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

[Woodsey]

In that case, its stupid. In other cases, that's a perfectly valid thing to say.

Someone on this forum recently posted a thread saying (something along the lines of): "Having just fought my first dragon in Skyrim, BioWare need to up their game with Dragon Age", which is a sentiment that makes no fucking sense.

One's real time, first person combat, the other's party-based and heavily tactical depending on your difficulty. You could compare them, but all you'd have under 'similarities' is 'DRAGUNZZZZ' and everything else in the combat would be under 'complete and utter differences you moron'.

All his statement actually said was that he prefers Skyrim's style of combat to Dragon Age's.

So yeah, its not so much as you can't compare certain things, just that there's no reason to whatsoever.

There are plenty of opportunities to compare BF3 and MW3 though.

(And before someone thinks they're being clever, yes you can compare aspects of Skyrim and Dragon Age, my example was a discussion on the combat.)

 

[Nazulu]

Completely agree, even with different genre games you can compare. A lot of people say those words because they either have no interest in looking into it so they don't have the skills, or just believes it's impossible (basically the same thing). I see a lot of hypocrites say this then point out games most can agree are bad that are also very different. It's when something isn't easy to compare they say "you cannot compare", doesn't mean it's impossible.

Lets just face it, most people don't have good skills to judge and compare (I'm not saying no one should though).

 

[Tony2077]

you can't compare different games but you can say if you enjoyed one more then the other but that's about it

 

[JoesshittyOs]

The "Can't compare them" argument is perfectly acceptable.

You can't say one is better than the other, because in order to do that they'd have to both be trying to achieve the same thing. You can say "which one you have more fun with", or "which one looks better" but it all falls flat on it's ass when you attempt to compare them.

To the outside eye of someone who doesn't play "tactical" shooters, that may sound strange because Battlefield and CoD do look similar.

Call of Duty with it's quick arcadey gun on gun action with the killstreaks and all that jazz make it an extremely fast paced games. It's become so convoluted with Killstreaks and just pure hecticness that you almost forget you're playing a war game. Which is good. I liked MW3 when I played it at a friends.

Battlefield is a much more realistic type war game. It's much more slow paced and is designed to be more pretty to look at. I'm actually having a hard time saying what's so special about it. But I do own Battlefield 3 and not CoD, so take with that what you will.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You cannot compare two completely different things, I'd say.

But, are any two games totally unalike?

You are more or less always going to be able to compare gameplay, how intuitive the controls are. Much of the time, games have stories and world-building and maybe characters presented to you. Many games are going to have pre-designed levels.

You can compare FPS, RTS and RPGs in relation to those elements, even though the games themselves are very different.

 

[realist1990]

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.

Only have to pay once off for skyrim unless you choose to get dlc.
Thats the answer I'm giving

 

[Fishyash]

You can compare apples and oranges on the basis that the thing they have in common is they are fruit.

However, there really isn't much you can compare them with each other. It would be like comparing a platformer to a RTS on the basis that they are video games. Obviously you CAN, but what is the point?

CoD and BF however are not apples vs oranges. They have lots of similarities, mainly being the same genre, same theme and similar controls.

It's only a bad argument when the games are easily comparable, like BF3 and MW3. However it is perfectly fine to state that when someone is trying to compare super mario bros. to warcraft.

 

[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.

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're not actually comparing them when you say just that much though. Just because you like FPSs more than Jrpgs it doesn't mean that something in the FPS is actually superior, you need to delve deeper than that if you want to compare them. You need to say that you prefer instant-gratification-type gameplay over strategical and slow paced gameplay. You need to say you prefer generic militaristic stories over anime-themed fantasy tales because of...well...I don't know but you should. You need to mention actual reasons and facts and realities.


"I like this" is not a valid comparison criteria, you need to say WHY and how that "why" is not present in what you don't like as much.




You can compare the gameplay style of Warcraft and say that you like a more thoughtful version and a less-twitch-based experience, which is something both it and UT3 share. (that is, levels of twitch, you do need to be fast in WC3 but that speed is imbued with thought rather than reaction)

 

[Epona]

I think all games can be compared to one another based on the most important factor for a game, the fun factor.

When I'm bored, looking through my games trying to decide what I want to play. I don't just look at RPG's or just FPS games. I look at all of them and decide what would be more fun RIGHT NOW. Shall I throw in Skyrim or Super Mario Galaxy. Which game is the most fun?

Some people would say that you can't compare a BMW to a Jeep, I say you can. Anything can be compared if you aren't closed minded.

