| RolStoppable said: Okay, I see now. Although this approach isn't entirely fair, because it basically means that the less stuff you can do in a game, the closer to perfection it can be. It completely disregards the existence of the flaw named "I wish I could do more". By your definition, Tetris is pretty much the perfect game. Now I don't entirely disagree with your definition (in fact I really like it), but I want to say that the amount of stuff that can be done in a game should be factored in and if one game allows for far more things to be done and does the majority of them well, then it should count for something. I'll give you an example: Game A does nine out of ten things really well, game B does 17 out of 20 things really well. So game A is 10 % away from perfection while game B is 15 % away. So... Actually, just forget about it. I don't know if this is going to lead anywhere. It's better to focus on the issue at hand here and this originally was OoT vs. either SMB3, SM and ALttP. Is OoT less flawed than either of these games? No. Therefore the three games I mentioned are indeed closer to perfection than OoT ever was. But this actually brings up another point. It then means that the issue you had with my post wasn't that I said OoT is less perfect than SMB3, SM and ALttP. The problem you have is that I said SMB3 and ALttP were closer to perfection than SMB and TLoZ which according to you isn't the case. What exactly am I supposed to fight for here? I concede that you made a good point in your initial reply. |
Simple: that "better" and "less flawed" aren't the same thing. You hinted at it yourself: a game can have more flaws but still be the better game, like with LttP compared to LoZ.
Ocarina is more flawed than Link to the Past - I don't necessarily agree with that, but we'll say so for the sake of discussion. But I still hold that Ocarina is a better game, in spite of being more imperfect.
