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

[devotedsniper]

...All i have to say is i disagree, wanna know why? i've never even heard of dark souls, maybe it's because i'm a pc gamer and i'm guessing it's not going to be out on the pc. Oh well i'll just stick to Skyrim if only it would stop taunting me in my library, it's sitting there but theres no play button yet *cries*.

 

[Echo136]

Having put thousands of hours into Oblivion, and hundreds of hours into Demon's Souls, Id have to agree on everything except for one, the nonlinear scope of the game. Dark Souls may be nonlinear now, but theres no way it could hold a candle to Skyrim. I havent seen much info on Dark Souls (because I dont want the game spoiled) but unless the game is totally open world, that aspect is no contest.

 

[TheJesus89]

I agree on all but 3 and 5.

Skyrim is epic in scope. No doubt about it. Demon's Souls was epic only because of how un-epic it was. I mean epic as in the literal term of epic, like the odyssey, as opposed to epic like "d00d dats epic" epic. In demon's souls, there's no "great journey". And from what I've seen in gameplay videos, the world is much larger and open, but still corridor/tight passageway filled. It's not a bad thing at all, and works as a point in Dark Soul's favor when you take into account the way the game handles combat. That said, there's not way it's going to have the same open-worldness of Skyrim, where you can go anywhere, do anything.

And 5 is just stupid. Yeah sure, the one's from Dark Souls are probably cooler, but they will probably be few and far between the ones from Skyrim.

This article does reek of bias. I still think Dark Souls will be the better game, though.

 

[Thaius]

This is pretty obvious flamebait on their part. I haven't followed IGN too intensely, but I certainly would not expect such shoddy journalism on their part. When you give Dark Souls the point for open world, there's a problem. Beyond that, if Skyrim really lost out on all fronts, there would be no real reason to write this article; the very nature of it implies they just wanted a bunch of Skyrim fans going onto their site and seeing the ads that get them money. This is rather disappointing.

 

[Fishyash]

until dark souls can be modded I think IGN should just shut it.

but I guess dark souls on its own seems like a better game if you want action.

 

[Naeo]

A few responses to the article:

1. Multiplayer is not a big fucking deal. Especially not in an RPG like the Elder Scrolls series. And yeah, the reason something like Dark Souls will have multiplayer is probably because the concept was multiplayer-oriented and it was designed from the ground up to be multiplayer-friendly. Skyrim (and all TES games, really), were designed to be single-player oriented from the ground up. It's like saying that because it's harder to fit two people into a twin-sized bed than into a queen-sized, the queen-sized bed must be inherently better. Nope. Not the case. Depends on what you're using it for.

2. Complaining about DLC existing is stupid and immature. I propose we stop bitching about it unless we're also going to collectively ***** that we have to buy mice separately from out computers, mattresses separate from our bedframes, bookmarks separately from our books, and so on. There is no ultimate difference.

3. Okay, so basically the scope paragraph boiled down to "Oblivion had lots of filler because it was too big but DARK SOULS GONNA BE HUGE MANG". Also, in the conclusion of this, they said "Dark Souls will have shittons of combat and awesome variation, Skyrim will probably just be fetch quests." One, this assumes that the combat mechanic is the only thing worth a damn in the game (more on this later) and makes the fatal flaw of saying "Dark Souls WILL be X, Skyrim will PROBABLY be Y, so Dark Souls will naturally be better!" when it doesn't have much ground for either assertion.

4. Saying Oblivion's combat was bad and so Skyrim's will be is ignorant. It also misses the point that TES games are not based solely around combat. Also, this sentence is just false: "the game structure of Bethesda's RPGs typically handhold players, clearly outlining what to do next in objective windows and mission paths. Boxes are checked and unchecked on what to accomplish, etc". Yes, Oblivion had that, and LOTS of people hated it. Morrowind didn't hold your hand for shit. In fact, it just told you "oh and you need to go to this unmarked ruin that I won't tell you where it is and find this magical mcguffin". And you had to just find out where the damn place was on your own. Because fuck you, that's why. But back to combat. Saying that "Dark Souls' combat will be better than Skyrim's" is probably accurate, I concede. However, TES games aren't just about combat, so the many other aspects of the game will probably more than make up for this.

