Sounds like someone was biased from the start. Thing is Skyrim is awesome. I don't think I'll ever play Dark Souls, even when it gets very cheap used.

Yes and that's a great argument but at some point we look back at games and can decide which was a better experience that moved the medium further. Skyrim is very immersive. has tons of options, and decisions but it also has some shortcomings in departments that dark souls excels at and as a game matter.

Thank you for saving me the time to typing out my thoughts on this topic :thumbsup:

LOL at point 3. This article is so old anyway. That dude that wrote it, writes nothing but crap for IGN anyway. And this was an article written to get more hits on their site anyway. Its meant to sound like ignorant flamebait.

Really? So we don't have online for the integrity of the story. This is still a video game, not a book.

Anyone who takes anything IGN writes seriously should have all their teeth plucked out one by one with all the force and speed of an eroding glacier.

Why is multiplayer always perceived to be a good thing?

Alright I get it. For most of you skyrim is your drug, it's an escapist fantasy. Now can someone who actually likes video games going to discuss this.

Well then play another video game. Some people actually care as much for the lore and story as they do for gameplay. I'll take better lore and story over an half-ass multiplayer mode.

Your welcome

This so called "article" became a hard MEME.

Tebow > Skyrim PS3

This is a stupid comparison. One is a hack and slash tactical action game, the other is a role playing game.

Buy a real computer, and you'll see why Dark Souls can't hold a candle to Skyrim.

oh wow, I don't even..

ouch

I love video games. I've been playing for years.

Skyrim doesn't need, nor will it ever need, multiplayer. It will cause more problems than it's worth. Mainly because it's meant to be a single player game, and that's why some people love it. They have a deep, complex, and enjoyable open-world RPG, without the problems multiplayer brings. For example, competition, a need for balance, lack of immersion, shrieking children, and elitists.

We may have shrieking children, elitists, and idiots on the forums, but we don't have to deal with them in the game, which is what matters.

If you don't understand that, it isn't us that's at fault. It's YOU.

Wait, because we don't prefer online in our RPGs, we don't like video games? [censored], please. You don't like Skyrim as much as Dark Souls. We get it. You even agree with some moron IGN "reporter". Congratulations.

Realize that perhaps... when you come to the forums dedicated to Skyrim... you are going to find the largest amount of people who will tell you to stuff it?

Another sad case of PEBKAC.

You talk about books as if multiple people can not read the same book at the same time, did you not do this in English class? So no that retort is pointless, Skyrim is a game yes, one with a deep lore and based around a strong setting, when the point of your game is based on Lore, you don't break that Lore. This isn't Blizzard, it is Bethesda and Bethesda don't hack-and-slash their lore to pieces just to appease the causal gamers over their stronger base audience which enjoys these single player adventures as single player adventures to immerse themselves in without other people screwing everything up. Notably Blizzard has focused more on games and genres that are multiplayer and part of the reason it went down the route it did with WoW, it also hacked-and-slashed the lore to pieces in making WoW to a point where none of it makes any sense anymore.

There are too many hollow multi-player games these days that most people don't even know what a good multi-player game is suppose to be like... just adding multi-player because it's multi-player is pointless and only works to decrement a game rather then to improve it. To add multi-player because it's actually a core part of the gameplay and/or because actually contributes to the experience is what multi-player should be used for. Nowadays there is just too many multi-player hack-and-slash games claiming to by RPGs and horrid war-based FPSs that deserved never to be made.

I haven't touched Dark Souls since Skyrim. I quit playing DkS about a week before Skyrim's release. I got as far as the "giant headless undead dragons that run around in the lava" area.

I agree with what Adebar said about the checkpoints in DkS being so far apart. Not being able to save at your discretion would make Skyrim more difficult and frustrating.

I played DkS offline exclusively (due to fail internet access), but the forums for that game were awash with players complaining about its implementation of multiplayer. E.g., "not being able to play with friends."

Games have only gained from being multiplyer games are popular. Being able to add a real human being to games makes it much more immersive than just a non reactive NPC. Real life is random not scripted. Plus this is on mechanic or aspect that games can use that other mediums of entertainment cannot offer. There is a large portion of gamers who feel alienated from games when they do not include multiplayer. Skyrim as an open world game completely benefits from multiplayer just like dark souls, red dead, gta, saints row

Other than Dark Souls being smooth to play but I always felt alone while playing it since there was basically no npc to talk to but merchants haha.

Since we are on the subject of review sites

http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/615803-the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/index.html
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/608635-dark-souls/index.html

Winner: Dark Souls :rolleyes:

that's somewhere skyrim truly excels

also i went from skyrim to dark souls not the other way arround

I read this article when it came out and thought it absurd. They're not similar. I like Dark Souls quite a bit. But I truly believe that the only reason it gets any attention is due to the difficulty. The same things people complain about games from Bethesda, Bioware etc. are given a pass in Dark Souls.

What's that? Skyrim's story is too short? Play Dark Souls! No it doesn't have an interesting story but it's super hard!
What's that? Mass Effect is too linear? Play Dark Souls! No it's not truly open world. It's more like interconnected corridors with a few open spaces. But it's super hard!
What's that? The there's barely any loot in Skyrim? Play Dark Souls! There's a million and one loot options! Not that they really affect your progress at all but hey, it's super hard!

It's like the game was created for nerds to show other nerds how hardcoe of a nerd they are. I played it quite a bit when it came out. I beat it and enjoyed the online component quite a bit. But the Jesus Christ of videogames Dark Souls is not.

Who is arguing against that?

After reading that article I want to get Dark Souls even more, simply for the difficulty, among the other reasons. I wish Skyrim had some elements that Dark Souls apparently has, but that still is a crap article by someone who is either biased or had an agenda.