An Objectively Better Game; Is it Possible?

[Sol]

You're only looking at things from the company's point of view. The consumer probably won't care how many units a game sells if it's just unpleasant to play. Considering the sale of a game is a two-sided process (the company and the consumer) the views of the people potentially buying the game can sometimes be just as important as the company selling it.

Even disregarding that, though, there are a lot of different ways to measure quality. Is it actually engaging? (being fun is one way to engage, but keep in mind it's not the only way, especially important when being fun isn't what the game is trying to do) Is the aesthetic cohesive? Do the mechanics, setting, and story all complement each other? If it has one, does the game get its message across? Are they trying to create a new experience for the player or are they trying to take a common gaming experience and make it outstanding? Are the characters actually believable as people? If a game is shooting for realism, how well do its mechanics, characters, events and settings reflect reality? Did the developers do what they set out to do? Was there something inherently flawed in what they were trying to accomplish?

I wish it was easier to have AAA games that aren't "products" first and foremost. But, it is an industry, so it's going to be hard to break away from that. Still though, just imagine if every movie was judged solely on how much it sold? Obviously there's a film industry, but movies are still judged on more complex criteria. Games should be the same.