"They're two different games you can't compare them" a terrible argument

[spartandude]

Ok so recently two of my friends got into an argument over which was better CoD or BF3. after a few minutes another of my friends adds the whole "They're two different games you can't compare them". this got me thinking, isnt the whole point of compaing things that they are different?
Ive noticed this is something the gaming community cannot understand except for the people we often deem as fan boys or idiots. Now im not going to say people hating eacother over which game you prefer is a good thing (thats a bit extreme) and it gets annoying when it happens, but there is also nothing wrong with prefering one game over another.
It also really annoys me when someone does compare the games and says you cant compare them.

Keeping with the CoD vs BF ive seen people say things like (and this is generalising) "BF is all about team work and objective based gameplay while CoD is more run and gun, they're different so you cant compare them." that is a bloody comparison right there. People who say things like that are the most annoying in these arguments, believing they just made an inteligent comment forgetting its ok to have an opinion on something being better.


sorry had to rant about this because it really annoys me

 

[spartandude]

There are cases where this argument is quite good. I can't compare Day of the Tentacle to Half Life (just an example). Both are without a doubt great games and have nothing in common (but then, those cases are obvious. No one is going to even try to compare games where this argument works because... this argument works there).

But if the games are from the same genre and, in the case of BF3 and MW3, share even the overarching theme (military fps) then this argument is a last resort when you don't have any good arguments left. Like you said: Even this simple argument (teambased fps against gun&run fps) is a comparison of the way you have to play it to achieve victory.

ok i will put my hands up an admit i semi agree with youre example, the reason i semi agree is because lets say someone enjoys Half Life more, someone else will come in and say you cant compare, but that still wouldnt change the fact you thought one was better than the other and gave reasons for it

 

[daemon37]

Hahahaha. Oh my god. Sorry, but this thread just made my day. The idea that COD and Battlefield are two completely different and incomparable games is pretty much the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time. Any two things are comparable, assuming they have at least 1 feature in common (for example: you can compare elephants to chocolate-bars, they are both edible).

Anyone who would claim any two games are incomparable is either:
A) a troll
B) a fool
C) a fanboy
or D) all of the above

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Comparing them is fine. Saying you don't like Final Fantasy cause there's not enough first person shooting involved is not.


I think that's what people are trying to avoid when saying "they're different so don't compare them". They're trying to avoid mario fans down-voting gran turismo for not having enough shells and jumps in it's races and fifa people from demanding more soccer in their civilization strategy sims...so basically they're there to dissuade the higher level idiots from participating in conversations such as this.


We, who would never expect the next Halo to be a cooking simulator and wouldn't remove points from it simply because we love cooking simulators, can compare different games all we want.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Hahahaha. Oh my god. Sorry, but this thread just made my day. The idea that COD and Battlefield are two completely different and incomparable games is pretty much the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time. Any two things are comparable, assuming they have at least 1 feature in common (for example: you can compare elephants to chocolate-bars, they are both edible).

Anyone who would claim any two games are incomparable is either:
A) a troll
B) a fool
C) a fanboy
or D) all of the above

Yep...you beat me to it. Especially the initial reaction about MW3 and BF3 being so very, very similar. That's really all I've got. Maybe the OP should hang out with different people or, record more of these arguments and enter them into comedy competitions.

 

[wooty]

I always let people like that rant, either that or I sit back, watch with amusement and thank god that I was raised with a sense of clarity.

 

[Guffe]

which was better CoD or BF3.
"They're two different games you can't compare them".

Well I actually have a point of view on the "different games can't compare" thing.
BF3 and CoD are both FPS games so you can compare good and bad parts from both games since they are from the same genre but you can't compare for example WoW with Far Cry because they are 2 different types of games. This is how I think, compare FPS games, MMO:s, RPG:s with each other as much as you want but going over genres makes it a bit more difficult.

This makes sense to you?

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

You're kind of missing the point of the statement, that being that it may not be worth comparing them. Sure, you could compare Call of Duty and Vib Ribbon [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbHO1ZYhtLk] on the grounds that they're both video games, both interactive experiences, but well... should you? (Spoilers: You shouldn't.)

