which is better

Which is Better? The Witcher 3 vs. Fallout 4

fallout 4 witcher 3

“Which is Better?” is a new editorial series that dares to compare the best of pretty much everything. This week is a battle of the wastelands, as we compare two of the biggest games of 2015.

There were a lot of games I considered for this week’s entry. At one point, I thought it would be fun to do Fallout 3 vs. Fallout 4 or even Skyrim vs. either of those games.

Eventually, I decided it would be more useful to compare two games that have come out recently. And not just any games. Though they may not be the highest-rated video games of the year, there’s little doubt that The Witcher 3 (TW3) and Fallout 4 (F4) are among the most popular and well-received installments of 2015.

F4 in particular has reached a near-Skyrim level of social consciousness outside of niche gaming circles, moreso than TW3. The difference is that TW3 has skyrocketed in both quality and audience this year, thanks to the game being that good. I think you can safely argue that F4 has been more underwhelming in comparison, if only because the games before it have already set mighty expectations that few games in history could probably meet.

These are two very different games, but they’re certainly in the conversation for being the best of 2015. To find out which is better, we’ll have to go beneath the surface and uncover what sets each game apart in terms of story, characters, the overall gaming experience, and more.

Let’s begin with…

BEST ART DESIGN

fallout 4 witcher 3

How a game looks will always be a selling point for gamers. But outside of frame rates and the amount of pixels depicted onscreen, which of these games has the more inspired look?

This includes landscapes, character models, and even costume design. As you read this, you’re probably thinking about every subtle visual you remember from both of these games, and I think I can guess which one you’re thinking of the most.

For me, it’s TW3. Even though I played it months ago (and F4 is more fresh in my mind), I can readily picture the rocky hillsides of Skellige and what the shady individuals are wearing in Novigrad. I remember the sense of awe I got from discovering these locations and exploring every inch of them (and I mean every inch).

When I think of F4, I really just go back to what my character looks like with a Vault 111 suit  underneath a set of combat armor. This isn’t a bad thing, but it certainly sheds light on how different the focus of these two games are.

It’s interesting because these two games are somewhat inverse. I can only play as Geralt in TW3, and how I customize his look is pretty limited compared to everything I can do with the Sole Survivor of F4 (down to picking a name). But on the other hand, I influence the plot of TW3 in a huge variety of ways, while F4 really only has a cluster of similar endings that range from me being pure evil to complete righteousness.

I love the Commonwealth of F4, but it’s honestly just a refined version of a wasteland we’ve seen several times already. Though TW3 is also a sequel, it brings The Northern Kingdoms to life in a way that’s a huge step forward for the franchise.

Both games have inspiring art design, but if we’re talking about which one is more novel and memorable, then TW3 is the clear winner.

BEST CHARACTERS

fallout 4 witcher 3

At first, you might think TW3 wins this pretty easily, if only because it’s a game that focuses more on a central narrative with pretty rich characters. But F4, while different, also has an eclectic roundup of unique personalities, some far more interesting than what we have in TW3.

This is probably because F4 has more side characters. And every single one has a decent backstory you can uncover the more you get to know them. TW3 really only has a small cast of characters you care about, but they’re absolutely more interesting as a whole. So it’s a bit of a tossup.

Now, when it comes to voice acting and the lead character, TW3 wins by a landslide with Geralt. Even for a character who can’t display emotion, there’s a universe of depth to him that the Sole Survivor’s voice can’t even come close to. In fact, I sometimes wish you could opt out of hearing what your character in F4 has to say.

Yennifer, Triss, Ciri, and the other main characters of TW3 are also out of F4’s league in terms of likability and substance. I do think Valentine, MacCready, and even Piper are fun characters to hang out with in the Commonwealth, but at no point did I really care about what would happen to them next, which is a far cry from how much emotion I invested in my friends and allies from TW3.

It’s not a landslide victory, but TW3 wins this round.

BEST ACTION

fallout 4 witcher 3

Both of these games have a huge focus on defeating multitudes of faceless enemies. But which one does it better?

This is an interesting comparison, as well, because both games are action RPGs (well, F4 is technically an RPS). They both feature a ton of other side activities you can do with your character in-between the action, and they both let you fight in real-time.

With Geralt, you can fight with your handy swords (one for monsters and one for humans/animals) or use a small set of spells with varying effects. You can even make your own bombs. With the Sole Survivor, you can use many different types of guns and melee weapons, or you can fight unarmed . And you also have V.A.T.S., which lets you slow down time in order to focus your shots on the weak points of your enemy.

