"Dark Souls Will Eat Skyrim's Face"

[Exius Xavarus]

For me, Dark Souls will. Have the Collector's Edition preordered. Not that Skyrim doesn't look interesting, but after Demon's Souls, I await it's sequel MUCH more than Skyrim (haven't played Oblivion).

Also, things like early/exclusive DLC deals for 360 kind of turn me away from a game, since I only own a PS3.

EDIT: I'd also like to ask/note, Skyrim fans get so defensive over this kind of stuff. I mean, why NOT have multiplayer, in some shape or form, in this game? Even something subtle, along the lines of Dark Souls is doing. (now that I think of it, if these two games got together and made a healthy baby game.../gasm)

Sequels tend to have a habit of playing it 'too safe', and both Skyrim and Dark Souls seem to be guilty of it; having new worlds, tweaked conflict systems, updated graphics, but not much actually innovative, or rather that what has been innovative doesn't change the gameplay habits established in the iteration(s) before it (until that sequel is released on a new console, of course). Not that this is a particularly bad habit, familiarity is nice, but when you can take a risk to do something that is both new AND works well, it will be noticed.

There are many, many things in Dark Souls that were not in Demon's Souls. Such as the Gravelord, the Covenant System, a seamlessly open world, your own attacks with a given weapon, so forth. Actually I'd personally like to see the ability to swim. That would make for some interesting battles. xP I will agree that Dark Souls is doing a lot of the same, however. But still looks so good. Also, mind if I point out that Dark Souls isn't a sequel to Demon's Souls? It was actually stated that Dark Souls is a spiritual successor, rather than a sequel. I've got it all pre-ordered and paid off, too, and I can't wait for it to come out.^___^

And the matter of DLC on Skyrim bugs me, as well. DLC exclusive to the Xbox version of Skyrim is just as bad as the whole "only the PS3 version of Batman: Arkham Asylum is allowed to play the Joker" thing. And that they're getting it early is equally crappy. They seem to be following in Oblivion's footsteps, where PS3 owners didn't get their DLC for a rather long time. For me, personally, after the way I didn't really enjoy Oblivion or Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas, I really don't have very high hopes for Skyrim, so I'm probably going to skip it in favor of Arkham City.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

There was a thread about that article about a week ago and I remember reading the hilariously bias IGN thread. Someone posted how you can't spell ignorant without IGN and it made me chuckle.

Anyway, as for the question posed by the OP, I've never played Demon's Souls and have no bases of comparison for Dark Souls. Wasn't Demon's Soul a PS3 exclusive? I may try Dark Souls but I'mm definitely getting Skyrim.

I found it hilarious that IGN went on about Skyrim being single-player with no online capabilities. At this point in the game, fans of the Elder Scrolls games know to expect those games to be strong single-player experiences. You might as well comment about Dark Souls being a multi-console game whereas it's predecessor was a PS3 exclusive...Well maybe not. I dunno, it's difficult to think of a good analogy while tired.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Getting both so win/win for me.

 

[jyork89]

Wow... Just wow. I am kind of biased since I have pre-ordered Skyrim so I am somewhat biased. (first time I have preordered a game since like 2001. I've never been able to play a Elder Scrolls game on release so I nerdgasmed when I found out it would come out on current gen consoles).

But the article states on aside from other wrongs, regarding Skyrims world size. First it complains that Skyrim is the same size as Oblivion, then quotes Todd Howard regarding that there is more stuff in the land area that exists. Then ignoring their own stated facts, ign states "expect more giant stretches of no-man's land, which was a big complaint about Oblivion's map.". They never actually state what the negative aspect is. Is it because the world is not bigger than Oblivion? Or is it because that the world is going to be boring despite citing facts that contradict this? Then they state that Dark Souls is better because it is bigger?

Arrrgh AARRRGH ARRRGGHHHHHH Good god! This is why I hate IGN. All the journalistic integrity of a 10 year old's book report.

 

[Irriduccibilli]

Why do everyone suddenly want an online component in every god damn game. Seriously, Elder Scrolls games are about immersing yourself into this huge world, and not beat other players up in 16v16 battles or fighting to be nr. 1 on the leaderboards.

 

[infohippie]

I've never even heard of Dark Souls. Now that I go look it up, I see it's console-only which automatically means I will never be playing it. I doubt it will have the depth I'm expecting from Skyrim and combat will likely be based around button-mashing - I've rarely heard of a console game where this wasn't the case. So for me at least, Skyrim will be by far the better game.

EDIT: Well, I guess I shouldn't have expected an objective, informative article. It is IGN after all.

 

[ClockworkAngel]

*laughs* I do agree that this article is flame bait .. .. but I'm looking forward to Dark Souls much more than Skyrim. I'll pick up Skyrim when it's up for an awesome sale on Steam, has patches to fix bugs and glitches, and mods to 'fix' things like level-scaling and such.

 

[SFMB]

Sadly, Dark Souls is not going to hit PC, so there's a problem right there. Dark Souls might eat Skyrim's face, but in a whole other table, with "Hello Kitty"-napkins and silly partyhats.