What it boils down to is "judge a thing on its own merits, not compared to something else". In general, this is a good philosophy to have for all things.

 

[Amgeo]

You're kind of missing the point of the statement, that being that it may not be worth comparing them. Sure, you could compare Call of Duty and Vib Ribbon [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbHO1ZYhtLk] on the grounds that they're both video games, both interactive experiences, but well... should you? (Spoilers: You shouldn't.)

What it boils down to is "judge a thing on its own merits, not compared to something else". In general, this is a good philosophy to have for all things.

But our concept of "merits" is based on comparison to other things. That's how art evolves; taking that which works well and building off of it.

 

[Tamrin]

I wont get into the particulars of "This" game versus "That" game, but "They're two different games you can't compare them" is a valid arguement when used properly and backed by a reasonable opinion and/or facts as to why that someone thinks so. Saying, "They're two different games you can't compare them", and leaving it at that, no not helping you nor the games in debate.

 

[Zantos]

Comparing them is fine. Declaring one unilaterally better and anyone who disagrees with you a moron because it has different features is where it gets to be annoying. On the example given above, I care neither for graphics nor vehicle sections, this doesn't make me an idiot. The gent from the other day knows who he is and what I'm referring to.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

You're kind of missing the point of the statement, that being that it may not be worth comparing them. Sure, you could compare Call of Duty and Vib Ribbon [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbHO1ZYhtLk] on the grounds that they're both video games, both interactive experiences, but well... should you? (Spoilers: You shouldn't.)

What it boils down to is "judge a thing on its own merits, not compared to something else". In general, this is a good philosophy to have for all things.

But our concept of "merits" is based on comparison to other things. That's how art evolves; taking that which works well and building off of it.

And here we have someone who is missing the point is an entirely different way. Open textbooks to page seventy three, class.

Ahem. Sorry. I didn't say not to compare it to anything ever. I implied it was in our best interest not to compare it to other games, particularly games that aren't anything like it, which was what the above example apparently failed to illustrate to you. When I first played Super Mario Bros. as a wee child of five years, I'd never played a video game before, but I didn't think it was fun because I had a rogue's gallery of other games to compare it to and a rigid standard for video games to critique it against; it met my standards of "interesting", when compared, yes, compared, to the rest of my potential sources of amusement at the time, and that was enough. It can be easy to forget between fits of screaming for the guy playing the thing you're not's blood that all a game has to do is entertain us, and if it succeeds in that, who the hell cares how it compares to something else.

 

[anthony87]

A few days ago a friend asked me why I like Skyrim so much but won't play World of Warcraft seeing as how they're pretty similar.

...Yeah.

 

[Tharwen]

Two things can be compared if they have features that both attempt to fill the same role and one does it better.

Cod and Battlefield are full of similar features. Some games don't have many, and are harder to compare.

 

[spartandude]

Comparing them is fine. Saying you don't like Final Fantasy cause there's not enough first person shooting involved is not.


I think that's what people are trying to avoid when saying "they're different so don't compare them". They're trying to avoid mario fans down-voting gran turismo for not having enough shells and jumps in it's races and fifa people from demanding more soccer in their civilization strategy sims...so basically they're there to dissuade the higher level idiots from participating in conversations such as this.


We, who would never expect the next Halo to be a cooking simulator and wouldn't remove points from it simply because we love cooking simulators, can compare different games all we want.

well you could just reword that to something like "I like FPS games but i dont like JRPGs so i dont like final fantasy" you can still compare them together

for example if we take 2 games such as Warcraft 3 and Unreal Tournament 3, i had more fun with Warcraft 3 because of X reasons, and therefore i think WC3 is a better game than UT3

i still compare them, they're two different genres but saying i like one more than the other is still completely valid

 

[Amgeo]

You're kind of missing the point of the statement, that being that it may not be worth comparing them. Sure, you could compare Call of Duty and Vib Ribbon [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbHO1ZYhtLk] on the grounds that they're both video games, both interactive experiences, but well... should you? (Spoilers: You shouldn't.)

What it boils down to is "judge a thing on its own merits, not compared to something else". In general, this is a good philosophy to have for all things.

