There are so many games today, it is hard to distinguish which ones are worth our time. The gaming industry, like many others, are driven by profits and marketing does a very good job to get the gamers money before the games even exist. Reviewers are not objective and often paid, thus are essentially an extension of the marketing teams.

Is there an equivalent of the Nintendo Seal of Quality, created by Nintendo back in the days to win back reputation, for other titles on other platforms? If not, why isn't this a thing? Games can be evaluated objectively with a set of criterias, why isn't there any standard of quality?

1 Answer 1


created by Nintendo back in the days to win back reputation

They have no reputation to win back, as Nintendo's previous home consoles were non-cartridge closed systems only sold in Japan. The 1983 crash saw floods of shovelware dominating the console market, even licensed titles. With the previous crash in 1977 still fresh in memories, the market isn't convinced that even buying a console is worth it.

Luckily for Nintendo, convincing the market to buy their shiny NES is helped by the very low-expectation home console games. Seal of Quality merely means it's officially produced to work with the console since unlicensed cartridges and accessories abound. So a game with the seal merely means it won't brick your console, it will load the first level without crashing, and due to Nintendo censorship, there's no risk of having unwanted adult content, perfect for parents who don't care whether the game is fun in the first place.

for other titles on other platforms

Sega had a similar seal of quality during that era. Today, any game officially released for the current big three consoles and Apple's App Store (both iOS and macOS) also check the same boxes, they won't brick the device, load at least the first level correctly (pending that day one patch), and likely adhere to the displayed age rating, at least for single player content. The console makers do this because they're asking for a relatively large cash investment upfront from the customer, and Apple does this for every app in their store anyway in an attempt to project quality over quantity image. Since they're all closed platforms, they also pocket as much profit as they can from increased game sales.

PC and Android games, regardless of the distribution platform (or lack of), don't have much incentive to have a similar system because PC and Android devices being general-purpose means most people will still have one regardless of the gaming market situation. As open platforms, nobody can guarantee that a game will run on a particular device even if it checks all of the requirements, and the profit of each sale is spread across multiple companies.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .