|
|
Post by Darknezz on Apr 20, 2009 19:50:35 GMT -5
I didn't miss your point (or lack thereof), I was referencing what you'd said in regard to personal taste. I fail to see any reason why anyone would even think of, let alone ask this question. I mean, I'm not trying to be an ass. But seriously, were you playing Super Mario Brothers and it occurred to you, "Wow this game isn't anything like Mirror's Edge!" You're already falling into a straw man. The question has been asked, either stop posting here if you have nothing productive to say, or say something productive to the topic that isn't "oh hurr u had no point lawl straw man lawl" Okay, but when did we switch from comparing vastly different games on their merrit to explaining to some dumbfuck what game we're talking about, and how it plays? "Nonconformist freedom fight"? The fuckpickles are you on about? I state my opinions and back them up because they're my opinions, not because I want to be different. Also, I hold that "nonconformists" are conforming to the idea of not conforming with the rest of society, which somehow translates into being androgynous skaters that wear makeup and are absolute c unts for no other reason than because they want to try to be different. I'm all for people being different for the sake of being different, don't get me wrong, but when that translates to being the same as 90% of the people that label themselves the same way as you, you're not using the correct label. But this is way off topic, and I'll stop there. You failing to see the logic here is simply because you don't comprehend speech, far as I can tell. I've explained it multiple times within this topic, and Octanehugo summed it up, though a little over-simplified: Guys, all he's pointing out is that saying "You can't compare games from different genres" is a stupid statement because YOU CAN. If I were to compare Mario Kart and Killzone 2, I can examine not only the way they run and the technical aspects but also how they perform as a type of game: racing and shooter, respectively. Now then, kindly f uck off if you've got nothing actually relevant to the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by school on Apr 20, 2009 20:18:58 GMT -5
Okay, given that gameplay changes across genres, why does it fail to compute? You jumped from one to the other. Like I said before, we're taking out genre because it no longer matters, because either we dislike or like both genres equally, or we're simply comparing review scores. That's what I was getting at with reviews. As untrustworthy as so many reviewers are, especially ones like Gamespot and IGN, there has to be one or two that are legit. So, we find a legit review for both games, compare the scores they got, and say which one is better. Of course, that also brings genre back into the equation based on who reviewed it, so forget I said anything about reviews. To objectively define what is a better game, we look at the aspects of each game in their own genre, not simply look at them as games. To stay with the example, Legend of Zelda has a vast, open-world with tons to do, which is a staple of its genre, while Gears of War is linear. Neither of these should count for their respective games, because it's the typical set up for those genres. But if Legend of Zelda were linear, we'd count it against, because that is not what a game of that genre should be. So, given the above, why is it such an acceptable response to discount someone's opinion simply because the games are vastly different? Edit: If you remove genre from the equation you are removing the gameplay elements. Sure you can just compare polygons but you don't seem to be arguing that based on your example. Just a review score number tells you nothing about a game and is an incredibly foolish way to compare games; I wasn't sure if you were realizing that in the 4th paragraph. In your Zelda compared to Gears example, you are still including genre in the mix, saying one element is a good thing in that game's genre while the other element is a good thing in that game's genre. That isn't removing genre from it as you originally said and is not comparing the two games. You are actually comparing them verses the rest of the genre and not directly. And you hit the nail on why games from different genres are hard to compare, they are vastly different. |
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Apr 20, 2009 20:36:02 GMT -5
