I don't think the marketing analogy works with games. It's arguable that games that are more hyped usually score, but gamers in general go by word of mouth in their purchases. If eary adopters decide that Devil May Cry 3 is too hard, usually the more hardcore gamers will be the ones buying it. If reviews give Star Wars Republic Commando low scores, but most of those who actually play it say it's a lot of fun, gamers will buy it. I dunno if it has to do with the fact that gamers are mostly online-aware and consume gaming media to a great extent. But I'm pretty sure marketing is not the major factor in deciding whether certain games are successful.

There are numerous examples of games advertised on the major gaming websites like Gamespot and Gamespy, as well as in major PC gaming publications like PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World or Electronic Gaming Monthly that have seriously flopped. The best example is the Atari published Driver 3. I don't recall the exact figures spent on marketing, but they were absolutely massive for a game. Driver 3 was one of the most highly anticipated sequels of 2004, yet it flopped so badly and was so badly received for being buggy and just plain rubbish despite the large marketing dough that was poured in by Atari. Not because marketing didn't do its job, but because word spread that the game was bad. This marketing flop was a major reason for Atari's losses over the past year, and things are increasingly looking bad for them after they lost the Unreal Tournament license to Midway.

__________________
In the depths of a mind insane,
Fantasy and reality are the same.