Apples and Oranges

[shrimpcel]

My first thread on the Escapist! Well I don't recall making another, at any rate.

This has been bothering me for a while, and since I have just had a discussion about it in another thread, I figured I might as well start my own thread to see what the truth of the matter is.

So, my problem is that gamers seem to have a tendency to say that certain games cannot be compared. Now, I can understand why you would say that a triple-A PC shooter cannot be compared to a console music-and-rhythm game, or to a mobile game.

What confuses me is the overwhelmingly negative response I got when I said that you could compare Skyrim and The Witcher 2 (in the aptly named "Skyrim or The Witcher 2" thread found here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.389753-Skyrim-or-The-Witcher-2 )
I'm prepared to admit that my arguments may have been bad and that I didn't really bother explaining my thought. But I start panicking when I see the incredible amount of "Call of Duty and Battlefield are SOOOOOOOO different, therefore you should not compare the two" comments on Youtube videos. Am I missing something here?

"Citizen Kane" and "Transformers" are two extremely different movies. And yet, I feel safe in saying that most people would agree that "Citizen Kane" is the better of the two. I don't think many would pull the "it's what you're looking for that counts" card; "Citizen Kane" is just an inherently better movie.

So why can't we apply this to video games?

Thoughts, comments, clarifications, insults?

Capcha: love you

Love you too, Escapist

 

[Andrewtheeviscerator]

The ting about comparing Skyrim and The Witcher 2 is you really can't because one's strength is the others weakness. Skyrim focus on giving you a huge world to go do whatever you want in it, it focuses more on immersion and letting you create your own story then telling you one. The Witcher 2 is as linear as any shooter except for one part, it focuses on telling you its story and the role you play in it. So you can see they are trying to accomplish two different things. Its to a similar extent with Call of Duty and Battlefield where one is trying to be a qick arcadey kind of shooter while the other is more based on realism, but you're kinda splitting hairs with that one.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

It doesn't matter which game is "better". There are a few aspects that we can all agree are better in one game or another, but for the most part, trying to decide which is "better" is mostly arbitrary.

The important question is "which game will I enjoy more". This is affected by what you are looking for in a game, and what you enjoy. And really, it doesn't matter how "good" something is if you simply don't enjoy it. For example, I doubt most film goers would enjoy Citizen Kane, despite it being a "great" movie (for the record, I have watched Citizen Kane and I do think it's excellent, but that's irrelevant).

All arguing about what the best anything is will do is get people pissed off at each other. It accomplishes nothing.

However, you can have a conversation about what game is better at X. For example, asking if Skyrim or The Witcher 2 has a better presentation of it's narrative, or which has stronger exploration, would not be an exercise in futility, because the answer to these questions is less arbitrary.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Most people WOULD agree that Citizen Kane is the better movie, but that doesn't make it a FACT. Games, movies, media, etc all fall under "art" and therefore cannot be judged scientifically - only subjectively.

Which is why game vs game (or movie vs movie) threads are absolutely pointless, nobody gets anywhere. Such threads should just be locked because they're baiting fanboy vs fanboy arguments, the comparision doesn't need to be made.

 

[DoPo]

when I see the incredible amount of "Call of Duty and Battlefield are SOOOOOOOO different, therefore you should not compare the two" comments on Youtube videos. Am I missing something here?

Yes. YouTube comments. If you do take them as meaningful, then you are certainly missing common sense.

"Citizen Kane" and "Transformers" are two extremely different movies. And yet, I feel safe in saying that most people would agree that "Citizen Kane" is the better of the two. I don't think many would pull the "it's what you're looking for that counts" card; "Citizen Kane" is just an inherently better movie.

Not true. Explain how can you have "inherently better"? How do you measure it? That assumes there is an objective scale of comparison. There isn't. You could take "people's enjoyment" and try to quantify it, however that's subjective. Also, I can honestly say that watching Transformers with a friend of mine was an utter blast and we could never have the same amount, and even type, of fun watching Citizen Kane. The two give different kind of experience, so you're not comparing them on equal terms.

So why can't we apply this to video games?

You could, unless you try to compare games that don't really comparable parameters. It's common knowledge that TES titles aren't the best at storytelling and meaningful choices, comparing them against the Witcher which does it better would mean they are worse. However, TES titles are also all about freedom and exploration, something the Witcher is worse at. A person can, at most, say which one they prefer. Actually it's the same with many a game - it's all about which one people prefer, even trying to compare TES titles, which should be focusing on the same thing, would lead to people stating their preference.

 

[shrimpcel]

Most people WOULD agree that Citizen Kane is the better movie, but that doesn't make it a FACT. Games, movies, media, etc all fall under "art" and therefore cannot be judged scientifically - only subjectively.

