Poll: The System Works. Skyrim vs. COD: MW3
- Thread starter DailonCmann
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Where are you getting those numbers from? $650 million total sales for MW3 thus far is way off, even as an estimate. It made $775 million in its first five days of release. [http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/17/activision-modern-warfare-3-sales-reach-775-million-in-five-da/ ]DailonCmann said:
In answer to your question, you don't. Metacritic scores are, by their very nature, wank - user scores are even worse - and sales indicate popularity, not quality.
I'd argue that comparing COD to Skyrim is an exercise in fist-shitting futility in the first place. They both pretty much epitomize two, mutually opposed, approaches to game design.
Are you absolutely sure? Many people believe that but they can't prove it. All they have is their personal belief. Most of the time when people say things like that is because they have no idea and don't even bother looking into finding out what is better cause it's not in their interests. Do you know what I'm getting at?Doom-Slayer said:
No, in my argument they both have the POTENTIAL to be infinitely long, but without using the POTENTIAL re-playability, there is more content created for Skyrim then MW3. Take out replaying each game, and the random generation of things in Skyrim, and you are left with base content. Maps, items, models, units, ect. Of this base content, the content without its potential being used, there is more of said base content in Skyrim than MW3. If you then add potential into that, they become infinite, which does not work in a way that helps with comparisons like the ones we are trying to make.Lazier Than Thou said:
You can put restrictions on the infinite though, and make it more friendly. I.E: CoD 9 or W/E will come out next year, and the majority of the user base of MW3 will move to it. It is highly unlikely, considering the track record of TES games, that TES 6 will come out next year. As such, Skyrim will likely be played by more people for a longer period of time than MW3. This, however, puts a release scheduled as a mark of quality on a game; the longer the sequel takes to come out the 'better' the game is. This leads to games that have no sequel getting an infinite value, which does not work.
Infinite values do not work for comparisons, we need to work things down to a quantifiable level to properly compare them. As such, Skyrim is not 'Infinite + 1' and MW3 'Infinite', but 'X amount of base content' and 'Y amount of base content'.
It wont matter. Everyone have preferences even to the tiniest detail. If I asked you, "Pick a color in 1 second..go.." you would pick a color. If you tried to do that perfectly objectively, you wouldnt be able to answer, since no answer is "greater" or more right than any other answer. But now you say "Oh but I just picked it randomly" no you didnt. You based that answer on something, even to the tiniest degree, even if it was just the color you were looking at the time. People base their entire way of thinking on their opinions, likes and dislikes, you cant seperate those from judgements, so its impossible for us to say soemthing is "better" than something else in an unbiased way.Nazulu said:
To be clear, whether something CAN be objectively better or not is up for debate, whether humans can decide on that is mostly in consensus.
I'd actually say total sales; if a game sells ship tons early and then practically none, its a ship game, whereas if it keeps selling after the initial boom quite well, its obviously got something people like.
I never trust "majority opinion", because from experience and from history, the majority can be sooo wrong (see MW2 and that period where everyone thought smoking was good for you and public schools beat students for NOT smoking).
I never trust "majority opinion", because from experience and from history, the majority can be sooo wrong (see MW2 and that period where everyone thought smoking was good for you and public schools beat students for NOT smoking).
Oh know, there is the impossible again. That's your personal belief, but some things/points can be proven to objectively flawed (I wouldn't say mostly though). It's a state of mind to be biased, it can be controlled if you really want. It usually ends up becoming a skill through interest and experience for those in the work place. I'm not just talking art here.Doom-Slayer said:
The "Users" who rated CoD a 3.2 are not actually "Users"--they're doucebag fanboys who've never played the game.
I guarantee you that no one played CoD and thought "Wow, this deserves a 3.2." You can dislike CoD. That's fine. But unless you were predisposed to hate it, you wouldn't give it a 3.2. You know, unless you were super angry about just getting your ass kicked (AKA ragevote.) You wouldn't rate any CoD with a 3.2 because the series doesn't deserve it; it is a well built game. The controls are tight, the graphics are great, and while you might not love the story, can you really say it's boring?
Just like with Mass Effect or Final Fantasy you're absolutely entitled to not like them, but if you're actually trying to score them objectively, you're not going to give them a 3.2. I don't like Final Fantasy, but it doesn't deserve a 3.2. You know what does? Rogue Warrior. Sure, you could gleam entertainment from Rogue Warrior, but it's still a fundamentally awful game.
I guarantee you that no one played CoD and thought "Wow, this deserves a 3.2." You can dislike CoD. That's fine. But unless you were predisposed to hate it, you wouldn't give it a 3.2. You know, unless you were super angry about just getting your ass kicked (AKA ragevote.) You wouldn't rate any CoD with a 3.2 because the series doesn't deserve it; it is a well built game. The controls are tight, the graphics are great, and while you might not love the story, can you really say it's boring?
Just like with Mass Effect or Final Fantasy you're absolutely entitled to not like them, but if you're actually trying to score them objectively, you're not going to give them a 3.2. I don't like Final Fantasy, but it doesn't deserve a 3.2. You know what does? Rogue Warrior. Sure, you could gleam entertainment from Rogue Warrior, but it's still a fundamentally awful game.
How about "both options are retarded"?
I'd like that option.
If you were trying to measure a game's monetary worth as a franchise, sales numbers would be a good figure to go by, but if you're trying to see if a game is actually good, both going by sales and "majority opinion" is retarded.
Although, I guess majority opinion is the lesser evil when you're trying to figure out the quality of a game.
I'd like that option.
If you were trying to measure a game's monetary worth as a franchise, sales numbers would be a good figure to go by, but if you're trying to see if a game is actually good, both going by sales and "majority opinion" is retarded.
Although, I guess majority opinion is the lesser evil when you're trying to figure out the quality of a game.
I disagree.DailonCmann said:
You present two answers, neither of which are palatable as answers to the question. You ask - how do we determine which game is better?
Neither. Simple as.
Although, under your incredibly narrow "debate" criteria I'd have to say total sales, the reason being we live in a capitalist society and nothing else matters other than the almighty pound/dollar/euro/etc.
...this is like comparing a slice of apple pie to a steak dinner. They only serve the same purpose in the most vague of terms. Their status of being prepared at around the same time does not call for a session of contrast and compare.
I mean, unless you're a rather unspecialized food critic.
I mean, unless you're a rather unspecialized food critic.
May I ask, can they not be one in the same?DailonCmann said:
EDIT: I hope in the months/years to come Skyrim eventually grows past MW3 - but that's my opinion talking, not the facts.
Ok, so while I don't like MW3 and love Skyrim, I don't personally commit hate crimes against MW3 by voting it down 0 on metacritic, I wouldn't want people to do it to games that I like, so I don't do it to games I don't - but there are obviously people that do, so I would rule that one out on itself.
The market speaks my friend, it speaks.
If it has said, that as of today, MW3 has sold 200 million dollars more than Skyrim, the market has decided that MW3 is more popular, and majority rules, so does the power of the dollar, so that's your answer. I completely disagree, but I won't argue with what the market has to say.
Unbaised reviewers, they know their shit and if you're looking at the "truthful" ones you'll get a good image of the quality.
"Truthful" (yeah, I know you used quotes there) probably isn't a good word. "Of a similar opinion" is probably a better choice. People really need to choose a reviewer, someone who matches their general outlook, and stick with them, instead of labeling reviews from people who don't share their outlook as "lies." I really think sites should offer up multiple reviews for games and should give readers more insight into who the reviewers are and what they like.JochemDude said:
As for unbiased? No such thing, in my opinion.
Yeah, we're all baised in some way, I more meant it as in a, not payed by the developing company kind of wayGrey Carter said:
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).Grey Carter said:
I agree with more reviewers though, there are sometimes a couple for each game in the review section.
Sales is hardly the most valid qualifier as it would suggest that Duke Nukem is one of the best games of the year seeing as it dominated it's month in sales. Still, I'd wager the strong sales of a title is more likely to give you a window towards its quality than majority opinion.
I would have said Majority Opinion...but this is becoming less and less true over time. Look at all the fanboyism taking place on sites like Metacritic particularly on legitimately good games like Dragon Age 2 and MW3.
Majority professional opinion on the other hand has some merit...especially when taken over many sources so you can get perspective from the lower end score and higher end ones.
I would have said Majority Opinion...but this is becoming less and less true over time. Look at all the fanboyism taking place on sites like Metacritic particularly on legitimately good games like Dragon Age 2 and MW3.
Majority professional opinion on the other hand has some merit...especially when taken over many sources so you can get perspective from the lower end score and higher end ones.
Since the dot.commers bribed Congress to allow EULAs to rule the vendor - customer relationship instead of product warranty laws (including the right to return the game if it didn't work or you just didn't like what was in it, such as the airport terrorist scene in MW2), "playing the game" means that you have already paid the company and are now a "supporter", "fan", "happy customer", or whatever else the company cares to label you in the best interests of their sales growth.cyrogeist said:
So since you can't retract your purchase to indicate your dissatisfaction with the product, there's no provable relationship between your purchase dollars and the quality of the game. So the only standard with any relevance at all is (sadly) anecdotal reports of the game experience, meaning Metacritic user ratings.
It's not a perfect world, and bullsh8 like the EULA scam makes it worse, but user reviews do compensate for the corruption a bit.