Okay, given that gameplay changes across genres, why does it fail to compute? You jumped from one to the other. Like I said before, we're taking out genre because it no longer matters, because either we dislike or like both genres equally, or we're simply comparing review scores. That's what I was getting at with reviews. As untrustworthy as so many reviewers are, especially ones like Gamespot and IGN, there has to be one or two that are legit. So, we find a legit review for both games, compare the scores they got, and say which one is better. Of course, that also brings genre back into the equation based on who reviewed it, so forget I said anything about reviews. To objectively define what is a better game, we look at the aspects of each game in their own genre, not simply look at them as games. To stay with the example, Legend of Zelda has a vast, open-world with tons to do, which is a staple of its genre, while Gears of War is linear. Neither of these should count for their respective games, because it's the typical set up for those genres. But if Legend of Zelda were linear, we'd count it against, because that is not what a game of that genre should be. So, given the above, why is it such an acceptable response to discount someone's opinion simply because the games are vastly different? Edit: If you remove genre from the equation you are removing the gameplay elements. Sure you can just compare polygons but you don't seem to be arguing that based on your example. You're not reading. We're not removing the genre's gameplay from the equation, we're judging the games in their respective genres, thereby eliminating genre bias. No, no, no. You missed the point of why we're judging them based on what genre they're in. That eliminates genre bias, while preserving what makes the games. When I say we're comparing them and eliminating genre from the equation, I mean we're not saying one is better because that genre is better. We're saying one is better because, as a game in its own right, it does more things right than the other. We're not comparing genres, we're comparing games. |
|
|
|
Post by school on Apr 20, 2009 20:58:23 GMT -5
That isn't really comparing games without considering genres then, as the OP stated.
Saying one game is good for its genre and another game is good for its genre is not comparing though, which is what I am not understanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Apr 20, 2009 21:07:40 GMT -5
And that's what I'm getting at.
When we look at the games in their respective genres, and say that one does more things in its genre better than the other does in its genre, we can say that the former is a better game.
But why, when we try to objectively define games like this, do we end up having people claim that you cannot compare the two games?
|
|
|
|
Post by school on Apr 20, 2009 21:16:03 GMT -5
And that's what I'm getting at. When we look at the games in their respective genres, and say that one does more things in its genre better than the other does in its genre, we can say that the former is a better game. But why, when we try to objectively define games like this, do we end up having people claim that you cannot compare the two games? Usually when people hear the word compare, they think a direct comparison and not respective to the genre. That is most likely where the whole "you can't compare different genres of games" thought comes from. |
|
|
|
Post by Mordiford on Apr 20, 2009 22:02:28 GMT -5
That's basically what I said as well thought...
I said a game should considered based on it's merit in it's own genre.
-.-
|
|
shikacaah
Junior Member
Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination.
Posts: 94
|
Post by shikacaah on Jun 29, 2009 5:26:32 GMT -5
Someone can honestly compare any two things if they choose to really. That's the beauty of it. Someone can do anything if they really try.
However when comparing videogames or anything else for that matter one has to take into account several aspects. In this case these are aspects such as genre, time period, and console.
When I pick up a game like Oblivion, I know what I'm going to get. Freedom, quests, some combat, an extended storyline. Then I proceed to pick up a game like Halo and I too know what I am getting, some run and gun, a few objectives, solid multiplayer, a half-decent story. (The last is open to opinion however.)
However I can't just go up and say "Oblivion is better than Halo."
It would be like me saying "Ralph Nader is better than Bill Gates." it leaves the audience with confusion and questions.
When making a comparison it is usually done by comparing two similar things, whether they may be foods, computers, cars whatever. It forms a more coherent statement and leaves less room for misunderstanding.
However if you do indeed choose to compare two games of separate time period, genre, etc. It would be safer to make that comparison upon a factor much broader, since your comparison is indeed also broad. Something like enjoyment, or repeatability would be more appropriate than "This game's better.".
In addition "This game is better." or a similar statement would solely based on an appeal to ones own opinion. Thereby making a weak argument and leaving much room for rebuttal.
So to be truthful, yes you can say any game is better than another. You can say "Final Fantasy is better than Sonic Unleashed." based on player reviews and the reviews of websites. However it does not mean that somewhere out there there won't be rebuttal, thereby by saying "Final Fantasy is a deeper, more satisfying, and extensive experience." one makes a more solid argument that leaves less room for rebuttal.