So, both games have great, thrilling action. TW3, in particular, features a major upgrade from its predecessor in this respect thanks to its fluid sword fighting and monster-hunting strategies that make you feel like a true witcher.

fallout 4 witcher 3

F4 is more of an action game than any other entry in the series, which is good news if that’s your favorite element of F3 or New Vegas. The gunplay is incredibly smooth and responsive. And the introduction of artillery strikes and other ways to call in aid from friendly factions is a fun strategy.

There are many different types of enemies you can face in TW3 and F4, so they tie when it comes to variety. And both games are pretty challenging depending on how you want to play.

But when I consider how often I can switch up my tactics, I have to credit F4 for having great experiences for each of its many weapons. I can pick up new weapons on the fly and feel good using them, while doing the same in TW3 will usually lead to a quick death. The problem with TW3 in this regard is that it’s easier to get stuck in your ways, so there’s not as much room for exploration in how you want to take down your enemies.

F4 is also more fun when it comes to crafting your armor and mixing/matching. Most of what I used in TW3 was pretty ugly and ineffective unless I went to the trouble of doing armor quests. Overall, the armor sets are cooler, as I mentioned above, but it’s harder to get the right look or change things up if you get sick of what you’re wearing. With F4, it’s a blast to mod your weapons and armor, instead of a drag.

This was a close one, but F4 gets the point.

BEST STORY

fallout 4 witcher 3

Look, I love the main quest in F4. It’s much more engaging and unique than any other I’ve played in a Bethesda game, let alone the Fallout series. But that might be more indicative of how low the standard is, as well as how underwhelming much of the side quests are in F4.

100 hours in, I’ve gotten to the point where almost all of my missions in F4 are recycled retreads. Characters I’ve stuck with in order to see where their stories go have all but stalled. And I’m rapidly losing interest in coming across any more of these side quests that will put me on yet another fetch/kill errand that will somehow boost me through the ranks of an established faction.

Throughout F4, there are moments that take you out of the game completely, because they’re designed for an open world, not an open world story. TW3, by comparison, blows F4 out of the irradiated water with its spiderweb plot and remarkably complex side missions that can be just as interesting as the main story.

It’s strange because usually Bethesda does a great job with smaller story moments found in their open world, like with surprise characters and random events that happen by accident. Just stumbling across an encounter in their games is pretty thrilling. This is certainly present in F4, but not to the same extent. You mostly just come across endless battles going on in the distance, which are fun to track down, but pretty one-note.

In TW3, I had a grand time starting seemingly mundane side quests that spiraled into massive conflicts I couldn’t have predicted, and almost all of them had satisfactory endings I didn’t see coming.

TW3 wins this round and then some.

BEST GAMING EXPERIENCE

fallout 4 witcher 3

This category is about how a game looks and feels overall. And it’s also about how it makes you feel.

In terms of graphics, TW3 is simply a more beautiful game. But F4 excels at having a more dense location that feels more alive. As we’ve discussed already, both games have great gameplay with myriad options for how you play it. And both games are wildly addicting.

That said, if you ask me which game I’m glad I played, then I immediately think about TW3.

I’ve enjoyed F4 thoroughly, and it’s been fun spending hours of my time creating massive, sustainable settlements. But after building all of the walls, setting up the turrets, hunting for elements in the wasteland, and coming back every once in a while to fix the problems of the settlers, I don’t feel fulfilled.

Overall, F4 really isn’t a rewarding experience. Not much of what you do amounts to anything within the confines of the game.

But TW3 left me with a smile, despite my ending not being “the best one.” The work and effort I put into that game directly affected the outcome of the characters, and after I finished, I didn’t feel like it was time wasted.

This is obviously subjective, but everyone I’ve talked to about this game has more-or-less said the same. F4 is a blast for a while, but it does little to impact the gamer. Maybe it didn’t need to do that in order to be successful, but I already know which sequel of which series I’m more excited about, assuming either of these franchises continue.

TW3 made me fall in love with a series I’ve only sort of liked for years. The graphics blew me away. The stories and characters were unlike anything I’ve come across in an open world game. And it’s a game I want to play again.

I want to keep playing F4, but only because the game taps into a side of me that’s compulsive. TW3 exploits what makes me love the art of gaming, and that’s no small feat.

