Poll: The System Works. Skyrim vs. COD: MW3
- Thread starter DailonCmann
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is literally no way to argue the intrinsic logical value for a piece of art, because it will never effect the same two people in the same way.
In my experience, you can either argue in terms of technique or popularity; what kind of writing or design tends to produce the most positive response, or by depth of opinion, which game provoked the most profound response.
But you're never going to get an objective argument that proves inarguable supremacy, because without subjective, emotional response, art wouldn't even exist.
And you're not going to get shit by looking at an average score on Metacritic, first of all people aren't always honest, with the site or themselves.
Secondly it's not the average, it's everyone who bothers to vote on Metacritic.
Third, you can't assume your opinion will coincide with popular opinion, especially when it's represented by numbers. Most people don't posses the self insight to deconstruct their emotions, so they tend to judge via expectation satisfaction. Half the scores on these things are 1-4 and 9-10, they're not analyzing the game, they're reacting to expectation. A game that everyone thought was a 7 could be represented as a 10, because everyone got excited and just rated as high as they could. And a game everyone thought was an 8 could show up as a 2, because everyone was expecting a 10 and got disappointed, and they just wanted to vent.
So if you look at what the score averages out to, you won't get an honest or constructive answer, in fact you'll probably disappoint yourself, because less popular games that turn out better then you expected will be overhyped, thus you'll play them expecting a great game and get a good one, where's before their greatest strength was that they would surprise you.
That's to say nothing of people who actively attempt to change the user score, because obviously they know what everyone else should think(See: Assholes)
If you want my opinion, the CoD isn't so much a game as it is a drug or competitive sport, the latest incarnation little more then a fix or revision that costs $60. Skyrim isn't a game either, it's the second coming of Jesus Christ.(It's expansive and spellbinding, once you set foot there, you feel possibility at your fingertips. Every inch is a canvas, and every step across an adventure.)
So yeah... get Skyrim
In my experience, you can either argue in terms of technique or popularity; what kind of writing or design tends to produce the most positive response, or by depth of opinion, which game provoked the most profound response.
But you're never going to get an objective argument that proves inarguable supremacy, because without subjective, emotional response, art wouldn't even exist.
And you're not going to get shit by looking at an average score on Metacritic, first of all people aren't always honest, with the site or themselves.
Secondly it's not the average, it's everyone who bothers to vote on Metacritic.
Third, you can't assume your opinion will coincide with popular opinion, especially when it's represented by numbers. Most people don't posses the self insight to deconstruct their emotions, so they tend to judge via expectation satisfaction. Half the scores on these things are 1-4 and 9-10, they're not analyzing the game, they're reacting to expectation. A game that everyone thought was a 7 could be represented as a 10, because everyone got excited and just rated as high as they could. And a game everyone thought was an 8 could show up as a 2, because everyone was expecting a 10 and got disappointed, and they just wanted to vent.
So if you look at what the score averages out to, you won't get an honest or constructive answer, in fact you'll probably disappoint yourself, because less popular games that turn out better then you expected will be overhyped, thus you'll play them expecting a great game and get a good one, where's before their greatest strength was that they would surprise you.
That's to say nothing of people who actively attempt to change the user score, because obviously they know what everyone else should think(See: Assholes)
If you want my opinion, the CoD isn't so much a game as it is a drug or competitive sport, the latest incarnation little more then a fix or revision that costs $60. Skyrim isn't a game either, it's the second coming of Jesus Christ.(It's expansive and spellbinding, once you set foot there, you feel possibility at your fingertips. Every inch is a canvas, and every step across an adventure.)
So yeah... get Skyrim
Sadly, between the two, Total Sales is the best.
Humans are Assholes. Humans *****, whine, complain and pout about the tiniest, littlest problem. IE: They see Skyrim playing on the same engine as Oblivion and complain about nothing else the entire time. Meanwhile, they see MW3, and its brand new engine, and ignore the fact that everything else, barring the new multiplayer mode, pretty much is nothing but MW2.... which was pretty much just a big version of MW.
Meanwhile, if you look at Sales, than all those little bitchy mouths whom can't be satisfied because a game is like this, or those Genre Elitists who think everything else is shit, are silenced within minutes.
TL;DR: read the post, lazy buggers
Humans are Assholes. Humans *****, whine, complain and pout about the tiniest, littlest problem. IE: They see Skyrim playing on the same engine as Oblivion and complain about nothing else the entire time. Meanwhile, they see MW3, and its brand new engine, and ignore the fact that everything else, barring the new multiplayer mode, pretty much is nothing but MW2.... which was pretty much just a big version of MW.
Meanwhile, if you look at Sales, than all those little bitchy mouths whom can't be satisfied because a game is like this, or those Genre Elitists who think everything else is shit, are silenced within minutes.
TL;DR: read the post, lazy buggers
The only way you can then tell which game is better is by comparing systems and coding and hard facts, as opposed to easily manipulated scores and easily manipulated people, all of which hold their own biases.DailonCmann said:
An example, Skyrim has a much larger open world than MW3, and far more content. However, this then leads to the problem of what is better, which is affected by personal bias. With Skyrim, you are getting more bang for your buck content wise, but some people do not want to walk across an awesome landscape and do a thousand quests, and instead prefer one goal in a small area.
