The online feature of Dark Souls was a joke. I thought what I played of it was slow and boring as well.

Some day, at IGN:

"Hey guys! Let's choose arbitrary reasons to compare two completely different games and them choose arbitrary motives to explain those reasons! Like... Why a Classic Single-Player game lacks Multiplayer!"

1. is that a joke?
2. Skyrim is huge and yet you still complain
5. so every 5 min you want huge dragons with giant hp and tons of damage, no ... i'm pretty sure you'll quit the game

the thing is: these reasons aren't arbitrary. in today's games and the games they influence they actually matter

http://www.jamietrinca.co.uk/uploads/1134695493_73.jpg

your right I would, i think two problem coalesce into one with dragons: the combat isn't responsive enough to justify having challenging enemies more than once every ten hours

They are arbitrary. Comparing a comparing a game with no online component with a game designed around it's online component and declaring it the loser is the definition of arbitrary.

Actually the reason is specifically chosen it's a staple of gaming and is considered a feature in any game

didn't just pull "online component" out of hat

Wrong, again, hollow, weak-written, badly performing, horrific FPSs are now more of a norm then well written RPGs. MMORPGs have never been well written because to do so would require an unimaginable budget, something EA/Bioware may change in 15 days but that budget is atleast $150 Million, making it the most expensive game made to date. While Bethesda maybe one of the few companies with a big enough budget, they aren't going into an area that they know they can't handle.



my idea of immersive is more then having 13 year olds screaming down microphones because they're horrible at games and idiotic trolls spaming chat logs with swears, In fact those things make the game notably LESS immersive.



We don't actually know that it isn't, it could be that everything in this universe is already per-determined, unless you know exactly how this universe was created?



Boardgames can offer this aspect... it doesn't make them good. Being a good board game makes a board game good, there have been so many bad ones on the other hand. There have also been ones that are complicated and so only a certain aspect of players enjoy them, like Go or Dungeons and Dragons.



Of course the main audience of Skyrim is Bethesda's audience which would feel alienated if it DID include multi-player, let's not be Nintendo or Blizzard and trade in a long term audience for the quick cash of pleasing the casual games who have no real loyalty and move between brands/franchises quicker then then strippers in a strip bar move between men. Nintendo should learn from Blizzard, now Blizzard sees the writing on the wall with WoW it's appealing back to it's old audience, Starcraft II... Diablo 3... what will be next Warcraft 4?



Again no, it wouldn't It'd destroy literally the entire thing that TES games are all about, you can't take away the major part of a game and call that benefic... oh the magic creation system... attributes and... yeah... now people surprisingly want the magic creation system back and are missing the attributes. Being a single player, being THE ONE, that's what the series is about, making it multi-player ENTIRELY destroys that.

Okay okay, how to tell you...

Some games are meant o be multiplayer.

Some games are meant to be single-player.

Some people enjoy multiplayer games.

Some people enjoy single-player games.

Some people like not having their game dumbed-down because of the inclusion of multiplayer.

Okay. I'll be clear.

TES cannot be online multiplayer, not even coop on a single machine, for that matter. Why not? Because the TES game that I play is not the same as the one you play, that's why not. Beth empowers users to customize their own game for their own playing experience and preferences. This is the exact opposite of any kind of coop or MMO type of setup where a universal standard of game content, mechanics, etc must be maintained.

Well duh, role players just pretend Skyrim is a better game. That aside Dead Island blows both games out of the water.

Fan-boys always have to bring these stupid debates here.

A staple of gaming?

For many genres absolutely. But for rpgs? Since when? Bioware dabbled with online with Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale but the rpg genre has been mostly devoid of online play. Same with action games. By your definition, is God of War not a game. Is Metal Gear Solid not a game?

Online play is a staple for many genres (FPS, sports, fighting, etc.) but never for rpgs. Claiming a game designed around its single player experience is inferior to another becouse of online play is arbitrary. Let's not even touch the other points in the article.

Haha so true. I actually saw someone hardcoe Role-Playing Online... but it was so hard since NPC's are so stupid and generic. The guy got flustered in Whiterun haha, 5 Npc's just walk up to him saying the same thing over and over again.

I have played both Skyrim and Dark Souls.

1) I don't think games are required to have multiplayer. The option is certainly an advantage, but a very minute one(especially since Dark Souls multiplayer is even more bugged than Skyrim).

2) I think Skyrim on its own right now, is more complete than Dark Souls. DLC is not a nickel and dime tactic, because DLC for TES games are as big as the entire Dark Souls game. (I would know, I've been playing since TES III and IV.)

3) Skyrim is not only larger, but it is also much more dense. Dark Souls doesn't even come close to Skyrim's scale. (I have played both games, so I would know.)

4) Dark souls combat is worse than Skyrim's, because if you actually watch someone play, you will notice that, half of the time, the player characters are rolling and flipping around like it is a circus. Not very realistic... In my opinion, Dark Souls combat wasn't fleshed out enough, and it is obvious from all of the patching problems that dark souls has been having. (YEP, Dark Souls is buggy as hell just like Skyrim.)