But our concept of "merits" is based on comparison to other things. That's how art evolves; taking that which works well and building off of it.

And here we have someone who is missing the point is an entirely different way. Open textbooks to page seventy three, class.

Ahem. Sorry. I didn't say not to compare it to anything ever. I implied it was in our best interest not to compare it to other games, particularly games that aren't anything like it, which was what the above example apparently failed to illustrate to you. When I first played Super Mario Bros. as a wee child of five years, I'd never played a video game before, but I didn't think it was fun because I had a rogue's gallery of other games to compare it to and a rigid standard for video games to critique it against; it met my standards of "interesting", when compared, yes, compared, to the rest of my potential sources of amusement at the time, and that was enough. It can be easy to forget between fits of screaming for the guy playing the thing you're not's blood that all a game has to do is entertain us, and if it succeeds in that, who the hell cares how it compares to something else.

Well someone's feeling a bit catty this morning. But I understand what you're saying here. There is a certain level of entertainment that you have come to expect from media, based on what you have already experienced. You expect games to meet that level of entertainment.

However, my thought is that individual aspects of a game can be compared to different games with similar aspects, evaluating the level of entertainment that they contribute to the experience. You wouldn't compare the combat in the recent Batman games to Tetris, but you could compare it to combat in a similar game.

 

[suitepee7]

Comparing them is fine. Saying you don't like Final Fantasy cause there's not enough first person shooting involved is not.


I think that's what people are trying to avoid when saying "they're different so don't compare them". They're trying to avoid mario fans down-voting gran turismo for not having enough shells and jumps in it's races and fifa people from demanding more soccer in their civilization strategy sims...so basically they're there to dissuade the higher level idiots from participating in conversations such as this.


We, who would never expect the next Halo to be a cooking simulator and wouldn't remove points from it simply because we love cooking simulators, can compare different games all we want.

well you could just reword that to something like "I like FPS games but i dont like JRPGs so i dont like final fantasy" you can still compare them together

for example if we take 2 games such as Warcraft 3 and Unreal Tournament 3, i had more fun with Warcraft 3 because of X reasons, and therefore i think WC3 is a better game than UT3

i still compare them, they're two different genres but saying i like one more than the other is still completely valid

you can, but why would you? comparing two completely different things is stupid because there's no baseline to compare it to. there would be too much to compare, because they are so different.

besides, a comparison is a distinction between how x is modified to y, so it only makes sense to compare things that have similar base points.

so for example, "i think CoD is better than BF3, because it is faster paced and not as team based. this is taking the base item, speed, and saying one is faster than the other."

"i think skyrim is better than bejewled because i can use swords" is still a comparison, but there's no need to make it, because they are so different it is less of a comparison, and more like two separate descriptions.

what i'm saying is you can compare anything to anything, but it only makes sense to compare like to like, because it is the only way to get the finer points across.

 

[Auron225]

The "Too different to compare" argument is valid if talking about two things that don't share the same media form or even genre. You cant argue your point with comparing Phantom of the Opera and Modern Warfare 3 by saying "They're different, so I will compare them". They have nothing in common. But if they both belong to the same genre, then its a stupid argument. If someone said that about comparing FF7 and FF8, it wouldnt make sense.

 

[WanderingFool]

Well, I would say there are games you shouldnt compare for obvious reasons, but games like BF3 and MW3, while different in many ways, are also similur enough that a comparison is warrented.

*Edit*

you can, but why would you? comparing two completely different things is stupid because there's no baseline to compare it to. there would be too much to compare, because they are so different.

besides, a comparison is a distinction between how x is modified to y, so it only makes sense to compare things that have similar base points.

so for example, "i think CoD is better than BF3, because it is faster paced and not as team based. this is taking the base item, speed, and saying one is faster than the other."

"i think skyrim is better than bejewled because i can use swords" is still a comparison, but there's no need to make it, because they are so different it is less of a comparison, and more like two separate descriptions.

what i'm saying is you can compare anything to anything, but it only makes sense to compare like to like, because it is the only way to get the finer points across.

this is basically the nutshell...

Also, is this one of the "/thread" times?