IGN article: Dark Souls > Skyrim I have to agree : Othor Games

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:47 am

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

Dude, you basically answered every reason I could think of as to why multiplayer would fail on this game in one picture. *Bows*

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:42 am

I am under the impression that the Xbox version of MC will tank horribly, because the vast majority of players on that system would dismiss it based solely on it's graphics.

There are (or were) even polls to back this up.

I call BS on that.
Very very few gamers (on any system) don't know what minecraft is at this point and the vast majority understand the why the style is the way it is.
Minecraft will be fine on Xbox... that said, I'm not buying it again unless I can somehow get my main world onto the xbox version.

I think this not so subtle inferance that people who play video games on consoles are unintelligent is getting a bit old.
Most people today play both pc and console games... resricting yourself to one label or the other (I'm a PC gamer! I'm a console gamer!) is a bit pathetic.

On topic, need for speed is better than dark souls because it has cars and DS does not... AM I DOING IT RIGHT?!?

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:17 am

You weren't supposed to be able to 'play with friends'. The MP was an anonymous setup and all aspects of gameplay from multiplayer to death and respawning were explained in game in lore that was supported by mechanics. In Lordran the threads of time were agitated and threads from multiple times could cross paths and sometimes adventurers from other dimensions would be able to join each other. Some players are able to force their way into other universes through dark magic (dark wraiths).

That said Skyrim is my game of the year with Dark Souls as a close second. They are both amazing for different reasons.

Combat is much better in Dark Souls and Souls has a way of creating difficulty without making enemies hit points sponges which is refreshing. You can kill fast, you can be killed fast. Blocking, rolling, jumping, running, dodging, getting superior position on your enemy is very important. I keep wanting to roll around the back of an enemey and lay down a righteous backstab on a bandit marauder.

Variety, role play possibilities and freedom of choice is on another planet when comparing Skyrim to dark Souls though.

Also I thought Dark Souls level design was outstanding and soem of the best I have ever seen but Skyrim's incredible world is just breathtaking.

Well said. My post sounded like I didn't enjoy Dark Souls. For the record, I did enjoy Dark Souls and I recommend it. I intend to go back and finish it when I burn out on Skyrim.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:37 pm

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

This is what Elder Scrolls Hell looks like.

Please let it never be so....

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:59 am

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

The funny thing is, it's hard to tell which is which. :wink_smile:

But I digress.

I agree that TES could benefit from some form of multiplayer. Certainly not the kind found in Dark Souls, though.

Drop-in, drop-out co-op would be amazing, though. Honestly, what would be so bad about allowing four friends to adventure together in the same world? A large company like Bethesda certainly wouldn't have to take resources away from developing the single-player experience, and such a feature would be optional, so you wouldn't be subjected to other players if you don't want to.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:59 pm

I think I'll buy Dark Souls one day...

When either

A.I get filthy rich
B.The price drops to $20

I hear its too hard of a game , so I'd dare not risk $60 on a game that I'd just ragequit and trade in

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:46 am

I am under the impression that the Xbox version of MC will tank horribly, because the vast majority of players on that system would dismiss it based solely on it's graphics.

There are (or were) even polls to back this up.

Not all of the console community are graphic w/hores and are unintelligent.
Just because I play on console, doesn't mean me and you are different and that I hate anything that has any resemblance to 16 bit gaming.

It simply means I prefer a different platform, my friends play it, I like the controls (don't like M/K) or simply due to it was affordable when I got it.
I am looking forward to Minecraft on Xbox then again I am building a PC soon so whether I will get it on Xbox all depends on whether my IQ drops below 30 (according to you) :flamethrower:
:facepalm:

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:09 pm

Online multiplayer would be the death of TES. TES is and has always been an epic SINGLE-PLAYER game, and I honestly can't picture what an online mode would look like.

im waiting for the day its up to 4 ppl in the world at the same time with quests and all that can be friend or foe

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:28 am

They are nothing alike.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:12 am

The only way any TES game will benefit from online is

-if its friend list only NO RANDOMs
-Increase in difficulty depending on Highest level character in party/game w/e (keeps the challenge going, maybe giving it an escort feel/more indepth roleplaying?)
-limit of 4 players max, which means 2 player characters and 2 NPCs, 3 Player characters and 1 NPC.
-dynamic story that will change depending on how many players in party/world. Ex Jarl of whiterun will mention how there is 1 or more dragonborns depending on party size. Dialogue will change if more people join or leave.

There is much more roleplaying options with coop don't do some stupid invade...unless if you create an arena near solitude, have player ranked PVP, while you wait for your turn in the match you can watch the fights as you wait or chill in the bloodworks.
Default armor like Oblivion's arena, all you do is bring your own spells, weapons and potions.

Opinions?

I personally think online would be bad, but within these points it could be doable and bearable at the same time..