5. The dragon point is fucking retarded. Nothing more to say here.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Hmm...let's see, let's see...

reason one: Online Multiplayer. Despite all of the requests for online multiplayer, Skyrim will continue on as a single player experience. Dark Souls looks like it'll have the similar Demon's Souls thing only...with more things. I dunno, I didn't read the whole thing. If it has same-system co-op I'll give it to them but at this point people buy Elder Scrolls games because that's what they want: An epic single player experience.

reason two: DLC and Pricing. I love how IGN is downplaying the Dragon statue, referring to it as being little. At the same time, the collector's ed of Dark Souls features 3 digital items, which I take to mean intangible. Things I can't hold and mess with. Granted the Dark Souls collector's ed is the same price as any-given brand new triple-A title.

reason three: Epic Scope. It looks like Dark Souls is trying out a Metroid-Vania style in terms of it's size. It's also lifted the phrase, "if you can see it, you can go there" from the Skyrim description of it's world. I can see that they both offer large worlds though. Still, I'd have called that one a tie out of fairness (even though Skyrim has dozens of hand-crafted dungeons)

reason four: TIGHT combat and TRUE challenge. 4 buzz-words and the word 'and'. Dark Souls is taking after Demon Souls obviously when it comes to having a game about as forgiving as your average SNES beat-em-up. IGN seems to have spoken more about Oblivion and Bethesda RPGs in general though other than Skyrim itself.

reason five: Dragons. Here it is that we see the bias of IGN. Dark Souls, according to IGN, has won all five of these reasons. Oh wait, that's the title of the article. Well putting that aside, Dark Souls seems to use a ton of different types of dragons; headless, undead, crystal, etc. Skyrim has unlimited numbers of Dragons though which, once killed, give you another Dragon Shout ability (or is it a point towards one?)

Either way, Dark Souls could be good. I'd wait a few months for the price to drop on it though. I can't wait for Skyrim though and will be picking that up on day one.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Oh dear...

Whatever respect I had for IGN just vanished in a puff of very stupid smoke.

We'll have to see once both games are out, but three of their points "DLC", "Multiplayer" and "Dragons" are flawed to begin with.

DLC is a GOOD thing in the right hands and few have proven their hands righter than Bethesda.

Multiplayer? I enjoy a game of Slayer as much as the next guy, but the fact that Skyrim is not including it just goes to show that the developers are finally leaving the big decisions TO THE FUCKING PROFESSIONALS instead of the fans.

Dragons. You have got to be fucking kidding. MAYBE on a top ten list you could include that as an honorable mention, but for one of FIVE reasons? That's just lazy.

 

[Machocruz]

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.

Or they have played Ultima 5-7, Gothic 1 and 2, Divine Divinity 1 and 2, and you haven't.

 

[anthony87]

With regards to the dude who wrote the IGN article:

Seriously, both games are totally different in terms of playstyle. One game having things that another game lacks doesn't mean that the latter game shall have its face eaten.

 

[Adam28]

-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.

And you (as well as the article) have provided no evidence to suggest that Skyrim will in anyway be a worse game than Dark Souls simply because DLC is confirmed for it. DLC is optional and like Hal10k said, there is no way to know if Skyrim is incomplete without it.

I fail to see how confirmed DLC is a point in Dark Soul's favour, nobody is forcing you to pay more money for Skyrim after its release. For all we know the DLC may come at a much later date and be welcomed by fans.