 

[Zhukov]

"You can't compare them, they're totally different" is a valid argument.

However, in this case it's bullshit. BF3 and CoD are very similar. You can compare the hell out of them.

 

[trooper6]

There is a difference between comparing something....and judging something based on inappropriate criteria.
When someone says, "You can't compare those two things," they are probably responding to someone who just judged something based on inappropriate criteria.

Let's use music as an example.

Neutral comparison:
Aretha Franklin sings with heavy gospel influences. Bob Dylan's singing style was heavily influenced by Woody Guthrie.

Neutral comparisons used to explain personal preference:
I like Aretha Franklin better than Bob Dylan because I prefer gospel influenced signing.

This is rarely how the conversation goes, however. Instead, you get something like this, bias disguised as comparison:
Bob Dylan sucks! Aretha Franklin is a way better singer than he is!

The Bob Dylan fan may respond with...
You can't compare the two (by which he or she really means, you are judging by inappropriate criteria) or he or she may fight back with more bias disguised as comparison:
Are you kidding?! Aretha Franklin sucks! All of her big hits are covers, Bob Dylan is a songwriting genius!

When thinking about comparisons,
1. It isn't good to try and pass off personal opinion as objective fact. Just because you like something better doesn't mean it is objectively better, it just matches your taste better.
2. It isn't good to judge something based on criteria that is not important to that genre/game. For example, some driving games have extra realistic physics. Some driving games are very arcadey. But that is done on purpose and the point of those two games. It isn't appropriate to say, this arcade racer sucks because it isn't realistic. It isn't trying to be! You can say, I prefer realistic racers, so I like this game better.

 

[spartandude]

remember people im not saying you HAVE to compare everything, im just saying the whole point is that people generally use it when talking about things like BF vs CoD, Fallout Vs Borderlands and they always bring in comparisons
it just really annoys me when people do that and especially when they act like theyve made some super clever point by not being a "fanboy" by not having an opinion

 

[spartandude]

I think all games can be compared to one another based on the most important factor for a game, the fun factor.

When I'm bored, looking through my games trying to decide what I want to play. I don't just look at RPG's or just FPS games. I look at all of them and decide what would be more fun RIGHT NOW. Shall I throw in Skyrim or Super Mario Galaxy. Which game is the most fun?

Some people would say that you can't compare a BMW to a Jeep, I say you can. Anything can be compared if you aren't closed minded.

also this is what im trying to say aswell

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

There are some things that can't be compared. I think this example is stupid because they have so much in common that it really is a comparison, noting the similarities and differences between a very similar genre.

However, when it comes to comparing, say, Driver 3 with Modern Warfare 3, it is no longer a comparison. The two objets are in 'the state of being strikingly different' which is the definition for contrast not comparison.

For example, would you say that comparing a game and a film is valid? No, because they aren't even the same medium, and any perceived similarites they have would be completely eclipsed by the number of differences they have. Thus the argument 'you can't compare them, they're totally different' is entirely valid. You can't compare them, you can only contrast them.

Short version:

Comparison: when the majority of points are similar, but there are occasional dissimilarities

Contrast: When the majority of points are marked differences, but there are occasional similarities.

 

[SmegInThePants]

of course you *can* compare them, you need a *standard* of comparison though:

which game is less buggy - x or z
which game uses higher resolution textures - x or z
max players on a multiplayer map - for both x and z
which better supports 3d - x or z
which has more boobies per second (bps) - x or z

such comparisons don't mean one is overall better than the other of course, but once you have a standard of comparison, you can often have objective inarguable results at least for that one factor. Of course, you can have subjective standards of comparison too:

which is more aesthetically pleasing - x or z

trouble is, different people often have different standards of comparison, different things that are important to them. Or even the same standards but they prioritize them differently. If you actually sat them down and had them make a list like the above, they might even agree, line by line, on every single result, complete agreement, yet still come to different conclusions because they prioritize the various factors differently.

as long as you *state* your standards of comparison you can compare 'em. Even better, ifyou can agree on your standards of comparison (and their priority) before you start comparing, you might be able to come up w/a testable objective result, one of you might actually 'win'. In regards to such and such, x clearly has more than z.

Even very different seeming things. You don't see people discussing Donkey Kong versus Quake much, but if your standard of comparison is 'which one left a greater legacy on modern gaming' you'd have a pretty lengthy detailed discussion. If you are just arguing 'which one is better' you are likely to get the OP's response.