Which is why game vs game (or movie vs movie) threads are absolutely pointless, nobody gets anywhere. Such threads should just be locked because they're baiting fanboy vs fanboy arguments, the comparision doesn't need to be made.

I agree, of course, that popular opinion does not make something into a fact. I am just wondering where this general anti-comparison sentiment comes from in the gaming community. Is it wrong to declare one's preferences for one game over another, and then explain the reasons for this preference?

Just because your opinion is individual and does not constitute a fact, does not mean that you should not voice it, right?

For example, I read this review yesterday: http://www.citizenga.me/overunder-assassins-creed-way-samurai/
It compares the "Assassin's Creed" franchise with "Way of the Samurai". Yes, both are different. No, I do not agree with everything the author says. But there is something to be gained from this discourse anyway, possibly leading to the "improvement" (yes, from SOME people's point of view ^^) of one franchise if enough people voice it.

 

[shrimpcel]

Most people WOULD agree that Citizen Kane is the better movie, but that doesn't make it a FACT. Games, movies, media, etc all fall under "art" and therefore cannot be judged scientifically - only subjectively.

Which is why game vs game (or movie vs movie) threads are absolutely pointless, nobody gets anywhere. Such threads should just be locked because they're baiting fanboy vs fanboy arguments, the comparision doesn't need to be made.

I agree, of course, that popular opinion does not make something into a fact. I am just wondering where this general anti-comparison sentiment comes from in the gaming community. Is it wrong to declare one's preferences for one game over another, and then explain the reasons for this preference?

Just because your opinion is individual and does not constitute a fact, does not mean that you should not voice it, right?

For example, I read this review yesterday: http://www.citizenga.me/overunder-assassins-creed-way-samurai/
It compares the "Assassin's Creed" franchise with "Way of the Samurai". Yes, both are different. No, I do not agree with everything the author says. But there is something to be gained from this discourse anyway, possibly leading to the "improvement" (yes, from SOME people's point of view ^^) of one franchise if enough people voice it.

Because your example strives to use the very different game as juxtaposition in order to highlight individual features. They are compared in order highlight different the different philosofies and methods involved in making the 2 titles and how well they accomplish what they try to do.

And example would be.

I?m not saying you can?t build a game around something other than gameplay, mind you. As heretical as the notion is to a lot of people, a game doesn?t need to be mechanically dazzling, fun, or even sound as long as something has its hooks in you and keeps you spellbound and playing.

Unlike
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/09/18/game-theory-borderlands-2-fails-to-cross-ove/
Where the guy compares borderlands to call of duty as a checklist in order to judge a game on features it isn't trying to have.

Your Op example is framing it as an "or" rather than an "and", making it a versus from the get go. The evidence is in the title more than anything.

If you're likening me to the guy who wrote *that* review, then you must believe I am very stupid hahaha
That has to be the most ridiculous review I have ever read!

 

[Lugbzurg]

I've considered two of my favorite games to be Banjo-Kazooie and Half-Life. Coincidentally, they both came out the same year, and were inspired by a previous big title (Super Mario 64/Doom), and became even better games themselves.

However, they're just so different, there's just no point in comparing the two.

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 have nothing in common that I can see, yet it pretty much stands obvious that Majora's Mask is stupefyingly-superior to Modern Warfare 3 in every case, aside from obvious stuff like MW3 having a higher polygon count, CD-quality music, and better animations. Just the basic stuff that comes with later technology. And even then, I'd still say that the art design and overall music in general is much better in all Legend of Zelda games than any Call of Duty title.

Oh, and I should probably mention, because I know someone's not going to know this, "Stupefying" does not mean "Stupid". It just means that the difference is so outrageously far, you couldn't believe your own eyes.

 

[shrimpcel]

I've considered two of my favorite games to be Banjo-Kazooie and Half-Life. Coincidentally, they both came out the same year, and were inspired by a previous big title (Super Mario 64/Doom), and became even better games themselves.

However, they're just so different, there's just no point in comparing the two.

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 have nothing in common that I can see, yet it pretty much stands obvious that Majora's Mask is stupefyingly-superior to Modern Warfare 3 in every case, aside from obvious stuff like MW3 having a higher polygon count, CD-quality music, and better animations. Just the basic stuff that comes with later technology. And even then, I'd still say that the art design and overall music in general is much better in all Legend of Zelda games than any Call of Duty title.

Oh, and I should probably mention, because I know someone's not going to know this, "Stupefying" does not mean "Stupid". It just means that the difference is so outrageously far, you couldn't believe your own eyes.

Finally! I was starting to think that no one on the Internet agreed with me...

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Ah, because you are applying logic, and the Escapist was never strong in that respect.