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

[Stall]

-snip-

[/quote]

1) So we are bitching about extra features now? Wow. That's an all time low for gamers. "How DARE a developer add multiplayer to their game! THE NERVE".

2) Hm, so the simple fact that I can buy Dark Souls once for 60 dollars and never have to pay for anything else, or I can buy Skyrim and expect to pay an additional 60+ over the years? I love the hypocrisy of games sometimes: DLC is bad, evil, and destroying the industry except when Bethesda does it!

3) The score thing is an opinion.

4) Total red herring. Non-valid point.

5) Joke point.

Seriously. I want someone to LEGITIMATELY argue against as to why Dark Souls containing multiplayer, having no DLC, and having better combat are not reasons why it might not be better than Skyrim.

 

[jonyboy13]

IGN summarizes the internet: tits and bullshit. Horrible article, just horrible. I wonder, is there a game reviews site that isn't full of shit?

 

[seamusotorain]

IGN are attempting to get views and comments by posting a controversial article title.

 

[Stall]

If you find the game is better and this article holds 60% truth, that's cool for I respect that. But, it's still annoying that this article seems to sound 'cocky' comparing it's game with a game that's not out yet. Plus, Skyrim will come out on PC unlike Dark Souls so.. the sells will be higher for Skyrim I assume.

No. It OBJECTIVELY contains 60% truth. It isn't opinion.

There are five points in this article:

1) Dark Souls has Multiplayer. Skyrim does not. Mulitplayer is an extra feature. It is good. It is a point for Dark Souls.

2) The combat will be better in Dark Souls. As people have said, Bethesda games have always had bad combat, and Skyrim will most likely be no exception. This is a point for Dark Souls.

3) Dark Souls will have no DLC. This is a point for Dark Souls.

4) The score is good for Dark Souls. It is also good for Skyrim. This is an opinion. Point for neither.

5) The dragon thing was stupid.

So that is 3 of the 5 points which you can unequivocally give to Dark Souls. Thus, the article at least contains 60% truth. People are making a mountain out of a molehill because they are offended by the contents of this article because they are contradicting their own personal beliefs that Skyrim will somehow be this great game that no game can possibly be better than. It's a bad article because it isn't worshiping Skyrim basically. Bethesda fans are really showing their true colors in this thread.

 

[Shadie777]

Oh, Wow!
IGN has made a ignorant article that is designed to bring in more viewers and it worked!
Just don't pay attention to them, if you give these types of article attention then they win.

On a humourous note, I have found out from another forum how IGN creates these articles.
http://www.jocchan.com/stuff/IGeNerator/

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Well there is the fact that nobody has heard of dark souls that i talk to while all of my friends have skyrim preordered...

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

"Skyrim will have no online multiplayer component of any kind, despite years' worth of fan requests."

Pretty much fell apart for me here in the first point. I for one have never wanted multi-player mucking up my elder scrolls experience. I feel that it would end up falling into the same realm as Fable 3 co-op. Since it doesn't make sense for there to be 2 prophesied "the one"s in a story, they would throw you in as a sidekick. I enjoy all the work and time put into the epic single player experience. And taking resources away from that just to add in token multi-player... no thanks.

Having said that, what I would like to see is some specially made co-op modes. Where you and a friend have to complete certain objectives in a closed course. Infiltrating a castle to assassinate a dignitary, or clearing out a bandit cave. Something like that, but it would have to be a crafted thing specially made for co-op.

 

[Syzygy23]

Guess it comes down to personal taste. Demon Souls was fun, in the way that megaman 1 is fun: controller smashingly difficult, but worth it when finally overcome the impossible. However, there was no real connection between me, the main character, or the world. It all felt like a semi-lovecraftian high fantasy story being told TO you. A story that would beat the tar out of you with a stick if it even THOUGHT you weren't paying attention.

I don't get the hate oblivion gets. World felt like a wasteland? I got attacked by wolves, imps, weird dryad tree people, bears, and demon crocodiles every friggin' time I strayed from a main road. Every. Damn. Time. In every playthrough. Yeah, the NPC and character faces were sub par, I'll give ya that. And the psychic clone army of town guards were annoying (Nobody was even AROUND when I murdered that one guy, yet suddenly if I set foot into any town anywhere I'm immediately greeted by some dude in full plate screaming "STOP! You violated the law!" or "It's all over, lawbreaker!") The magic system was far from perfect too, mainly in the sense that you had to cast so many spells just to get one level in the associated school of magic. Despite all that I had a blast playing it, and I still do to this day (especially now that I've discovered mods) I can beat this game multiple times and still go back for more playing as a different race and/or a different "class" (I use the term class very loosely). It never fails to be immersive. Every time I play Oblivion I enter an altered mental state where despite the technological limitations and flaws I feel like I am really in a fantasy world. That's what's fun, and that sort of pedigree is what is going to make me put aside my money for skyrim over Dark Souls.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

1. Multiplayer is not a deciding factor on whether a game is better or not. Some games play better as single player, some are better only as multiplayer. Coop is irrelevant to the discussion.

