Emphasis added. First of all, "noisy signal" is a term of art. It means something that may convey some information, but there is also some "noise" in it that makes you not trust it. Also, you misread my comments: game SALES (and reviews, etc.) are noisy signals. They may mean that the game is really really good (and hence sold a lot), but they may not.
Well then we finally agree on something I guess. However, I was under the impression that you opposed my argument on this subject because you thought otherwise. You keep asking for proof that games are better or worse than the past, however which kind of base ground would you want to use then? The gaming industry itself completely consider games which sell low as extremely bad games and games which sell very high as the best games around, completely irreverently of if they are good or bad to begin with. This is why it was brought up because even though we might both (or all users in this thread) know that it is false, it is so widely used right now that it is considered as an universal truth.
What I can do, though, is try to explain to you what I think make a game good. Maybe by establishing some base comparison pattern we will be able to move on in this discussion. So, what I consider and always considered the most important point in a game is simply the gameplay and, to a lesser degree, originality. A game without gameplay or with bad gameplay is not going to cut it for me. You could have the best graphics in the world, you could have the biggest evolving world ever created... But without gameplay it's quite meaningless.
I could cite you a lot of examples of recent games which do that but in my mind I think Spore is probably the best example to use here. Great potential, the game was sold as the ultimate game you'd ever want to play. Evolve your specie from cell to space age? What's not to like? In theory anyways. In truth, in the game all you do is rush each single stage as fast as possible without much regard for the real evolution of your pet because a) it's forced to you and you can't change the stages and b) it doesn't impact the end result at all. Then you get to the end stage, the space age, only to find out that you are simply a carrier of some sort and the few missions available always repeat themselves endlessly. Thing is, since you are the only craft in your fleet even though your empire can span thousand of planets (!?!) you always end up either destroying everybody else to be quiet around you or endlessly running from planet A to planet B to solve mindless problems the inhabitants should be able to solve by themselves. Thus completely wasting your time both in game and out of game.
Now, Spore is the real first game of it's kind. So the originality factor really kick in and add to the game. This fortunately drag a quite poor game back up to a low good game because you have the feeling you are playing something you have never seen or played with before. But that's about it, really.
So, what kind of game would I consider great or a gem? Humm... There is actually a lot. But let's try to stay somewhat recent... I'll pick Minecraft. What's great in minecraft? Well, about everything. But to expend on the notion, the gameplay is great because whatever you want to do in this game you can do it. I personally could not stand the game if there was only the creative mode (I'd rather play with Legos, mind you
) but there is also the adventure mode which hooked me into the game. Run around alone in an endless world, learn how to craft everything you need (the first time I played that game I never looked at the Wiki. It was a great learning experience) then dwelve deeper and deeper underground to fight monsters and find rare gems or metals to further help you develop your trade... I believe that's brilliant gameplay. Originality is really there too because even though the game has been inspired by a bunch of other games it is still truly unique. But then, what's bad about the game? Well, the only really bad point about Minecraft is that the graphics are not up to par with "modern" graphics. It's a builder game, everything in the game is designed on squares that you can stack on each other (again, like Legos) so it has its inherent limits. Plus, it's such a big game that adding too much graphically would mean that the game would crawl to an halt (especially since it was built on Java..!). But again, I don't care at all about graphics as long as the gameplay is there and they are practical enough for the game to be played correctly. And they are. So there, one of the best games I ever played.
Read the bolded part of your comments. Now, assume your gentle reader is a person who is reasonably pleased with the way the video game industry has matured. The conclusion is that he (in this case, me) only believes so b/c he is a brainwashed robot.
Now, walk up to someone and accuse them of being a Stepford [insert appropriate noun here] and see how they respond.
I would not have put it this way but I guess it might be true in a way. But I would not say that I consider people who love the current modern evolution of gaming as brainwashed robots... Rather that the vast, vast, vast majority of those gamers (which are like this because they are only occasional gamers who don't know much about what they are talking about) always look for incredibly crisp graphics in a game before anything else. There is so many great games out there which are completely ignored simply because the end user look at the graphics and, because they are only slightly substandard or are not 3D or are not top of the line or whatever, completely dismiss the entire product. Usually with the line of thinking that "the graphics suck, the game also suck". Graphics can be a great selling point, but really... Is that all which matter in a game? I don't think so. But the average player do. What to do about this? Nothing much I guess.
So yeah, if you simply state that you like the current way gaming has evolved and don't bother expanding your explanation to what really make a game great other than its graphics it is very easy to be categorized as such I guess... But then, I have a saying roughly along those lines: if the hat fit you then wear it. If it doesn't... Then don't.
The reason that point was dismissed was b/c I pointed out a set of "mainstream" games that I said were quite good. And, you responded by saying that I only thought so, not b/c I had actually played them, but b/c I was some sort of marionette. To some extent, I'm skeptical that you would be able to convince me otherwise. You'd have to make some general argument that quality of games now was worse than it was 10 years ago. Given that my contention was that there are some great games out now, which I used to indicate that mainstreaming hadn't hurt at least one traditionally geek industries quality, you'd have to convince me that the games I thought were quite excellent over the past few years weren't. That seems ... unlikely, and odds are laborious. There might be some possible general argument to make, but I can't even imagine what shape it would take.
I don't quite remember exactly this happening. You pointed me out a few games you thought were good, I dismissed them as otherwise from personal experience. And I don't remember you going out of your way (or much trying at all) to prove that those games were good too. I remember, for example, that you cited Civilization V as a great game which I shot down because the only real evolution of that game was its graphics and that I could not even navigate in it because I don't like the interface. It's not going to convince me the other way either, y'know.
But as far as mainstream is concerned, I am puzzled why I would need to even try to prove how harmful it can be for about anything. Just take a look around you. Electronics? Desks? Chairs? Cars? Phones? Appliances? Everything which went mainstream at one point or another simply dropped their quality almost exponentially and lost their main defining points to "blend in" or morph into something which can be sold to a greater audience or market. Like chairs... It seems nowaday that there is only a single template ever for computer chairs, and that template is a chair on wheels with an S in the back... But that damn S in the back hurt my back when I sit for too long in it... I've been trying to find a nice chair since ages now but I'm stuck with the same old chair because I simply can't... Appliances... Try to find an appliances which will last more than 10 years at best right now. Almost impossible, to tell the truth. Etc. I could go on and on but frankly I'm not really interested in turning this post into a market bash thread. Too tiring and depressing...