 

[The Harkinator]

Just to say about IGNs points:

1) Multiplayer is not a must have for every game, call me a social outcast (please don't) but I'd rather play Skyrim single player all the time. Its my game, my story, I am the hero, not half of a hero team. Time they spend on multiplayer is time they could spend on singleplayer. Since they brought up that fans want it can I say fans aren't always blessed with the best ideas. A company shouldn't ignore its fans but adding something because 'the fans want it' is a bad idea. We don't always understand the consequences of our actions so we don't understand the gravitas of our requests. Leave it to the professionals guys.

2) DLC is an extension strategy for a product, it keeps it going and keeps people playing it for longer. The fact Dark Souls doesn't have it is something I would say counts against it. IGN make it sound like Skyrim will ship as an unfinished product when in fact they're probably both finished products but Skyrim will have optional extras. Think about the Shivering Isles DLC, was Oblivion any more unfinished because it didn't ship with the game, my opinion: no.

3) Scope, its not how big it is, its what you fill it with. I don't doubt Dark Souls will have plenty to fill it but bigger is not always better. Don't say Skyrim has somehow failed because its not as big as another game. Oh we couldn't go to all of Tamriel! Stop whining and realise they gave you a nice big playground, you don't need to go the Wembley Stadium to play football and you don't need a huge world to play an RPG in. I don't notice many people complaining they couldn't visit all of Thedas for Dragon Age.

4) Tight combat and true challenge. Difficult is not always good, yes Bethesda do have a few sloppy sections but combat is not the only feature of a ROLE PLAYING game, where ROLE PLAYING (not hack and slashing) is the main feature. Couple that with a dig at Halo and CoD, seriously? You're aiming that IGN, theres nothing badly wrong with Halo and CoD (plenty of things could have been done better though) and taking the shots at easy targets was just not cricket. Also 'BOLDLY daring to be different. The industry will change because of this.' is quite presumptuous that because one game puts its difficulty up everyone will. Bioshock has ADAM and Plasmids which was fun but not every game introduced them.

5) ZOMGSKYRIMDRAGONSZOMG!!!!! Original reaction to Skyrim seems to now have been countered by ZOMGDRAGONSZOMGUNDEADDRAGONSZOMGPOLITICALBETRAYINGDRAGONSZOMG!!!!!!! Sorry about the use of 'ZOMG' I don't normally ever use it but I was merely using it to represent IGNs previous coverage. This point is like a toddler throwing away all its toys in disgust because its just seen some with flashing lights and the element of undead.

IGN you just insulted The Elder Scrolls, Halo and CoD. Well done. Very well done indeed.

 

[Michael Hirst]

-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.

And you (as well as the article) have provided no evidence to suggest that Skyrim will in anyway be a worse game than Dark Souls simply because DLC is confirmed for it. DLC is optional and like Hal10k said, there is no way to know if Skyrim is incomplete without it.

I fail to see how confirmed DLC is a point in Dark Soul's favour, nobody is forcing you to pay more money for Skyrim after its release. For all we know the DLC may come at a much later date and be welcomed by fans.

I'm generally against DLC but in the past I did try DLC for Fallout 3 which was significant in length, same applies to New Vegas DLC, honestly I think Bethesda know how to make fairly good quality DLC unlike say Capcom or Activision/Blizzard who overcharge for minimal content.

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

...it's not a contest.

 

[Thespian]

Is IGN trying to be a videogaming cracked now?

Because, they're not.

 

[CJ1145]

IGN: Proving they don't know shit about their subject matter since 2003.

Seriously, Dark Souls may be better in the ONE area of similar gameplay it and Skyrim share. But you know what Skyrim does better? EVERYTHING ELSE. I don't have enough time in the day to go into full detail of why this article is retarded.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Skyrim is gonna be better because Dark Souls won't be released on the PC.So this "fight" between these two games is rather pointless.

So there's that.The Elder Scrolls community has it's biggest fanbase on the PC.
PS:<- not a TES fan,I'm just saying.

 

[Adventurer2626]

Paraphrased from an interview: Dark Souls doesn't have a real storyline, it's about the intense combat.

No thanks. Have fun trying to sell this to the D&D crowd.