That is one of the most tortuous definitions of quality I have seen in my life. - Edit 1
Before modification by Ghavrel at 13/09/2010 06:12:19 AM
The minimum system requirements are a good measure, but I would use them exactly opposite of the way you do. WoW's graphics win in that category over most modern games because they are able to function with fewer restrictions. They do more with less.
No, they do crap with less. They don't do more than anything.
Pong does not have better graphics than WoW. WoW does not have better graphics than Mass Effect 2. You're using better in two different ways and thereby conflating "better" quality with "better" value; the two are entirely different concepts.
A $2000 computer likely has more quality than a $300 one. Now, if a person can't reasonably afford that computer or doesn't need the additional quality that it has, the $300 is a better value. But that doesn't mean that the $2000 computer has less quality. When you say the $300 computer is a "better purchase" for a typical user, you're making a value judgment, not a judgment based on quality. Apples and oranges.