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

[genericusername64]

Just another attention grabbing flame bait article, who takes IGN seriously anymore?

 

[Jarcin]

DLC:
Skyrim- Yes
Dark Souls- No

Winner: Dark Souls

...

*facepalm*

 

[Vuavu]

Haha I couldn't even finish the article. While reading it, I couldn't help but think that some high school kid wrote it. Or that Fox News was advertising Dark Souls on IGN just to bring Skyrim down. That's a joke haha but it totally reminded me of Fox's tone in everything they report

 

[Overlord93]

It can't be good if its not coming out for PC. PERIOD!!!

 

[jeremysaint]

i am pretty sure dark souls will be better, simply since it sounds like skyrim will be a lot like oblivion and oblivion had serious issues. i think a lot of people are remembering oblivion with nostalgia goggles on.

the combat in oblivion was poor to awful. for a combat based adventure game that is a serious problem. this is the number one issue. it doesnt actually need any further explaination, it is simply a fact.

the graphics in oblivion were poor to downright repulsive. spell effects looked especially cheap. characters looked 64bit. skyrim certainly looks much better but we have only seen carefully run developer demos so far and i am not convinced.

the levelling system in oblivion was a hard zero. skyrim has made some improvements but will still use the deeply flawed level by doing things system. in theory this sounds cool and even logical but in practice it means going into sneak mode and tying a rubber band arround the stick so you can sneak into a wall for a few hours. or mindlessly recasting the same spell on yourself a few thousand times (in some cases over 9000 times according to the elder scrolls wikia).

bethesda releases buggy products. they are famous for it. i forgive them each time they do, even though kotor 2 corrupted all my saved games after about 20 hours of gameplay.... twice! i still have never finished kotor 2 as a result. kotor 1 hard corrupted all of my saves very close to the end of them game as well. fallout 3 had all kind of texture issues, not to mention idiotically broken issues with balance. new vegas (for which bethesda did the Q&A) is legendary for how buggy it is.

oblivion had a dozen or so completely broken game balance issues. anyone want to take bets whether skyrim will also have issues like that?

 

[slackbheep]

I admit I hadn't been to IGN recently but I wasn't aware they were just outright trolling these days.

 

[Sir Prize]

There's a lot wrong with this piece, but my main issue is that multiplayer seems to be thought of as a must have for every game. Sorry but there are some people who like single player games and do not want others involved, for good reason.

The Elder Scrolls is one of those series where having more than one player would probably get very old very quickly. Some games are made to played solo, so can we all just live with that?

 

[repeating integers]

IGN is brilliant in their tactics and I can't believe people on this site keep falling for it. There seems to be a weekly thread about how IGN is so biased and so wrong.

They're too dumb to have such a strategy. Just look at all the things they've said and done over the years. You're giving them way too much credit.

No. They're PRETENDING to be too dumb to have such a strategy. They're far smarter than we give them credit for, but sadly, this doesn't help their articles.

 

[GeneticallyModifiedDucks]

Multiplayer
Bethesda's reasoning is sound. Time spent creating multiplayer is time lost on single player. Yeah, I'd love to be able to have my friends drop in on my game, that would be amazing. But hell, Bethesda's games are unpolished enough as they are, spending less time on that isn't a good idea.
DLC
Can we stop complaining about DLC? So what if there's plans for DLC already? There will always be ideas that don't make it into the game because they don't have the budget or time or whatever, and DLC is a way for publishers to deliver the content they wanted, after they don't have the pressure of releasing the game, or the sales bolster their budget.
Epic Scope
Morrowind felt large, without feeling empty. At least it did to me. Yeah, Oblivion's generated meadows made travel very boring, but Morrowind was a unique map, full of ruins and all sorts of other shit to explore. I spend hours just wandering the wilds of Vvardenfell. Maybe Skyrim will be the same. And why is it in one paragraph they complain that the size of Oblivion made it seem empty in places, and then to sum up they say Skyrim should have been bigger?
Combat
Bethesda's games were never built on combat itself. You level up, increase in strength, equip yourself with better weapons, armour and spells. That's why Morrowind was basically a dice roll system. Of course Dark Souls will have better combat, it has to have a tight combat system to provide challenge without artificial difficulty.
Dragons
Seriously? The dragons are better? Don't you think that's trying too hard? Especially since all you have to go on is footage right now, and it's kind of cheating to say the dragon fights will be better when you've already made combat part of your argument.

Just to make it clear, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I do think some of the arguments are ridiculous. That said, if I can get a PS3, I shall be buying Dark Souls. It sounds like a great game.