2. DLC. I'm tired of DLC arguments. I enjoy playing a game to its intended end, but if the company releases new content I do enjoy having MORE to do after I've finished the game. It enhances replayability if it is done right and Oblivion did have some decent DLC horse armor notwithstanding.

3. Epicness... Oblivion was a large game and was full of things to do, but you weren't required to do them all if you didn't want to. Only issue I had was the world seemed a little dead or scripted. Having watched some of the videos for Skyrim, the game world seems much more living. Demon's Souls was itself a dungeon crawler, no living world and punishing in difficulty. Not a bad game, but a different scope. Dark Souls is supposed to be more open and possible more along the Metroidvania 3d lines... again a different scope so we'll see but it is not sufficient argument that DS is better.

4. Challenge. You have me on this one, but punishing difficulty and vague questing vs. a combat system based on how you want to play and questing along MMO lines, its a choice of what you prefer more in an RPG. I like a challenge, I also like a game I can enjoy and not throw the controller at the wall in frustration.

5. Dragons? Are you fucking kidding me? TES has never had dragons though its alluded to their existence and now is revealing them as a big part of the game. And the partial dragon fight I saw on the video looked pretty epic to me. Dark Souls seems to be more along the vein of "look another huge monster that will probably kill you many many many times". Really, I don't think that this is sufficient argument except in Skyrim's favor because of the game mechanic centered around the dragon shouts vs. hardasfuck-to-kill monster.

All in all comparing Skyrim and Dark Souls is an apples/oranges argument, and thus just another IGNorant rant. Two games with wholly different premises and ideas can co-exist and both be good games despite what some game enthusiasts think.

 

[stormcrow5]

Both RPGs, but Skyrim is a big open world, thus to me its better

 

[viranimus]

This is the way I see this article. You pretty much have to use Demon's Souls as the case example because we really do not fully know just exactly what Dark Souls will give us.

ONLINE MULTIPLAYER: Agree. I find Demon's Souls approach to be the single best implementation of online connectivity in any game ever. However the thing is Multiplayer really will not make either game better or worse. It has the potential to be an extra frivolous nicety and that is as much as multiplayer ever should be.

DLC: Massively disagree. While I get DS was a very large and polished game toward the end I resented that there were no DLC options. Im sorry, DLC is not a bad thing. The way some devs/pubs use it, is. So if Dark Souls follows the same trend Demon's Souls established It will be truly disappointing. Demon's Souls clearly needed extra content, especially given how important NG+ ended up being. DLC content could have helped spice up NG+ run throughs by allowing you to unlock additional content once the initial playthrough had been completed.

EPIC SCOPE: Agree,but with reservation. While all very large Morrowwind, Oblivion and hell even fallout there were long tracts of uselessness. DS was a very large and meticulously crafted world. While certainly smaller than Bethedas efforts, DS was infinitely more full. Now the reservation is, that the article references the disparity of narrative exposition between DS and Bethesdas efforts. My issue is that in this respect Demon's Souls failed miserably and it was essentially its only true failing. So if you consider dialog and exposition to help flesh out a polygonal world then DS may loose massive points here if it follows what was set out in Demon's Souls. Yes, Narrative is a good thing.


TIGHT Combat and TRUE Challenge: Agreed. The Combat as well as the char development system was arguably one of the best systems I have ever seen in a game. Its beauty is in its simplicity. If Dark Souls brings what Demon's souls brought to the table as it relates to combat and game play, absolutely, it will be better than skyrim hands down. However, I do refute the use of the word challenge and difficulty. Demon's souls is not in any way shape or form difficult. Its a game that simply requires patience and persistence. Still it seems pretty certain that its level of challenge will far exceed what one would get from a Bethesda offering.


DRAGONS!: So completely and mind numbingly irrelevant. Seriously. It doesnt matter if your enemy has horns or wings or tentacles or ten thousand dildos on sticks, So long as the gameplay is solid, the char design intriguing that improves the game it really does not matter what sort of "mob" they are.

So... As for the article. I Agree with the overall sentiment of the article but I do not agree with the specific notions or reasoning provided.

Simply put I personally feel that Dark Souls will be an infinitely better game than Skyrim can ever hope to be. However, I am in a clear minority of that opinion and because there IS an overwhelming majority that supports anything that bears the TES label.Darks souls will not be a flawless game, but nor will Skyrim. Skyrim will likely be GoTY or at the very least RPG of the year, regardless of how much more deserving Dark Souls may end up being.