5) Really.... really..... I killed the red dragon with one arrow because of a horrible glitch... not very terrifying. Even if the dragon did work as intended, the thing has very static moves, making it way more easy to kill. As for Gaping Dragon, it is only hard if you didn't kill the wizard before entering the boss arena. The Zombie Dragons, were just that, Zombies (easiest thing to kill ever.). The Drakes were pitifully easy as well. I find the dragons in Skyrim much harder to fight, because they will actually maneuver for a better shot at you.

I have beaten Dark Souls, and it was so so easy. I am finding the adept difficulty on SKyrim just as challenging as the hardest scenarios in Dark Souls.

IGN? Did Bethesda forget to send a check in?

Sorry but,I dont understand how you can compare these two games...
And i dont even know what dark souls is x) And i stick with skyrim,cmon guys! its an elder scrolls game! amazing lore and rich story.i have always,and i will always prefer the elder scrolls.No other game is like elder scrolls,and i fell in love with tamriel,and no other game then a elder scrolls game have tamriel in it..... so i dont get it

Wrong, again, hollow, weak-written, badly performing, horrific FPSs are now more of a norm then well written RPGs. MMORPGs have never been well written because to do so would require an unimaginable budget, something EA/Bioware may change in 15 days but that budget is atleast $150 Million, making it the most expensive game made to date. While Bethesda maybe one of the few companies with a big enough budget, they aren't going into an area that they know they can't handle.

my idea of immersive is more then having 13 year olds screaming down microphones because they're horrible at games and idiotic trolls spaming chat logs with swears.

Look if you want to look at everything in the most pessimistic way possible then there's no convincing you. Yes sometimes online falls flat on it's face but there are also times when it excels over anything single player can offer.



We don't actually know that it isn't, it could be that everything in this universe is already per-determined, unless you know exactly how this universe was created?

Not arguing that. But that's not the point. But men as in human beings as in not a super natural being cannot effectively recreate the world by scripts and those that can are few and far between and wouldn't be working on a game, they usually write novels.



Boardgames can offer this aspect... it doesn't make them good. Being a good board game makes a board game good, there have been so many bad ones on the other hand. There have also been ones that are complicated and only a certain aspect of players enjoy, like Go or Dungeons and Dragons.

The competitive aspects that make board games fun make video games exciting as will.



Of course the main audience of Skyrim is Bethesda's audience which would feel alienated if it DID include multiplayer, let's not be Nintendo or Blizzard and trade in a long term audience for the quick cash of pleasing the casual games who have no real loyalty and move between brands/franchises quicker then then strippers in a strip bar move between men.

This could maybe be a good argument but it's based on whether or not bethesda is greedy and wants profits. Looks at ps3 skyrim. Wait..



Again no, it wouldn't It'd destroy literally the entire thing that TES games are all about, you can't take away the major part of a game and call that benefic... oh the magic creation system... attributes and... yeah... now people surprising want the magic creation system back and are missing the attributes. Being a single player, being THE ONE, that's what the series is about, making it multi-player ENTIRELY destroys that.

I think it enhances it. When you can put your hard earned magic and armor and weapons to the test.

Amen to this. I cannot understand those that want to bring any form of multiplayer to TES. Multiplayer would change every single aspect of gameplay-from combat, to exploration, to dialogue with npc's and more. Such changes wold render TES unrecognizable.

To point out: MGS does have a multiplayer mode it's actually very popular among the fan base. I don't like it though

Dark Souls has online multiplayer and the different players could have drastically different worlds (example: player1 just started and doesn't have any of the world unlocked and player2 is at the end of the game). It was fairly simply, as you could only really "invade" another persons world, where you could try and hunt them down, but it was online multiplayer.

Your reasoning isn't as solid as you think it is.

On topic though, I think that both RPGs (DarkSouls has stats and classes and gear that you upgrade as you level up while playing through a story. You can even choose skills from multiple classes. How is that not an RPG?) are good, but Dark Souls is definitely the more polished title of the two. I would say that Dark Souls is a better game even though I've played more hours of Skyrim.

MMO? No thanks.

A co-op feature for network play? It would be nice but it would need to be limited. I can't remember Morrowind all that much anymore but Oblivion and Skyrim has basically a henchman feature and skyrim doesn't have the freeze time for conversations anymore. If it did away with all the freeze time features (lock picking, and maybe alchemy, enchanting and blacksmithing if those freeze time since I haven't noticed one way or the other) then you could have the Host be the Dragonborn and the person joining is the henchman. The game should be designed with single play in mind and the co-op play can be an after thought.

"The Challenge proportioned by Dragons" difficultly are a thing that really influence today's games.

Metal Gear Solid 4 has multiplayer. Metal Gear Solid does not. I was refering to classic games. I effin' adore MGS4 but being that it was released in this generation of consoles, I can't call it a classic yet.