Just FYI, Dark Souls is coming to 360 too. Don't miss out if you can help it (you're still fucked if you're a PC gamer, though)

 

[Irriduccibilli]

I only read the first couple of lines in the article, and when it said that Dark Souls will be better than Skyrim because it have a multiplayer component... First I facepalmed, then I closed it.
Why do everyone want Skyrim to have a multiplayer component? In my oppinion that would completely ruin the game completely, and it would turn it into a grindfest of epic proportions, instead of creating a fantastic world you can immerse yourself into and enjoy.

 

[orangeban]

That was the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Highlights: Typical IGN damning a single-player game for having no multiplayer and what was the bullshit about epic scope? To paraphrase "Skyrim is massive but will just be fetch quests and shitty dialogue, but Dark Souls designers say it'll be awesome so it must be true."

 

[Nilsenator]

This has nothing to do with anything, but at first glance I misread the title of this thread as "Top Five Reasons Dark Souls Will Eat Skyrims Feces"

 

[Adam28]

Wow...just wow. Number 5 is soooo true.

This article is incredible. I remember all those epic dragon fights in Demon's Souls. Constantly hitting that red dragon with my arrows over and over again while he breathed fire all over a pile of dead bodies as if he was blind. Doing the same thing to that Blue Dragon who was just as ignorant. Shooting those two catapults at the Demon God while again he did jack all... such a hard boss!

/sarcasm (for those who haven't played Demon's Souls, the point I am making is that the dragons suck).

I actually liked Demon's Souls but the reasoning in this article is crazy.

 

[Sodoff]

Damn.. you dont like IGN inhere do you? Alot of rage towards a game that´s never going to threathen the sales of Skyrim.. Just take a chill pill, smoke a joint and relax.

 

[Weslebear]

Awful lot of thinking opinion is fact going on around that article.

I do like the look of Dark Souls and wish I could play Demon Souls, but as far as I know it's not going to be on PC, unlike Skyrim and has therefore rendered itself unplayable to me. Skyrim 1 DS 0.

 

[Stall]

I love how mad the Bethesda fanboys are in this thread. All of those reasons are pretty legitimate, as well as quite objective, except for the score and dragons. I love how Bethesda fanboys react to anyone who has the ABSOLUTE NERVE to speak out against Bethesda's "perfection". It's really quite funny how fervent and outright hostile their fanbase can be.

Seriously. Debunk the multiplayer, DLC, or combat thing. You can't (No... "I don't care about multiplayer" is not a serious argument). Those are areas where Dark Souls is objectively superior to Skyrim. It is outright denial to say so otherwise. The score thing is opinion, and the dragon thing is probably just a bored author wanting to round out his list to a pretty number.

So sorry Skyrim fanboys... this article contains at least 60% truth... perhaps 80%. The only reason to get mad at this article is if you don't like fair bit of truth it says, and are angered by the prospect that any game could ABSOLUTELY DARE to be better than Skyrim.

 

[Korten12]

Meh, a wierd article... since both games aren't even remotely the same... Though I will say I am looking more forward to Dark Souls then Skyrim.

 

[weker]

We get it. Everyone loves Skyrim. We do too.

But there's another RPG experience that will steamroll into stores in a few weeks, one that will just might change the industry and the way we look at our favorite pastime. Skyrim's getting all the attention, it will probably grab most of the sales, but there's one game that has it beat in all kinds of areas. We're talking about Dark Souls.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/119/1196353p1.html

Now i have nothing against Dark Souls. I'm sure it's a great game it could potentially be even better than Skyrim. But certainly not for the puerile reasoning in this article.

Best to not re-post these articles, it is either from a fan boy (possibly an anti one) or intentionally meant to cause controversy.
The whole point is to pull in loads of viewers with little effort at all, and so far it has worked fairly well.

Spoiler: Kinda accurate picture of the situation

As they say on the internet "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!"

 

[Forsvaine]

It's another example about how IGN cares more about online multiplayer than overall content of a game. I'm shocked people even read that site for reviews anymore. They're really only good for trade show coverage.

I also love how they say "Winner: Dark Souls" even though the article clearly states that it's listing five reasons why the writer prefers Dark Souls to Skyrim (I'm not entirely convinced that he does, though; it seems more like he's getting paid to say that and that's usually a card I save for last). Oh, and that last sentence was hilarious: "What? You don't agree? Let's hear your arguments. This way to the Comments..." I doubt that the author will even read the comments.

Also, just wow. Having dragons in a game. That's like saying that Dragon Age: Origins is better than Portal because it has dragons in it. Not to mention they're two different games.

This is the biggest load of biased and ignorant shit I've ever read from IGN ever since Hilary Goldstein's review of Sonic Unleashed and his fapping off to the PlayStation 3.

/rage