THE VERDICT

fallout 4 witcher 3

This was tough, but I feel pretty good when I say that The Witcher 3 is better than Fallout 4. As I’ve said, both games are marvelous and deserve praise. But the former is certainly superior in a variety of ways, notably in how the gamer feels when it’s completed. And it’s even got better characters, an amazing story, and some decent action that make it the convincing choice.

Agree? Disagree? Sound off in the comments.

Thanks for reading this! You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni

Which Is Better? Arrow vs. The Flash

the flash arrow better

“Which is Better?” is a new editorial series that dares to compare the best of pretty much everything. In this rundown, I’ll break down everything from story to characters in an attempt to declare which of these superhero shows is truly better. 

Back when it was still The WB Television Network, The CW aired a superhero origin series for Superman, which you probably remember as Smallville. It was a great show in its early seasons (its prime), but it faltered over the years due to its own popularity and unwillingness to end. Essentially, things got too complicated, important characters became throwaways…it was a forgettable mess by the time it finished.

But Smallville did set the standard for modern live-action DC Comics shows. It introduced an entire generation of non-comic readers to Green Arrow, prompting the CW to move forward with a new show/remake dedicated to just that character.

You can thank a lot of the creative vision and ambition behind Arrow and other DC shows to Greg Berlanti, who got his start working on Dawson’s Creek (the similarities between these two shows are unmistakable). Though Berlanti has helped produced some major duds, including the Green Lantern movie in 2011, the director/writer/producer has found great success crafting a DC Comics television universe that has branched off into The Flash and the upcoming Legends of Tomorrow. He’s even the executive producer of CBS’s own DC Comics show, Supergirl.

which is better arrow flash

But the main shows we’re talking about today are truer rivals. They’ve crossed over many times, and The Flash was even introduced within an episode of Arrow. And although Arrow has been around since 2012, The Flash is already in its second season, giving us enough time to properly compare what stands out for each series.

So…which is better? (shoutout to user Tonio0064 for suggesting this entry).

It’s a hard question, and from what I’ve observed, The Flash has been considered by critics and audiences to be superior, despite how young it is. Another thing to consider is that a lot of what’s great about The Flash was pioneered by the teams who worked on Arrow, which suffered a bit from some clunky seasons trying to figure out what kind of show it had to be.

I’ve had a great time watching both shows, so I’ll be breaking down their merits in order to figure out which one really is better. But let’s be clear. Neither have failed this city.

BEST LEAD

which is better arrow flash

Both shows have titular main characters, so having a good lead has been critical to their success. Fortunately for Arrow and The Flash, Stephen Amell and Grant Gustin have done a fantastic job as Oliver Queen and Barry Allen, respectively.

They both walk a fine line between doing the comics justice, but also bringing something new to the character that non-comic fans can relate to. Oliver Queen is traditionally a hero known for being more of a left-wing robin hood type looking out for the little guy, but Amell’s take is more of a tortured warrior who fights for the greater good (at least for now).

Grant Gustin pulls off a Barry Allen with fewer wisecracks but more charm as a confident speedster with a heart of gold. And both of these characters work with larger teams instead of on their own, which is a more suitable format for television.

This is a close call, and I really like both characters. But if I had to choose one who goes just a little further with the character, then I have to pick Flash. Amell is a great actor, but he’s a bit more one-note and sullen compared to Gustin, who just seems to be having a lot more fun with his show.

Point goes to The Flash.

BEST SUPPORTING CAST

which is better arrow flash

In other words, Cisco or Felicity?

One of the most fun aspects of Arrow is how well the show has evolved its side characters. Diggle, Felicity, Thea, and even Laurel have grown into interesting characters who add more to the show than they distract from.

At the same time, though, the show often struggles with what their roles are. Specifically, Thea, Laurel, Roy, Quentin, and Sarah of all people have been hit-or-miss over the years, with Roy even leaving the show Teen Wolf-style.

The Flash, on the other hand, does more with less. Even if you compare second seasons to second seasons, Team Flash just seems to have a better sense of identity. Caitlin looks out for Barry’s health, Cisco makes the cool gadgets and decides on bad guy names, Wells comes up with the plans, Joe keeps everyone in check, and Iris is the unattainable love interest (though her character is slowly getting better than that).

This is a result of The Flash learning and avoiding the mistakes of Arrow, which gives them almost an unfair advantage. But the show still manages to learn and apply what’s worked in the past, and that’s no easy feat in the world of network television.

Point goes to The Flash.

