[IGN]Top Five Reasons Dark Souls Will Eat Skyrim's Face

[Machocruz]

Wow, I wonder how much Dark Soul's publisher paid for this article? Not much, evidently, considering it sounds like something a random Joe off the street could churn out in an hour. Not to mention the nonsensical logic, but people have said that many times over by now.

Not as much as Bethesda's publisher paid for high scores of their thoroughly (post-Morrowind) average RPGs

 

[Stall]

I myself (yes opinion) don't see multi-player as a point. I think the Elder Scrolls series has been better for it's lack of multi-player. Taking resources away from single player to add in a rushed multi-simply-for-the-sake-of-multi, is not what I want to see. Can it be done well, I think so. But if they say they couldn't do it without being a detriment to the single player, then I believe them.

So extra features = bad now, eh? Wow. I never would have dreamed that anyone could say that a developer adding something to their game would ever make it worse than a game that does not have that feature.

DLC or lack thereof is not inherently good or bad either. DLC can be a way to extend replay-ability or add onto an existing story. And DLC can be simple trinkets or dodads that should have been included in the original box. Judging all DLC the same isn't fair or "objective truth". Especially having not seen this specific DLC.

So the simple fact that Dark Souls is a one-time payment of 60 dollars, while Skyrim will run more than 60 over its lifetime, is not at all a point in Dark Soul's favor? Hm, well okay... whatever you say. That makes no sense to me...

 

[leeprice133]

Am I alone in being glad that Skyrim hasn't been infected with the 'better tack on some multiplayer elements' virus? With the exception of the CoD and Halo style shooters (and AC Brotherhood, the one online multiplayer experience I've genuinely enjoyed), it too often adds nothing at detriment to the single-player experience.

If you want an mummorpuger there are plenty of options out there, but TES has always been about exploring the world on your own. I sunk 150+ hours into Oblivion, despite its flaws (TES's plain weird and difficult-to-keep-balanced experience system being the major one) and by the sound of it Bethesda have addressed many of these concerns.

Maybe Dark Souls will turn my head, who knows? But are IGN really banner-waving this hard over a game that hasn't even been FUCKING RELEASED YET?

 

[chronicfc]

The worst part is a month back I remember reading an article called something like "Ten Reasons Skyrim will be GoTY"

 

[leeprice133]

The worst part is a month back I remember reading an article called something like "Ten Reasons Skyrim will be GoTY"

Well, you can't beat consistency can you?

 

[Stall]

-Multiplayer ...

Non-point. The developers have more or less confirmed that the multiplayer in Dark souls will be virtually identical to that of Demons Souls, which has none of the negative features you listed out. So that point is nothing beyond sound and fury.

Also, red herring with regards to mods.

-There's absolutely no reason to think that Dark Souls will be better because it lacks DLC. All of Oblivion's and Fallout 3's DLC was developed after the games were released, and nothing has indicated that Skyrim will break that trend. It might be incomplete without the DLC anyway, but that's something we won't know until the game is released. It's hard for me to consider it "objective" when the entire argument is based around something that may or may not happen.

Non-point. The lack of DLC can firmly be considered a point in Dark Sousl favor. Again, it's nothing beyond a lot of sound and fury. You provided no evidence to support why the addition of DLC and further increases to the cost of Skyrim is not a point against it.

Also, aren't you doing the exact same thing that you're accusing the Bethesda fanboys of doing?

No, not really, since all of my points are firmly rooted in logic and not just bitter vitriol because someone dares to have a different opinion than them. Oh, this is also an ad hominem by the way.

Maybe Dark Souls will turn my head, who knows? But are IGN really banner-waving this hard over a game that hasn't even been FUCKING RELEASED YET?

Sort of ironic given the massive amounts of praise and love people are willing to heap onto Skyrim, yes?

 

[Atheist.]

I have a feeling I'll like Dark Souls more, but it's kind of funny to put them up as direct competitors. For one, Skyrim will be a lot more story based and character interaction driven, whereas Dark Souls will be more about challenging yourself in new and interesting ways.

That being said I'm sure I'll be buying both on day 1 after work. I'm just not sure what platform I want each game on. I'm leaning towards PS3 for Dark Souls, and I'm hoping my computer runs Skyrim good enough to play on high settings.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Very different animals, it's pretty much Japanese vs Western developer philosophy, choose your flavor.

I'm sure Dark Souls will have it's hard as balls grind RPG appeal, but as far as story and world exploration go I predict they got nothing
.
And Skyrim will do a bit of everything RPG, most parts won't be done particularly well but there will be a true world to explore, plus it comes to PC which will spawn a community content bukake.

 

[SamtheDeathclaw]

Wow, I wonder how much Dark Soul's publisher paid for this article? Not much, evidently, considering it sounds like something a random Joe off the street could churn out in an hour. Not to mention the nonsensical logic, but people have said that many times over by now.

Not as much as Bethesda's publisher paid for high scores of their thoroughly (post-Morrowind) average RPGs

Touchè. Though all the noncommercial rave reviews were, I suppose, also paid for?

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Dark Souls isnt coming to PC. Skyrim wins.

 

[KafkaOffTheBeach]

Oh GOD YES!
First the IGN comments section, then /v/, now here...
Currently this article has raised the sea level by about 3.733mm AND solved third world drought.
Who knew that such a simple thing could cause such a gargantuan amount of tears?