Going back on my main point, yes you can compare whatever you like. However it does not mean that your statement would be as solid as if you would have compared the game to something of higher similarity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darknezz on Jun 29, 2009 5:50:47 GMT -5
This is exactly why you can compare the two. You judge them based on what that particular games does right and what it does wrong.
For instance, if a game does aspect x correctly, it stays at 10 points. If it does x wrong, it loses a point. "X" can only be something that you expect for that game to do right. With Oblivion and Halo, let's do mission structure.
Oblivion has variety, whereas Halo is simply "push forward, kill everything." However, since you expect these for the games, neither loses a point. If, however, Halo had done something amazing, like having sequences of... Well, I don't know, I'm not a game designer, but say it does something really well that you wouldn't expect, it would gain a point. If Oblivion had you do the same thing several thousand times, it would lose a point.
Questions that should have been answered in your original analysis. You should never just say, "x is better than y." You should explain your reasoning. People who just flatly state that x is better than y without giving reasons are frankly worse than the imbeciles who are too ignorant to even consider y.
Again, misunderstandings that should have been cleared up in your original post.
As for comparing more like things, as stated in the original post, we are comparing two unlike games.
Hurr durr, explaining your fucking logic.
Hurr fucking durr.
hurf de blurf. You've done nothing but agree with my point this entire post, and yet you just said in chat earlier that you can't compare two genres.
It's just as solid if I explain my reasoning either way, and just as unsound either way if I don't explain my logic.
|
|
shikacaah
Junior Member
Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination.
Posts: 94
|
Post by shikacaah on Jun 29, 2009 6:36:22 GMT -5
To explain things simply, yes you can compare those games Dark do as you please. But anyone could do whatever they want, it's really a matter of making your comparisons in a manner that is easily understood. Which is what I was trying to get across with my post.
Had I said that two games were too different to compare in chat? Yes I did. Under closer analysis I saw the error of my statement and that is why I typed the previous post. No I was not agreeing with you, nor was I disagreeing I was merely saying that a game can't simply "be better" because there are too many factors to count and in the end it is up to the individual who can provide the better backup for their claim. That was my key implication.
The point-system you discussed in your previous post. That system right there was forged from an individuals thought. However one system simply cannot account for the memorable experiences, enjoyment, or emotional attachment a game may have for someone. That is partially why game reviews vary so much, individuals think differently. It's part of the beauty of being human. It is also part of why people choose to limit their comparisons to specific genres, in order to better classify positives and negatives as well as see what the game does right for it's genre.
Yes you can grab a pair of games and like you mentioned before: see what each does right, but it is much easier to just make genre specific comparisons as they require less backup for the argument and the individual pros and cons of the games become far more apparent that way giving room for deeper insight and analysis on a games superiority to another game in addition to it's overall quality as a product.
Also, referring to "X is better than Y" I got lazy, and didn't feel like elaborating on it so I compromised by merely leaving it to the implications that my second statement had made. Which was: that it leaves the audience confused. My second statement also left the audience confused and asking questions. Thereby itself implying what you had said. You can't simply say X is better than Y without backup, it's stupid.
I am aware of requiring backup for my arguments Dark I am not an idiot just very sleepy..I got lazy and it is literally 7AM as I type this. Which is why this too may seem a bit incomplete and slightly off, my apologies for the misunderstanding.
To conclude, instead of providing a rebuttal to your post, or an opinion. My post had the intention of looking at both sides of the spectrum and give a brief overview on why ideas conflict when it comes to discussing the superiority of anything. I however made several key errors on my statement such as usage of the word "You."
I'll likely edit my previous post to provide a better analysis later on in the coming hours.
Edit: Actually it's more likely I'll post a thread on the debate forum to assess and discuss why it is that ideas can conflict so much on something as seemingly simple as the superiority of a game.
|
|