BEST VILLAINS

which is better arrow flash

Arrow was lacking a compelling list of villains early in its first season. The enemies ranged from Nolan-verse archetypes to greedy businessmen, not the intriguing assassins and warlords that would populate future episodes. Even Merlyn was a bit underwhelming, despite his arch-villain clout.

The Flash found easy ways to introduce villains with one major event causing their arrival. The particle accelerator gave Barry and many of the villains their powers, making it Barry’s job to round them up (with the exception of foes like Captain Cold).

You’d think that would give The Flash an advantage, but this is something I don’t love about the series. For one thing, it’s a little too reminiscent of Static Shock, the animated series from the early 2000s that used very similar story elements to explain the sudden arrival of foes Static could contend with.

The major villains of The Flash have certainly been interesting in their own right, but not very unique or diverse. Sure, it’s still early, but Reverse Flash and Zoom are really just rival speedsters. Arrow did the same with Merlyn, a rival archer, but at least in its second season, it introduced two new villains who felt drastically more imposing. What made Deathstroke so great, for example, was how his story had been teased from the first season, and the “why” behind his villainy was more satisfying than Eobard Thawne’s mostly uncomplicated treachery.

I like the villains from The Flash, but I’m much more invested in the villains of Arrow, especially Floyd Lawton. Point goes to Arrow.

BEST STORY

which is better arrow flash

Included in this analysis is storytelling. Which show delivers the best experience in terms of drama and character development?

Arrow had a very promising premise in its first season that gave it the steam it needed to survive. Oliver Queen returned from presumed death after five years. While trying to readjust to his life and friends (including the ex-girlfriend he cheated on with her sister who died under his watch), Oliver took up a crusade as a vigilante, trying to redeem his city with the skills he learned while on a mysterious island.

This initial story worked well because we also saw flashbacks to the island that explained how Oliver survived and became “the vigilante.” By the time we reached the third season, however, the flashbacks quickly became pointless, feeling more like fodder for lackluster B plots. There’s a good one every now and again, but for me, these have been pretty skippable.

In contrast, The Flash utilizes “secret endings” at the end of each episode that shed light on a bigger mystery. Who is Harrison Wells, really? Who is the Reverse Flash? Who is Zoom? Strange I’m mentioning it again, but this is something Teen Wolf has excelled at in a grander sense, using mysteries you actually care about to keep you tuning in.

But does that really make the story better? No, and that’s a good thing. These mysteries are accessories to what make The Flash a fun watch, not the entire hook. I’m fine with waiting to find out which character is who because I enjoy Barry Allen’s journey as a superhero. It’s simpler than Arrow, for sure, and I like that because Flash is a less serious character, so when there’s drama, it feels more genuine when mixed with the comic relief.

This is another close call, but I have to give it to The Flash. While it may lack a narrative that hooks you in immediately, it provides a fleshed out universe that feels more fun to sink your teeth into.

VERDICT

which is better arrow flash

Well, I guess the critics are right. The Flash is better than Arrow, but it’s a closer match than I think some people realize. In everything we discussed, Arrow had many bright spots that elevate it above The Flash in some respects, especially when it comes to villains.

But overall, The Flash has benefitted from being more refined from the get-go, which is a testament to the work put in to make this show the best it could possibly be. We owe plenty of gratitude to Arrow for paving the way, but it’s honest to point out that it’s not the best, at least for now.

Agree? Disagree? Sound off in the comments.

Thanks for reading this. To get updates on my theories, books, and giveaways, join my mailing list.

Or just say hey on Twitter: @JonNegroni

Which Is Better? The Office vs. Community

community the office

“Which is Better?” is a new editorial series that dares to compare the best of pretty much everything. In this rundown, I’ll break down everything from story to characters in an attempt to declare which of these modern classics is truly better. 

The last decade has been an excellent time for television comedy, much more so than anything we’ve seen on the big screen. And I argue that The Office is the show that kicked everything off when it premiered in 2004.

Not only did it introduce a brand new format for network comedy (at least in America), it ushered in Steve Carell as a mainstream comedian and launched the careers of Mindy Kaling, John Krasinski, Rainn Wilson, and even Ed Helms.

The influence of The Office is undeniable, and it will be remembered as a classic sitcom for years to come. But what I want to know is if it’s better than another show that started on NBC. That show is Community.

