Major Skittles


CRank: 9Score: 0

Game A Vs. Game B, or Game X Compared To Game Y.

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.

The story is too old to be commented.
news4geeks2504d ago (Edited 2504d ago )

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.

MidnytRain2504d ago (Edited 2504d ago )

Comparisons make people say, "This game is better than that". The one that is better becomes their favorite, so when a new game comes out, they don't give it a chance and say, "I don't need this poor knock-off". They will then speak against anything that is similar to their favorite, and troll it.

When a comparison comes to N4G, many comment on it. And we should know it's flamebait. No one says, "Look why this game is strong", but instead, "That game is worthless."

I never bother myself with them, and neither should anyone.

LtSkittles2504d ago

This is what I'm trying to say. When people say "Oh this game is better, than this other game," even though A)Both games are in a total, and completely different genre, B)Both games aren't out for the public. Look, if comparisons work for you then by means use them.

I am not saying don't do what works best for you.

Yes, comparisons are great for knowing which game allows you to do something that you might not be able to do in another game, but when it turns into "Oh this game is better than this one," doesn't work so much.

Nate-Dog2504d ago

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.

LtSkittles2504d ago

Red Dead Redemption, that's another I forgot to mention. The day I went to buy the guy who was there was like "It's like GTA- Grand Theft Horse." I played the Undead Nightmare before playing RDR(Already knew the ending >.>), but I knew even before that RDR is nothing(save for stealing horses) like GTA, yeah, they're both by Rockstar, but Red Dead Redemption's story is more serious than a GTA game.

Yeah, UC2 is awesome, too, but there's no way you can compare it to either Assassins' Creed, or Arkham Asylum, of course all three are third-person games, and are all action, but Uncharted is a linear game.

The only thing that Assassins' Creed, and Uncharted have in common is that Nolan North plays one of the main characters.

Pikajew2503d ago

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

LtSkittles2503d ago

Really? I've never seen that comparison, and it's an odd one at that.

OcelotRigz2503d ago

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.