 

[vivster]

what a horrible and extremely subjective article

funny enough the online multiplayer in dark souls is my most solid argument against it^^

i want to explore and sink into another world in my rpg
skyrim has vast mountains and forests i can explore at will
i probably can't in dark souls because every minute the game wants me to combat a new threat
i don't want a challenging game
i want a world that lets me experience things my way and not forces me to anything

so far dark souls is as unconvincing to me as was demon's souls

 

[Polaris19]

Neither game is out yet. Speculate all you want but reserve your judgement for when both games are actually playable.

Until then, avoiding flame wars would be a good idea IGN....

 

[weker]

Well there is the fact that nobody has heard of dark souls that i talk to while all of my friends have skyrim preordered...

Is that Skyrim, their ordering you might want to double check they have preordered Notch's next game "scrolls" as I think his game can be easily confused with Skyrim and the elder scrolls series.

Lol this site http://www.jocchan.com/stuff/IGeNerator/ is amazing got "Is L.A. Noire a Professor Layton for adults?",
"What God of War could learn from Silent Hill.",
"Jump Festa: The stalkers in Killer 7 gave me a nerdgasm.",
"Should Imagine: Babyz be destroyed?"
"GDC: The farming in Dark Souls gave me a mild depression."
"Should Killer 7 be a shooter?",


And LOL "Should Smash Bros be considered racist?"

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

No. It OBJECTIVELY contains 60% truth. It isn't opinion.

There are five points in this article:

1) Dark Souls has Multiplayer. Skyrim does not. Mulitplayer is an extra feature. It is good. It is a point for Dark Souls.

2) The combat will be better in Dark Souls. As people have said, Bethesda games have always had bad combat, and Skyrim will most likely be no exception. This is a point for Dark Souls.

3) Dark Souls will have no DLC. This is a point for Dark Souls.

4) The score is good for Dark Souls. It is also good for Skyrim. This is an opinion. Point for neither.

5) The dragon thing was stupid.

So that is 3 of the 5 points which you can unequivocally give to Dark Souls. Thus, the article at least contains 60% truth. People are making a mountain out of a molehill because they are offended by the contents of this article because they are contradicting their own personal beliefs that Skyrim will somehow be this great game that no game can possibly be better than. It's a bad article because it isn't worshiping Skyrim basically. Bethesda fans are really showing their true colors in this thread.

For "objective truth", there is still a lot of opinion here.

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.

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.

 

[Kirex]

I don't want to play Skyrim one tiny bit and I really want to play Dark Souls. Even I think that this article is full of fail. I'll admit that the reactions to the article are pretty funny though, with all the people defending Dark Souls and Skyrim.
I mean, come on, those are games for pretty different audiences, at least I always perceived it that way. What's the problem? Why do you people need to argue that your game is "objectively" better and why do people whiteknight their games? That is beyond ridiculous.

 

[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.

 

[Hal10k]

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.

I'll do my best to explain the general reaction:

-Multiplayer is something that carries a lot of negatives along with its pluses. For one thing, at least for me, it totally kills immersion. Having to constantly ferry about one of my friends means constantly having to coordinate our efforts, and that's something that forces me to take a Doylist approach to gameplay as opposed to a Watsonian one. You may feel differently, but that means it isn't "objective". You might argue that Dark Souls is better than Skyrim because Skyrim doesn't even have the option of multiplayer. I could just as easily respond that Skyrim is objectively better than Dark Souls because Dark Souls doesn't even have the option of mods. They're just features that the other doesn't have, and that doesn't make either one better or worse.

-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.

-Combat being better is certainly not objective by any definition of the word. I'll agree that it felt more fluid in Demon's Souls than it did in Oblivion. I'd also point out that the combat in Demon's Souls was so hard that being fluid ceased to matter, and it just became frustrating. Which one you preferred is just your opinion. No argument listed here was objective.

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

 

[sunpop]

Made it to the end of page one and almost gave up before that. This article is bad and further proves how retarded IGN is. Darks souls looks like a lot of fun and so does skyrim. I have this crazy feeling both will sell really well and none of this will matter in any way.

As far as multiplayer goes generally I hate games having it these days as it allows for devs to be lazy because oh this parts too hard well you have to team up with people to do it.

Co-op based games that aren't from a big company usually have this problem like the game E.Y.E it's a fantastic setup and concept and the game was so fun but it gets to a point where having friends to help is practically required and the game has less value if you solo it. The problem is the only severs are fan run servers which most of them are locked or have horrid pings. In l4d and dead island this doesn't come up as it has dedicated servers free for anyone to use. So in indie games it comes down to if you have a spare computer to use as a server laying around and a proper internet connection to do it without lag, or you can rent a server which there are no pre setup 10$ a month ones like for tf2 so you only choice is to rent a full 200$ or more a month server to play one game.

Tl;dr multiplayer and especially Co-Op tend to drag a games quality down and excuse lazy development.

 

[dreddfan]

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

Are you new to the internet?