 

[Spawny0908]

How can people judge games that are not even released yet?

I don't know. This is why I only go to IGN for their guides and nothing else. Their articles are horrible!

 

[Kris015]

Read the article like a hour ago.. It's fucking stupid to say the least.

 

[The Shade]

I myself (yes opinion) don't see multi-player as a point. I think the Elder Scrolls series has been better for it's lack of multi-player. Taking resources away from single player to add in a rushed multi-simply-for-the-sake-of-multi, is not what I want to see. Can it be done well, I think so. But if they say they couldn't do it without being a detriment to the single player, then I believe them.

So extra features = bad now, eh? Wow. I never would have dreamed that anyone could say that a developer adding something to their game would ever make it worse than a game that does not have that feature.

But the Elder Scrolls series isn't about multiplayer. It's an exploration game. It's an atmospheric game.
Multiplayer is not the ultimate objective of every game, it's just a game style. Single-player is another. Both are equally valid. Multi is right for Dark Souls, and Single-player is right for Elder Scrolls.
I wouldn't consider it a "feature" either. Just a type of gameplay that the game was very much intended to have when the developers began.
Elder Scrolls is not missing out on anything by staying a Single-player game. It's just delivering a specific experience - one that has proven incredibly popular in the past.

If you want to talk about features that these two games are missing out on, turn your attention to the PC. One of the biggest generators of staying power for the whole Bethesda roster has been the massive and devoted modding community, only made possible by its home on the PC gamer's shelf. The sheer amount of hours a person can log on one Bethesda game is staggering when you factor in the rampant PC player base. Far better entertainment value per dollar than any console game. (And I myself am exclusively a console gamer!)

 

[ruben6f]

I didn't bother reading after "online multiplayer", I assume IGN received a large bag of money to make something like that, or they just noticed that anything with "Skyrim" on the title atracts tons of people, if it's hate on skyrim it attracts even more.

 

[w9496]

I won't be buying either of them, but if I was locked in a room and had to play one of them for a long time, I'd play Dark Souls. I bought Oblivion shortly after its release, and traded it in a few weeks later, because it was boring as fuck.

 

[Robert Ewing]

IGN are really scraping the barrel with the reasons they're giving. I'm not saying Dark Souls won't be great, because it will be freaking awesome. But Skyrim... C'mon... It's Skyrim, it's gonna be better.

 

[Luke Cartner]

The article should read top 5 reasons IGN doesn't know anything about games..
I mean seriously anyone who cares that Skyrim doesn't have multiplayer doesn't get RPG's of the scope of Skyrim.
And the other points struck me and simply laughably wrong..
Anyone who thinks any other game would ever beat an elder scrolls games in terms of scope or completeness just plain hasn't played an elder scrolls game.

 

[Hal10k]

-Multiplayer ...

Non-point. The developers have more or less confirmed that the multiplayer in Dark souls will be virtually identical to that of Demons Souls, which has none of the negative features you listed out. So that point is nothing beyond sound and fury.

Also, red herring with regards to mods.

-There's absolutely no reason to think that Dark Souls will be better because it lacks DLC. All of Oblivion's and Fallout 3's DLC was developed after the games were released, and nothing has indicated that Skyrim will break that trend. It might be incomplete without the DLC anyway, but that's something we won't know until the game is released. It's hard for me to consider it "objective" when the entire argument is based around something that may or may not happen.

Non-point. The lack of DLC can firmly be considered a point in Dark Sousl favor. Again, it's nothing beyond a lot of sound and fury. You provided no evidence to support why the addition of DLC and further increases to the cost of Skyrim is not a point against it.

Also, aren't you doing the exact same thing that you're accusing the Bethesda fanboys of doing?

No, not really, since all of my points are firmly rooted in logic and not just bitter vitriol because someone dares to have a different opinion than them. Oh, this is also an ad hominem by the way.

How is my point about mods a red herring? Skyrim will have mods, and Dark Souls will not. Dark Souls will have multiplayer, and Skyrim will not. These are facts. Observe them. You argued that, because Dark Souls will have multiplayer and Skyrim will not, that Dark Souls was objectively better because it had a feature that Skyrim lacked. I was using modding as an example of a feature that Skyrim will have but Dark Souls will lack, in order to demonstrate that the argument goes both ways and it is all down to which you prefer.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is regarding DLC. If Skyrim is a complete experience even without DLC, then the DLC is A) entirely optional, and B) only beneficial to the experience. If it is not complete without DLC, then yes, Dark Souls is objectively better. However, we have no way of determining which it will be until the game comes out, meaning that at the moment we're just two physicists arguing over the quantum status of a cat.

I wasn't trying to discredit your argument by comparing you to the Bethesda fanboys, merely pointing out that you were arguing for the same reason as them (supporting a game you like before it is released out of loyalty to the previous one). Also, "making logical arguments" does not seperate you from the- nobody makes arguments that they find illogical. To them, you're the illogical one.

 

[WrcklessIntent]

IGN is being idiotic again. I like that they are actually trying to spread the news on Dark Souls though because it really is going to be a fantastic game.... They just did a terrible job at saying that. Needless to say though I will be picking up both Skyrim and Dark Souls so I don't really care which is better as long as they are both good. I play Dark Souls to play co op and die ALOT with friends, and I play Skyrim to kill dragons and everything thing else.