Of course, you might think this is a weird comparison. And I did consider Parks and Recreation as a more suitable competitor due to their similarities in both production and status. But to be honest, Community was a show that managed to captivate audiences in a way The Office never did, which is why I think it’s more useful and even interesting to compare one of the most widely recognizable sitcoms of all time with one of the least recognizable, but still beloved, sitcoms of all time.

the office community

In a way, these shows can be considered polar opposites (Community even mocked the mockumentary episode format twice during its run). The Office represents a resistance to change, as do its characters. Everyone wears suits, they work for a paper company, and each of the characters is further along in age.

Community was always a leaner, more youthful show that grew with the times since its pilot in 2009. It was a show that clicked with online viewers the most because it was more of an “Internet” show in both tone and delivery. While The Office lasted nine seasons as a network powerhouse due to the swath of ages it could appeal to.

So, which is better? In order to find out, I’ll be breaking down each aspect of the show and awarding points to the winner.

First, let’s talk about…

BEST LEAD

community the office

There might be some debate on this, but the de facto lead actor for The Office is undeniably Steve Carell as Michael Scott. Granted, he departed the show after seven seasons, but Community also suffered cast shakeups like this that almost ruined the show.

In Community, the lead actor is a little clearer, at least at first. Joel McHale as Jeff Winger was the lead of the first season, to be sure, but a fun twist in Community is that each season presents a different actor as its focus, similar to how the original Teen Titans on Cartoon Network gave each character their own main plot each season.

But to keep things simple, we can reasonably assign Jeff Winger as Community‘s “main” lead if that makes any sense. In a way, though, that’s not good for Community.

Jeff is a great character. He’s well-rounded, provides some of the wittiest lines in the series, and serves as a foil to your expectations in a lead actor. But Michael Scott simply wins in each of these categories, sometimes by a pretty huge margin.

community the office

Like Jeff, Michael Scott is a lovable douchebag, but many of his best scenes aren’t reliant on his supporting cast, unlike Jeff Winger. Steve Carell just has better timing, and his character delivers some huge laughs. He’s also a fresher character that took a lot of people by surprise when the show started.

Jeff does evolve in some unique ways, but when Community starts, he’s a character we’ve all seen before (which is referenced in the show itself). And even the Jeff we get later on just doesn’t hold a candle to Michael Scott.

I’m going to have to give this one to The Office.

BEST ENSEMBLE

the office community

One of my favorite things about The Office was how its mundane cast managed to offer a surprising amount of depth parallel to the lead. You watched the show to see what Michael Scott would do next, but your heart was in the supporting cast, mainly Jim and Pam.

The major downside, though, is that the magic of the supporting cast certainly waned over the years. Storylines between many of these characters failed to get better, and when the show lost Michael Scott, viewers flocked in droves. It’s almost like Michael Scott was too good of a lead for the rest of the cast to lose.

In comparison, Community also had major issues with cast members, notably Chevy Chase as Pierce. By the end of the fourth season, the show was in shambles after losing its creator, Dan Harmon, as well, and we thought the show would finish on a very poor note.

But if you look at the show as a whole, the ensemble of Community was far more consistent than The Office. These characters do rely on each other quite a bit for the best laughs (Troy and Abed in the morning), but that’s not a downside. And even when the fifth season saw the midway departure of Donald Glover, the show managed to pick up the pieces and move on gracefully, much better than The Office in my opinion.

community the office

I think this is because Community simply had better, more realized characters. They were all relatable because they were at a starting point in their lives, and their outcast status is a good reflection of the show overall. The cast in The Office was always set in their ways, so you got more humor from laughing at them, than with them. You were never that excited to go on a sales call with Andy Bernard, but you were thrilled to go on a blanket fort adventure with Troy and Abed.

For me, Community has the better ensemble, hands down.

BEST JOKES

the office community

We’re talking about comedies, so it only makes sense to figure out which one has the best sense of humor. This is a little tough because these shows present their comedic situations in very different ways.

The Office, for the most part, relied on talking heads and “Michael Scottisms” to carry the humor forward, though it also used a lot of cringe moments as well. I was never a big fan of these, but I will give The Office credit for having excellent writing in nearly every season.

Community was also a funny show, but it relied much more on reference humor and parodies. On the one hand, this was a different and refreshing form of comedy that helped cement the show’s cult status. At the time, no other show on network television was doing something this creative with Dungeons and Dragons, claymation, or video game characters.

I can remember a lot of jokes from each show, and I don’t think one is obviously better than the other overall. But I’m going to give this one to The Office because even during its worst season (the eighth), it still managed to provide some great laughs. Community had an abysmal season four that was gracefully short, but incredibly flat on humor.

The point goes to The Office.

