I'm going to be honest, I quit reading on page four, so I both apologize for not reading all of the comments if my comments have already been stated and for being late to the party. In those first four pages, this comment kind of stood out for me, as Stall seemed to be concreting a previous post he had made.
Stall said:
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.
Multiplayer
can be good. That's assuming the game is made for multiplayer. The Elder Scroll games have been single player since their inception, changing from that path would be suicide for the series, especially if Bethesda wants to milk that cow for more money. Skyrim does not need multiplayer, as it was created to be a single player experience. Multiplayer would not work in some games such as Fallout, Final Fantasy, or the aforementioned Elder Scrolls. Their design just isn't a fit for a multiplayer experience.
While it's an extra feature, it does not mean it's a plus for Dark Souls. I assume Dark Souls was designed from the start to have multiplayer, so having it included is a plus
for it. It's an extra selling point, but the lack of multiplayer is also a selling point for Skyrim, as it doesn't need a gimmick to make it likeable. It's really a moot point.
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.
I can't really comment on this either way. never played Demon's Souls and I have no desire to play either Skyrim or Dark Souls.
3) Dark Souls will have no DLC. This is a point for Dark Souls.
You're having your cake and eating it too. First you lambast Skyrim for not having an added feature (multiplayer), now you state that an added feature for Skyrim is somehow a negative. Yes, multiplayer is an added feature. DLC, whether you agree with it or not, is also an added feature. By your own logic, it is a plus for Skyrim and not Dark Souls. On one condition...
That condition would be that the game is complete without the added DLC (I'm looking at you, Arrival for Mass Effect 2). From what very little I read about Skyrim, the DLC will be expansion packs, meaning the game is already complete and the packs are there to give you more playtime in the game.
No, this doesn't mean that you get the complete game of DS for $60, while you're paying upwards of $100 for Skyrim. You get both games for $60. That $60 will give you a complete game, no matter which you purchase. Skyrim will just offer your more down the road if you choose to pay extra.
Now this is obviously a downside for you, and depending on how long it takes after releasing the game to release the first DLC, it can be a downside for me (releasing DLC alongside the launch means you could have added it to the game with a slight delay and you're just trying to milk more money out of us, Bioware). If you don't want to pay extra money for DLC because you think that you're paying more because they didn't finish the game, do what I did with Fallout 3. Wait until the GOTY edition comes out including all of the DLC. Then you get it for the same price that people paid for the core game.
4) The score is good for Dark Souls. It is also good for Skyrim. This is an opinion. Point for neither.
Did you read the article? Not a single point was made for the score, aka the musical accompaniment. They were talking about the scope of the game, in this case being the size of the gameplay area. IMO, if it's not Mitsuda, Uematsu, or Kondo, the music is meh.
5) The dragon thing was stupid.
We agree on something!
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.
No, there are five out of five points that are pure opinion. Inclusion of multiplayer in a game is a matter of opinion. Inclusion of DLC for the finished product is an opinion. Combat system is a matter of opinion. The scope (as wells as score) is a matter of opinion, unless you're comparing the exact size of the gaming area. Finally, comparing a mythological being is a matter of opinion.
You can claim that I'm just another Bethesda fanboy out to right injustices against Skyrim because it's the greatest thing since the butter knife (screw sliced bread!), but you'd be wrong. I hated Morrwind. I hated Oblivion. I'm sure I'll hate Skyrim. I'm so sure of that fact that I'm not going to attempt to play the game. As I said before, I have no desire to play either game.
With that being said I'm hating the article because it is a bad article. I stopped reading IGN over five years ago because it seemed that anytime someone hit the age of thirteen they were fired from their position as a writer for the company. This still seems true today.
While I understand that you agree with the adolescent who wrote the article that Dark Souls is better than Skyrim, but please don't defend his points. All five points he made are subjective points, not objective or truth as you stated. Well, you stated that three of the five were objective, but you're still incorrect. Multiplayer, DLC, combat, scope (in the way it's described in the article), and dragons are all matters of opinions, not statements of fact.