 

[RemuValtrez]

The main problem I see with this is that in the long run you're asking which is better, multiplayer or single player. The Elder Scrolls series has stood out as a great single player game. They've added a lot of things to Skyrim that Oblivion was missing, dual wielding in combat and the finishing moves are freaking cool looking. And dragons. Those will be fun to kill.

Dark Souls looks like it will be a great game, but at heart I am an Elder Scrolls fanboy, so Skyrim will win out for me.

Also, as for the IGN Post, I don't see how NOT having DLC is a bonus. You can't put everything you think of into a game, lest it would have a production time rivaling Diablo 3.

And as for the collector's edition, the huge statue has to cost a bit of money to make, and it's not like they're twisting your arm to buy it. I have it on preorder just because I am a huge supporter of TES.

Also, you have to look at the fact of what both games are jumping off of: their predecessors. Skyrim will add a whole lot of things that Oblivion did not have, and that game has a huge fanbase.

To me it looks like Dark Souls will just be Demons Souls.

Again. Fanboy thoughts here

 

[Zeh Don]

Dark Souls and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim are incredibly different. I'd go as far as to say that they're simply too different to compare in such a direct way. The only share the generic premise: single play medieval RPG.

Dark Souls is about sheer challenge. It's about brutal combat, oppressive atmosphere and the sheer sense of somehow overcoming overwhelming, nearly impossible odds.

Skyrim is about adventure. Its about exploring forgotten dungeons, meeting and helping interesting characters, and learning about the province of Skyrim.

Comparing one to the other would be similar to comparing Super Metroid and Super Mario World because they're both single player SNES games with platforming elements.

 

[Zaik]

That's the kind of trolling I would expect to see here. Or at wish we saw here. I'm guessing the moderators here would just delete the thread though, even if it was disguised well as an opinion.

Either way, if "apologists" or whatever at IGN actually cared, they'd just take the page down. This is just controversy to generate page views.

 

[Ian Caronia]

Well, I know for a fact Dark Souls will run on my PS3 just fine.
Skyrim, no matter what, has yet to give us viable proof it won't freeze our consoles or pull an LA Noire and screw up the older versions of our consoles.

That alone let me choose which of these fantastic titles to get. If I had a spare PS3, though, or 400 bucks to throw away, I'd risk it by putting cash down on Skyrim first. I really like the Elder Scrolls games, even though Dark Souls's rare dark fairy tale plot intrigues me more.

I just don't want my shit to break down, and everything from Bethesda thus far has frozen my PS3 at some point (and multiple points thereafter till I sold them off), so I'll stick with my delicious Dark Souls until a month or three after Skyrim's release.

Also, this:

Dark Souls and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim are incredibly different. I'd go as far as to say that they're simply too different to compare in such a direct way. The only share the generic premise: single play medieval RPG.

Dark Souls is about sheer challenge. It's about brutal combat, oppressive atmosphere and the sheer sense of somehow overcoming overwhelming, nearly impossible odds.

Skyrim is about adventure. Its about exploring forgotten dungeons, meeting and helping interesting characters, and learning about the province of Skyrim.

Comparing one to the other would be similar to comparing Super Metroid and Super Mario World because they're both single player SNES games with platforming elements.

 

[The Electro Gypsy]

Yeah, that article sucks. Obvious troll is obvious.

But I'm with Team Skyrim all that way

Combat. Skyrim's combat looks... Well, the same. Killing moves alone do not add that visceral thrill that a combat-oriented game can provide.

I played Skyrim for 15 minutes the other day, and believe me, they do

Being too young to have played Morrowind or any of the previous Elder Scrolls Games, and thinking Oblivion was insanely bad, I'm going to go with Dark Souls cos I have no reason to dislike it.

My logic is awesome.

Whaddaya mean too young? I'm only 16 and I recently finished Doom, and am playing Metroid Prime 1 and Ocarina of Time right now!

You darn youngins...

Oh fine, be that way.

What I meant was "Too young when it came out, and now I'm too lazy" but that doesn't sound as good D:

 

[BanicRhys]

It doesn't matter what I think seeing as I won't be buying either of them for at least a year or two because I'm an impoverished bastard.

 

[Snor]

immersion, length and story something that most games lack nowadays is present in the elder scrolls series (and i assume skyrim). with that you don't need anything like multiplayer or the most fancy graphics (those are the same as the duct tape you put over the obvious hole in your air matress)

 

[KnightOfHearts]

I just don't like the elder scrolls
I've tried
I really, really tried.

Dagger fall, Morrow wind, oblivion
They all feel the same to me
There's just too much to do.
For me comparing the current versions of both games being oblivion and demon's souls is like saying "which do you prefer, quantity or quality).

Everytime I try something by Bestheda (rpg wise) I get bored in a few hours, demon's souls on the other hand had me at 'you died'.
I just HAD to beat it, had to make it pay for beating me so much
The story was generic
There weren't that many people to interact with
The map wasn't the size of the universe
But man was it deep!
Oblivion just seemed like there was too much messing around and not enough focused gameplay.

I don't know if dark souls will be better, but it'll definitely give skyrim a run for it's money.

 

[rustybroomhandle]

Multiplayer is the ultimate immersion-killer for games you are supposed to get lost in. That is all.