Poll: The System Works. Skyrim vs. COD: MW3

[Gluzzbung]

As far as CoD goes I don't think anyone should buy it. It's the same game as the last one, and the one before that, and the one before that etc. Skyrim impproves on the last experience (quite a lot actually since I didn't like Oblivion and I like Skyrim) and, while it doesn't add new features, it certainly offers a new experience. But really, there should be one reviewer or one review site that people stick to, not listening to their friends because I was recommended Borderlands by a friend, I think it's the worst game ever made. Trailers I think, gameplay trailers, are the key here. If a game can't sell itself on that then it's not worth buying.

 

[masticina]

Personally I don't really go off just by how much points a game gets. I read reviews and so on

But I do feel that yes MW3 is that $60 mappack. It is the yearly game..

Where Skyrim took 5 years! AND I feel that Skyrim really does feel like it brings 5 years of improvements to the table. To say it even more.. more then 5 years!

So in this case I gotta go by Majority Opinion. But there are some underrated gems out there that do not get high marks and sadly do not sell to well. But are well regarded!

I mean how many people bought Eternal Darkness, one of the most scary games!

 

[NastoK]

Well, I never look how much money a game has generated, nor do I look for the score, though it sometimes just pops out. But for the sake of argument, I'd look at the scores (but not Metacritic, I dislike it :| ).

 

[Elsarild]

Of course it's the majority opinion.

I bought MW3 and Skyrim was a birthday present, I contributed to both sale statistics, but what do I play most? Skyrim, which on did I get most fun out of? Skyrim, What game have I logged almost 200 hours into? Skyrim, what game has I put barely 20 into? MW3.

I know Mw3 sold more, and I don't care, I got them both, but when push comes to show, I know where I got most value from my money.

Besides, if the game that sold most, was also as awesome as to justify their sales, I guess that would, in most cases make that the majority opinion in the end.

 

[Uncompetative]

I like Robotron 64. Robotron 64 is good. Robotron 64 is better than MW3. Robotron 64 is better than Skyrim.

Spoiler: Okay, so I haven't played any of them to completion, but I don't think that disqualifies me from having my personal opinion.

Getting to Wave 64 on Robotron 64 is quite far enough for me to feel I have a right to comment on it.


Obviously, I didn't make the game unnecessarily hard by playing it on Insane difficulty like this guy. I am, after all, Uncompetative.

http://uk.ign64.ign.com/articles/061/061451p1.html
http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/robotron+64/results
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Nintendo_64_video_games

So, no great artistic, critical, or commercial success when it was originally released.

Spoiler: Yet, over a decade later we get some cultural perspective and appreciation as a forgotten retro gem:

The question is, will MW3 still be played in 10 years time?

Evidence of the continued popularity of Morrowind, suggests that Skyrim will find a future retro audience. So it is neither option in the poll.

Staying power

 

[Michael Hirst]

Neither. Sales don't determine quality in any way shape or form you only need look at the movie industry to know this unless you're going to honestly tell me that Spiderman 3 is better than The Shawshank Redemption, Star Wars or even The Godfather.

General opinion? That's pretty worthless as well at the end of the day, don't forget the Nazi's had a lot of support in Germany at one point (involving coercion and stuff but a lot of genuine support as well) You don't need other peoples opinions to validate your own.

A games worth comes down to the individual, though it can be nice to chat with people who have similar tastes/viewpoints

How do I tell which game is better before buying? I watch videos of them on Youtube, and I read up about them on independent websites. Neither sales nor Metacritic rating are a reliable way of telling which is a better game for me, nor a better game overall (As if such a thing could exist).

It's not about which game is better for you, it's overall which game is better. These things do exist. At the end of the day, which game is better from an unbiased view and which point of reference is the best to judge it from? That's the question.

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE VIEW. All reviews and opinions of a game are subjective unless you're talking about how the core mechanics work, in the sense that you're dicussing glitches and bugs rather than actual gameplay. A review by it's very definition is an OPINION of a game. Like all artforms its subject to individual differences in the interpretation, it's why when you ask what peoples favourite game this year was they say different things.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

For the purpose of this argument, let's assume that Metacritic scores by users not critics represent the majority. The platform for both is the Xbox 360.

You're wondering which is better when you're judging them on the most biased reviews and the lowest powered system? Why do you just throw in the opinions on the Steam forums, too. You know why the made all that money? Because they were sequels to games people liked. Just because they made a lot of money doesn't mean that they are good.

The word "better" is completely opinion based, too. I'm pretty sure I enjoyed Duke Nukem Forever more than I would enjoy either of those.

 

[pliusmannn]

too different games, can't be compared objectively. let's say if you compared something like TES: Oblivion with DA:O then majority's opinion would work, because the majority would be players who likes action RPG or RPG in general. now MW3 can be compared with BF3, because those both games would be criticized from FPS fans

 

[brainslurper]

...how about playing the games and finding out for yourself?

basically this. i have no interest in skyrim whatsoever and i enjoy mw3. does that make my opinion wrong? no, it makes it an opinion. nothing can ever be declared factually better than anything else. i think donnie darko is the best movie ever made and psychonauts deserves to be at the top of everyone's best games ever list, but you may not agree. majority opinion and sales don't matter really, individual opinion matters.

The only problem with that I would say is that your opinion isn't worth as much as someone who has played both games, and is therefor educated in their decision.

that's a good point, but the thing is, my point was that there really isn't a way to "measure the worth of a game" you just have to make your own choices and neither can ever definitively have more worth. also now that i think about i don't know why i quoted the first guy, even though i agree with him haha

I think that metascore though is as close to an indication of a game's quality as you can get.
On another note, why don't you have skyrim?