Graphics in Skyrim are better than in MW3, compared on PC as that is the only platform where a fair comparison of graphics can be made as it is the only platform capable of running full graphical settings on both games.
There is no easy way to get an unbiased answer as to which game is better, as simply saying better adds in a bias. Hell, with Metacritic scores, who's to say a lower score isn't better? Some people may see things that people supposedly enjoyed less as being better overall, as that is there bias, like people enjoying things more is better by most people's bias.
People can expect to buy a game and like it and be wrong. People can't vote their opinion on the general worth of a game and be wrong unless they're exceedingly stupid.
I vote for voting their opinion for that reason.
I vote for voting their opinion for that reason.
If call of duty is the highest selling thing since toilet paper, then how come the entire world seems to hate it so much? The math there seems invalid. What I'm trying to point out is that "sales" is a hard number but opinions are totally worthless. People will say they like or hate something just because they don't want to be different.
I disagree with this specific statement. You're not comparing the full value of a purchase here. One of the most obvious reasons for purchasing MW3 is going to be the multi-player experience, something that has potential to last far longer than the content of Skyrim. Multi-player is always a new experience as you're fighting against different people in different places, which keeps it fresh and exciting.Joccaren said:
Simply said, I think that the "bang for your buck" in terms of content could come up fairly even, but it's based completely on how you measure it. Do you simply cut out the multi-player aspect of MW3 because Skyrim doesn't have it? If so, do you then have to cut out side quests in Skyrim because MW3 doesn't have them?
Really, the only way to judge is to judge by the full package and I think in that regard people will get more bang for their buck if the buy the game they want. Someone that loves playing Skyrim is going to get as much bang for their buck as someone that loves playing MW3 is and for the same reasons.
Em either way Modern Warfare 3 actually does beat out Skyrim so how does that make the system work(in your opinion anyway)? Game scores at the moment are a bad way of judging a game as they have been overinflated and the reviewers are a bit out of touch with core gamers. Game reviewers are more like the average cinema goer in terms of wants while core gamers seem to be more like the movie critics. This was the basis of an article I read(by a critic) and it is quite true. So this way can't judge a game.
Just to say the internet hivemind is a bad way too.
Sales are also a bad way to judge if a game is good because a lot things(ie CoD and previously WoW) were bought because they were popular so people could play with their friends.
Just to say the internet hivemind is a bad way too.
Sales are also a bad way to judge if a game is good because a lot things(ie CoD and previously WoW) were bought because they were popular so people could play with their friends.
Well, if there are that many users and MW3 gets such a low average score from said users...
Of course, how many of them voted on each game?
Of course, how many of them voted on each game?
you can never say that one form of entertainment is superior to another. i prefer skyrim, does it mean i am a retard, because majority plays CoD? no, i am retarded because of other stuff i do.
to the point, analogy. my friend loves picasso/dali paintings. i hate them and prefer realistic creations.
which painting is better? dali's or rembrandt's?
definition of opinion is that it is biased. you cant have an obiective(sp?) opinion, only a mathematical average. i hope my post is clear enough.
to the point, analogy. my friend loves picasso/dali paintings. i hate them and prefer realistic creations.
which painting is better? dali's or rembrandt's?
definition of opinion is that it is biased. you cant have an obiective(sp?) opinion, only a mathematical average. i hope my post is clear enough.
Actually no. I had a big thing written out for this but no. You're basically asking us to argue about two options and only two options, both of which dont actually work and are filled with problems, then pick one thats what?..least flawed?DailonCmann said:
Oh and wow...you assumed Skyrim for the 360 for this argument, an exclusivly PC game.
Also I need to point this out for you..
Wow. Please do some philosophy. You're basically asking, which game is better from an objective standpoint, based on 2 arbitary references.DailonCmann said:
a. It is impossible for people to say things are better from an "unbiased" point of view.
b. You havent explained your references at all.
Exactly, buy the game you want, however as we are not allowed to use that, Skyrim does have more content. It has a random quest and content generator, so in technicality it has infinite content, the same technical amount that multiplayer MW3 will have until the servers end up shutting down years down the road. As infinite is a rather... ridiculous amount of stuff to try and compare, so base content is what I do compare, including the maps in MW3 multiplayer as replaying can be done in both Skyrim and MW3, and will once again end up in a potentially infinite amount of content. Replaying the same map on MW3, or replaying Skyrim. Both can be done indefinitely, so it ends up moot. It is the same with all games, as you can potentially replay them until you die. In basic content however, there is far more in Skyrim than MW3.Lazier Than Thou said:
So your argument is they're both infinitely long, but Skyrim is infinitely long plus one? It doesn't make any sense to me why you would put more value in the content that Skyrim has than in the content MW3 has.Joccaren said:
I think the question is "How do you find out if a game is any good before buying it"cyrogeist said:
Personally I would never never look at sales, the simple reason being that something being popular does not guarantee anything other than that its popular, and in fact usually guarantees that its fairly shallow in order to have broader appeal.. i.e. extreme popularity = dross.