios, you would have a number showing the % of console users that purchased the title in question.

although, this still doesnt prove that title X is better then title Y

is a more sound way to compare halo and gta. then to say GTA sold 7 million HAHAHA it is soooooo better then halo

That doesn't work either.

You can't measure game quality based on sales. They are not the same, they may relate, but they are not the same.

There are tons of more factors. What about other quality titles on the systems? IF there is only one great game on one of the systems, it will sell proportionally more then another game that is on a system with 500 awsome games. There are many other factors as well. I would just move on guys.

i agree with you 100%.

i started my arguemnt based on the statement tht GTA was better based on the fact that it sold 7 million.

if you were to compare sales figures for any purpose, you would need to use some way to make the sales figure between the two games equavilent, that is why i suggested a ratio.

saying something is the "best" or "better" becuase of sales figures is a bad, evil idea.

APEX is the #1 dvd player retailier in the US, yet they are FAR from the best!

I know that all too well :(

I agree you can't use sales blindy to argue a game is subjectively better, but emperically it makes sense. The free market will chose what it deems to be the best quality for the price available. It's a trade-off.

There HAS to be a comparison between the 2 systems and 2 games and sales is the only way to do it without it breaking down into a personal rant (eg. HALO has repeating rooms, or GTA has muddy textures and clipping). The APEX analogy throws a wrench into my theory I admit, but is a little different because they clearly make up the low end of the market and are appealing to the consumers cost sensitivity. Nobody is going to buy crap unless it is damn cheap crap (enter the APEX DVD player)

These games cost the same and are available in the same stores and the systems cost the same as well. The ratio method is clever but a little flawed because initially retailers were selling Halo with the XBOX so you had to buy the game. This would distort the number since GTA was not a pack-in game and had to be purchased seperate from the console.

Look, it comes down to what your definition of quality is. It seems like people define it differently dpending on what console they own. (Warning! Gross generalizations approaching) GC users like seeing a few very high quality games comes out per year. PS2 owners bask in the ridiculous variety of gamnes in their software library and in terms of sheer console games. XBOX iusers seem to be split between two groups: One that is gunning ffor the box to catch up and take over the PS2 in terms of sales, and the other that is happy with having it be a hardcore games maching akin to the GC.

ps. It's nice to have a thread here that has some intelligent points and no fanboy rants. Let's keep it up.

Are you sure about that? I don't remember seeing it, but that could be completely true. I just thought that since Halo was M-rated, most retailers wouldn't sell it as a bundle.

- Shawn

To be more exact most retailers were making you buy one or two games at launch and most everyone picked Halo since it was the best game.

I think this is meaningless anyway since you would buy games when you buy your consoles anyway and Halo would have sold just as well.

Halo has done well because its a great game period.

Oh okay, thanks for the clarification! :)

for fun only: Halo vs. Grand Theft Auto

i got this from cnn.com

MS:

1. For the 3 months ended 9/30/02, revenues rose 26% to $7,750,000,000.

2. Net income totalled $2,730,000,000, up from $1.28B.

3. Market Capital: $296,567,000,000

Sony:

1. For the 6 months ended 9/30/02, revenues rose 3% to $ 28,377,503,744 (Y3,512,000,000,000).

2. Net income before acct. change total to $817,954,048.00 vs. a loss of $397,786,016.

3. Market Capital: $39,925,910,000

==============
note:
a. i had to convert Y to $ that is why sony's #'s appear to be more precise.
b. sony was negative before the last two quarters.

Exactly. I mean in most cases if a game sales well it's probably pretty good and games that suck will probably sell poorly.. But this doesn't mean that all games that sell well are good, or that their aren't games that sell poorly that are great.

I agree sales and quality are not the same but when you're talking about millions and millions of games sold, there has to at least be some correlation. In some instances a game will sell because it is the current fad (Pokemon) or a hot franchise (Satr Wars) irrespective of quality.

MS (or Bungie- anyone play their Marathon game? very cool) has done a commendable job creating a franchise from scratch with Halo. I f anything I would say Nintendo should be a wee bit worried with reports of Mario Sunsine, their go-to-guy, not selling as well as expected. Is this because the game was of poor quality (Not as fun as older Mario games IMHO) or for some other reason? Who's to say.

So most people here say you cannot measure a game's quality based on sales.... so how would you measure it? How "fun" it is to play is not a valid answer because that is too subjective. Just looking for your opinions.

Quality vs. Quantity
 

Millions of people went to see Gladiator, Titanic, ID4 and Men in Black. Does that make them good movies? Not even close. It is whatever is popular at that time, like mentioned above. Timing is everything.

Could it be GTA and Halo did well at a time when our country was going to war? It may sound like a stretch, but reading and seeing on TV every day about going to war and killing Osama and the Taliban gets to you whether you think it does or not. Information overload. You are being overloaded with info about violence, why would that not translate into a purchase of a violent video game for a sufficient out?

Don't think so? How about GTA2? Why wasn't that a smasing success? It's not about graphics right, it is about gameplay. Timing.

Just a few random thoughts.

Well, Microsoft is definitely dedicated to the Xbox...In Germany, in addition to SegaGT2002 and JSRF, they now have Halo for free included in the bundle.

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/380/380081p1.html

"Microsoft is really going out of their way to make sure that every person on this planet has an Xbox in their home. Giving away two excellent titles with each system, as well as a Controller-S, was a surprise move in itself, but to give away their still best-selling game on top of that is incredible. Microsoft has entered the console market and will not be going away without a fight, that's for sure. "

It probably won't happen in the US, but they are continuing to try in the other territories.

- Shawn

I also found this, but I don't think too much of it.

"THQ CEO Says Xbox Gaining Traction
And that GameCube is struggling."

http://xbox.ign.com/articles/380/380124p1.html

"Earlier today in a Dow Jones release, THQ's president and CEO Brian Farrell said that he thinks that Microsoft is "gaining traction" with sales of its Xbox console."

- Shawn

Yup... it sucks... business is business I guess.

Yeah, like I was trying to say, I wasn't really 100% the terms of all that happened. My apologies. How are they making enemies? well how would X-Box players feel if Sony bought out the rights to Halo 2 tomorrow and you wouldn't get a port for two years (if at all)?

Well, it's just not for me... the features it offers aren't as good as the features it doesn't offer. I like the ability to make a new model/new level/new skin and then go play with my friends. For example, once we turned a WW1 game with planes, tanks and motorcylces into a Star Wars game with fighters, walkers, and speeder bikes :D

Gamecube offers way more puzzle games, PS2 has a lot of RPGs.

I didn't mean to sound like an "I did it first!" kind of person, it just sometimes seems like people think it's a new amazing thing, when it's been around for years, on PC and on Dreamcast.

I only play with friends, so it's not a big deal for me. However, being a closed system has its disadvantages too, like I said above, I really love creating games. Too hard on a console...

I've never had a problem with 56kers, ever... we just boot them from the game. Voice support, I don't care for, but if I did, there are very good ways to use it on the PC... doesn't matter if they're not fully built in. I don't know what hot swaping is, so can't comment there.

Its just a more pleasant experience than PC gaming. And as far as being "technologically inferior " does that really matter if theres not a game on the shelf that utilizes it?[quote]

I have quite a few games that wouldn't work on the X-Box, it's just the nature of the system.

Obviously, the system works for you... it just doesn't for me.