 

[deathbyoatmeal]

...how about playing the games and finding out for yourself?

basically this. i have no interest in skyrim whatsoever and i enjoy mw3. does that make my opinion wrong? no, it makes it an opinion. nothing can ever be declared factually better than anything else. i think donnie darko is the best movie ever made and psychonauts deserves to be at the top of everyone's best games ever list, but you may not agree. majority opinion and sales don't matter really, individual opinion matters.

The only problem with that I would say is that your opinion isn't worth as much as someone who has played both games, and is therefor educated in their decision.

that's a good point, but the thing is, my point was that there really isn't a way to "measure the worth of a game" you just have to make your own choices and neither can ever definitively have more worth. also now that i think about i don't know why i quoted the first guy, even though i agree with him haha

I think that metascore though is as close to an indication of a game's quality as you can get.
On another note, why don't you have skyrim?

i agree that a metascore CAN be an indication of a game's quality, but again, it doesn't matter to me what anyone thinks of a game, my opinion is the only i care about after i'm done. on the second note, like i said i just never found it very appealing. i prefer my games to be a little tighter in their focus and i prefer to be told a story rather than make one

 

[lionrwal]

You can't judge how good a game is based on sales. Proof: Psychonauts and Grim Fandango

 

[Eggsnham]

Why are you even comparing Skyrim and MW3?

They're so completely different that it wouldn't even make sense to try and compare them.

 

[godofallu]

Total sales is essentially majority opinion.

I own COD MW3 and I own Skyrim. I would rate both around a 96/100.

The thing is a lot of people will bomb COD games to be a hipster, but noone really cares to go out of their way to bomb most normal games.

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

EDIT: EDIT: Okay. This is supposed to be a debate of sorts between two sides. The reason I put only TWO options up there is because I wanted to see those TWO points argued. Arguing against both is not a way to go about a debate. One side or another.

The problem is that both sides are inherently similar to each other and irrelevant in regard to a games worth, so surely the only recourse is to argue against them both as they are both essentially the same thing. They both really only serve to validate existing personal opinion rather than inform or shape it.

 

[The Wooster]

Of course you can be truthful. It really depends how you word your review and how you conclude it. I think this is because the stereotype reviewer is usually really biased postively or negatively. I know your probably being more realistic, but it's not impossible to point out things that exist (if you know what I mean).

A review is an opinion, it is biased by its very nature. It's possible to make objective statements about technical issues such as "X runs better/has less bugs/has higher resolution textures than Y" but when you start talking about design or art issues, which make up the majority of a review - you're giving an opinion.

 

[suitepee7]

...how about playing the games and finding out for yourself?

Fuck. That was quick. I was expecting this at least 3 posts down.

"Cyrogeist, we're done here."​

Because my personal opinion does not factor in to this discussion. The discussion is Sales vs Majority Opinion. It is not a game breaker, he is not wise. As it so happened, I have played both, Skyrim was better in my opinion. This isn't about one opinion. This is how you judge a game on a MASS SCALE.

the ONLY way is

1) compare games of the same genre, so MW3 and Skyrim cannot be comppared
2) majority opinion, although IMO only trust an overall opinion of professional reviewers, not anybody who can type. mainly because people are stupid, and incredibly bias.

 

[zHellas]

Hey... Remember when versus threads weren't allowed & locked minutes after posting?

Yeah, I do.

OT:

Like what others have said multiple times before, it's like comparing apples to a Mercedes Benz. Plus, it's also subjective as to which one is best.

 

[Atmos Duality]

If this is about judging a game on a mass scale to objectively determine the worth of a game, then the process is objectively simple:

-IGNORE SUBJECTIVE DATA AND FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY ON OBJECTIVE DATA
Use Sales Figures over Metacritic. Anyone can be a critic, but only the most outspoken of the lot care enough to actually say anything.
If they're "professional", then know that their credibility is always suspect because they can (and have been) bought out. The only opinion you should ever trust implicitly, is YOURS.

There is a catch to this: Unless they're seeing wild success (compared to THEIR PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS, note the frame of reference), most game companies are NOT going to share market and sales information with anyone outside of their company (as a matter of security, and to enhance marketing. Remember: Marketing is most effective when people act on emotion, not logic). So even here, attempts at objectifying a game's true value is going to be hindered considerably.

Besides, popularity is already strongly correlated with financial success anyway (economists can refer to effects of a "Network Good". The most profitable games of the past decade have their multiplayer and online populations to thank: Halo, CoD4.x, WoW, and anything Zynga copied all show this trend. Accessibility, social entrapment, and grind combine to create profit-engines).

Quality and "artistic merit" (just take it as it's intended without the sense of pretentiousness) have historically fallen SECOND to that. Fad-mentality can make or break entire platforms, as the Nintendo Wii can attest; let alone games.

However,
If this is about using popularity as the main metric to determine whether one purchases a game or not: just don't. Personal taste MUST COME BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE in a hobby. Common sense, I know, but it bears stating here.
If we all used popularity as the primary means of judging a game, then the gaming market would just stagnate and die the instant we start getting bored with it.

 

[Nazulu]

A review is an opinion, it is biased by its very nature. It's possible to make objective statements about technical issues such as "X runs better/has less bugs/has higher resolution textures than Y" but when you start talking about design or art issues, which make up the majority of a review - you're giving an opinion.

Not really, as you pointed out and I already said, you can do a review just pointing out what exists. Games are very detailed, so theres a lot to talk about. Even when covering art issues, you can still make objective points, it's really the way you word it.

People keep saying this is impossible, and I find that as silly as fanboy's comparing quality through sales and the majority. When you become really good at something, you'll notice at how ignorant most people are when you discuss that specific thing you're good at. This goes for every hobbie and job (not for most people unfortunately). It's a state of mind to be biased and it can be controlled.