BEST STORY

the office community

The story setups for these shows are drastically different from each other, but they’re also similar in a few ways.

The Office starts in the middle of things with characters who already know each other. Its inciting event, downsizing, is resolved pretty early on, and the rest of the show is more of a series of “micro stories” that don’t connect much season to season.

Community also starts in the middle, but much earlier in the middle. When the show begins, the characters have been in the same class for a little while, and they’re just getting to know each other. Unlike The Office, there are clear goals for each character, beyond who’s in love with who.

Jeff wants to become a lawyer again, Annie wants to redeem herself, Shirley wants to start her own business, Pierce wants to have a family, Troy wants to find purpose, Abed wants to understand people better, and Britta wants to prove she can make a difference.

the office community

In The Office, we have far less compelling, and somewhat depressing, stories for everyone. Michael wants everyone to like him, Dwight wants Michael’s job, Jim wants to date Pam, Pam wants to be happy, Oscar wants to get through the day, Kevin wants to become increasingly dumb over the years for no apparent reason, Angela wants everyone to adhere to her values, and so on.

Everyone is sort of just living for the moment, but not much else. And I’d argue it’s pretty difficult, even after nine seasons, to pinpoint the motivations for each character.

What makes Community excel is how much heart it has in its seasons, and that comes from well-written storylines that stick with you. As much fun as it was to wonder who Michael was going to date next or how Jim and Pam would deal with having a baby, I cared more about Jeff’s destiny as a lawyer, the darkest timeline, and how they could save Greendale from Chang.

I have to give this one to Community.

Alright, it’s a tie, so this next one takes it all!

BEST FORMAT

the office community

The Office is a mockumentary, which means it makes you think its characters are being candidly filmed at all times. It helps the writers tremendously, because they can streamline character reactions without making you wonder what they’re thinking. They just say what they think about the episode’s events by talking to the camera one-on-one.

This helps create a solid pace and rhythm for the show, but it has its downsides. Because the format is so rigid, the jokes have to be delivered in the same way every time. Jim always shrugs at the camera. Michael says something insane in his office. Dwight overreacts to something, and someone comments about it in a later interview. This gets pretty stale after a while.

Another downside is that you rarely get to wonder what’s going on in the head of each character because it’s spoon fed to you. To be fair, they didn’t let this happen much in the first two seasons when it came to Jim and Pam’s storyline, as they wouldn’t dare admit their flirtation to the camera. But once this longing was fulfilled, the show started to dumb down a bit.

the office community

Community uses a traditional single-camera setup, which means each scene is shot independently. So the show is a little snappier and relies on a lot of quick edits to move its story along. The nice thing about this is that it forces some great performances out of every character, but there are still some downsides.

The show had a habit of juggling one too many storylines, so the pacing wasn’t always on par with a show like The Office. And like The Office, its simpler setup still elicited some joke repetition. But I have to point out that Community solved this problem early on, ditching its more traditional format in the first season to be zanier and wackier in the second.

That’s actually the beauty of Community and what makes it a blast to watch over and over again. Each season is a self-contained show in a way, but it’s all cohesive. And I think this is because overall, the show had much more freedom to do whatever it wanted. So yes, we got a show done in the style of Law and Order, a two-episode paintball fight, and an homage to chaos theory.

If we’re going to talk about a format that brought out some of the best moments between each show, then Community wins by a small margin. The Office was important, and it was definitely memorable. But its popularity ultimately softened it, while Community‘s simpler format and small expectations allowed it to do huge things that we should have gotten from The Office.

the office community

It’s a tough a call, but the final point goes to the winner, Community.

While The Office is certainly a classic, elements of it are somewhat lacking. But Community manages to have an edge when it comes to story, the ensemble, and format, making it the superior show in my opinion. I won’t deny that The Office is a little funnier and has a better lead, but Community is the show I’ll be returning to more often than not as the years go by.

But hey, that’s just my opinion. Which show do you think is better? Be sure to sound off in the comments.

Extra Credits: 

  • A category I left out was “Jim and Pam” or “Troy and Abed?” If you know me even a little, then you know where I land on this. Just keep in mind that one show had the sense to dial one of these pairings back.
  • Forgot to bring up that Community‘s pilot aired right after The Office, which is how I watched the show for the first time. Full circle, I guess?
  • Sadly, I couldn’t think of a way to weave the dean in, except to point out that Community did a great job of brining side characters into the fold. The Office did the same with Daryl, but for me, my heart will always belong with Dean Pelton.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni