Well, if you've ever been on the front page, then you've seen some of these type articles. They can range from comparing the Grand theft auto series to Saints Row, or Battlefield 3 to Modern Warfare 3, and of course the Xbox 360 Exclusive to the PS3 Exclusive type of articles.
I am not comparing any game to another game, no that's not what I wanted to address in this blog, rather I wanted to address the comparisons themselves.
Well, the Grand Theft Auto series is Twelve years this year, and the first Saints Row came out in 2006. Saints Row's third entry is coming out this year, and the last entry in the main Grand Theft Auto series came out in 2008, and was GTAIV. Saints Row started out on the 360, and then the second one came out on the PS3, PC, and 360. GTA Started out on the PC, and then made its way on the PSone.
Saints Row was developed by Volition, and published by THQ. Rockstar subsidiaries have developed all the GTA games, and Rockstar Games has published them all.(Sidenote Rockstar North was DMA design before changing their name.) Ok, so that's the history of both the games, and their respective publishers/developers.
Now, for Gameplay. Both Saints Row, and GTA are both third-person games, and sandbox games. However the Grand Theft Auto series has evolved it's Gameplay, because you can no longer parachute(Save for The Ballad of Gay Tony). Rockstar wanted GTA IV to have a more realistic approach to the gameplay. GTAIV is fun, but it's not as much fun as say San Andreas.
Saints Row is fun, but it's fun in a completely different way, I mean sure it'd be fun as hell to go streaking in GTA, but I've put a fair amount of time in both, and I like them for different reasons.
Also it's not fair to compare GTA's humor to Saints Row's, because again they both take a different approach to it. Grand Theft Auto is a satire of the American life, and Saints Row is a parody, and the difference is in the Color scheme, GTA is more brown, and muddy, while Saints Row is Colorful.
It's harder to say things like this about the Battlefield 3, and the Modern Warfare comparisons, because they're both FPS set in Modern times. The only thing I can tell you is that if you enjoy Battlefield more than Modern Warfare, or vice versa then, the solution is simple buy the game that YOU like more, and this goes for all game comparisons. This actually goes for all media.
Alone in the Dark developer Pieces Interactive has been hit with layoffs a month after its release, as per the latest information.
That genuinely, genuinely sucks. The reboot has clear flaws, but it really felt like a solid first step for this team to receive *greater* investment.
Venturing into a post-apocalyptic world, Bandai Namco resurrects the forgotten treasure, Sand Land: will it capture the magic of the Manga?
I enjoyed the demo so I'll be picking this up. The gameplay made me think of Metal Max Xeno so it sold me on it.
After the release of the horrid avatar update, Pokémon GO fans are trying to get items refunded. This has led to some getting threats of being banned.
I don't really understand if there are valid premises to your point. Why shouldn't we compare similar games? It's interesting to see what each game does over the other, I don't see a problem with that.
"The only thing I can tell you is that if you enjoy Battlefield more than Modern Warfare, or vice versa then, the solution is simple buy the game that YOU like more, and this goes for all game comparisons."
I don't think anyone actually buys the game they don't like. There can still be comparisons without you buying the determined better game. If you haven't played either game, you can also determine from the comparison which game you may prefer.
The worst of these sort of comparisons I have seen is well pretty much any title compared with Uncharted 2. Uncharted 2 was a good game, probably a great game, and was highly acclaimed. We get it. But I'm sick to death of everything being compared to it including on this site. I've read reviews of the likes of Red Dead Redemption, Batman Arkham Asylum, Assassins Creed, and even seen comments saying the likes of Modern Wafare 2; you name it someone has probably said "it's no UC2". I don't mind that people like it (sure I don't even dislike it, I haven't played it since I'm not really a UC fan nor did I really like the first one when I played it) but stop forcing down everyone's throats UC2 UC2 UC2 when the game we're talking about has no connection to it or isn't even comparable to it apart from something like graphics. Then again it's probably silly of me to say this knowing how many fanboys there are here that are here to make the rest of us PS3 players look like fools.
I agree with you on this. I see people compare Zelda and Elder Scrolls even if the only thing in common is that they are fantasy games
Comparisons made between games of the same genre is completely reasonable and understandable. But to criticize a game because it lacks something that is in another game of the same genre, that's what bothers me. Because they are in the same genre they are gonna be similar, buts its the differences between these games that gives us variety in the said genre.
This is a serious problem i see with modern game reviews. If they review COD, they compare it to Battlefield, PES to FIFA, GTA to Saints Row etc... i dont mind that, but they point out the differences as something thats lacking, as flaws even, instead of what they are, just differences.
Perfect example of a game doing poorly critically because of another game in the same genre is Mafia II. Mafia II had its flaws, but a lot of criticism towards Mafia II was because the world wasn't fun to explore, like GTA. But although Mafia II gave us an open world, the game was more linear and players were meant to focus on the story, which if played this way, was a very good game.
Games should be reviewed on their own merits and the score should not be affected by aspects of another game, with the exception being previous games in the series.