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:58 am

The only way any TES game will benefit from online is

-if its friend list only NO RANDOMs
-Increase in difficulty depending on Highest level character in party/game w/e (keeps the challenge going, maybe giving it an escort feel/more indepth roleplaying?)
-limit of 4 players max, which means 2 player characters and 2 NPCs, 3 Player characters and 1 NPC.
-dynamic story that will change depending on how many players in party/world. Ex Jarl of whiterun will mention how there is 1 or more dragonborns depending on party size. Dialogue will change if more people join or leave.

There is much more roleplaying options with coop don't do some stupid invade...unless if you create an arena near solitude, have player ranked PVP, while you wait for your turn in the match you can watch the fights as you wait or chill in the bloodworks.
Default armor like Oblivion's arena, all you do is bring your own spells, weapons and potions.

Opinions?

I personally think online would be bad, but within these points it could be doable and bearable at the same time..

Instead of needing a Dynamic Story you could simply have just one of the players (Host) to be the Dragonborn.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:55 pm

You might as well compare madden 12 with skyrim

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:18 pm

I call BS on that.
Very very few gamers (on any system) don't know what minecraft is at this point and the vast majority understand the why the style is the way it is.
Minecraft will be fine on Xbox... that said, I'm not buying it again unless I can somehow get my main world onto the xbox version.

I think this not so subtle inferance that people who play video games on consoles are unintelligent is getting a bit old.
Most people today play both pc and console games... resricting yourself to one label or the other (I'm a PC gamer! I'm a console gamer!) is a bit pathetic.

I'm not a pretentious graphics fiend, but after using Painterly, I just can't play default Minecraft pack anymore.

@Topic- If Oblivion is anything to go by, the DLC's carried their own, the only places I could think of that showed future plans were the Dwemmer star thingie at the Mages Guild, and the thieves den door in Anvil. So it's not like most games today that finish the entire game dev cycle, then cut it by 50-75% and sit on the other portion they snipped and save it as DLC, if Skyrim is like Oblivion in DLC terms, it would be nonessential items like housing, or self contained stories like KOTN and SI.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:06 am

Holy [censored], this thread is filled with utter ignorance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:34 am

Holy [censored], this thread is filled with utter ignorance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA

He had faith in humanity! *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN3gSjHsr1o*

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:06 pm

I love dark souls and demon's souls, there's hardly a bigger fan than me out there. (ok, of course there is.. but I'm definitely in the top there). But I like Skyrim a lot. As much as anyone can like it. I can't compare the two, because they are so different.

Dark souls combat is, at the end of the day, pure backstab attempting that usually takes advatage of lag and such. I still like it, a lot.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:48 am

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

if you dont care about the story then you should try call of duty or modern warfare.... Bethesda Game Studios develops TES as story rich games, not "do the same thing over and over and over again" games

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:31 am

Really not even online and combat? Skyrim doesn't even have online. How awesome would it be to summon a totally different dragon born to you game, or get invaded by one?

That would be... Pretty weird.

A fun idea I just had though... Maybe have like a waiting lobby in oblivion(realm, not game) where you wait to be summoned as a dremora, or other daedra. I think that could be kind of fun.

An online arena would be fun as well.

I want skyrim to be a single player game mostly, but some online elements would not hurt.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:30 pm

In Dark Souls you have one objective; to get to the end.

In Skyrim you can explore anywhere from the off at you're own leisure, do any faction lines or side quests when you want.

I know which one i prefer.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:17 am

IGN has been terrible for so long, I literally havent been on the site in over 2 or 3 years until now. And I wont ever again.

I agree^^ I havent been on their site in like 3-4 years at least. And when I read people threads that post their articles I just laugh.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:09 pm

People continue complaining about the Dark Souls VS Skyrim article on IGN, resulting in IGN getting more views and ad revenue.

Winner: IGN!

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:59 am

if you dont care about the story then you should try call of duty or modern warfare.... Bethesda Game Studios develops TES as story rich games, not "do the same thing over and over and over again" games

Not really. TES was always about exploration. They put a lot of stories into their games to supplement the lore, but the games' stories have always been very poor quality (exception: Morrowind, but that was because you didn't even know the story for most of it).

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:22 pm

The guy that wrote that article really is the personification of the word FAIL!

OP, please stop comparing Skyrim to games outside it's genre...like Saints Row, for instance? A game like Saints Row is designed for the player to have unbridled fun...but Skyrim? It's main focus is on the story, the Lore, the Single-player experience and, as such, is the pinnacle of the RPG genre!

My opinion? People like you, and that particularly bad journalist, need to start focusing on everything that Skyrim does right...as opposed to things that it doesn't do at all. If not, you're only a step away from hating on Cigarettes for their inability to get you drunk.

» Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:43 pm

Really not even online and combat? Skyrim doesn't even have online. How awesome would it be to summon a totally different dragon born to you game, or get invaded by one?

I don't see the appeal. I just don't feel like RPG's benefit at all from co-op. Other genres can make great use of it, but in an RPG it just seems silly. :shrug: