http://www.oxm.co.uk/34002/blog/dark-souls-is-bigger-than-skyrim/

This game journalist says that 60 hours into Dark Souls, that's only a fourth of the way through. He doesn't say anything about the map or world, which are smaller, but he says that it may be bigger in terms of content. Content can have more to do with the size of a game than the map dimensions, but from how it sounds you might have less freedom in an environment as brutal and soulless as Dark Souls'.

Still, could this be true? I haven't played Demon's Souls, and Dark Souls is open world unlike its predecessor. However, I really doubt that the world will feel as big and as replayable as Skyrim. They say they have put 20 hours into Dark Souls, but how much have they played Skyrim? Between the instanced content, guilds, and scale of Skyrim, it's hard to believe that a game which takes 5 hours and frequent deaths to undo one spell isn't just trying to span out the content, rather than create like an impressive and fully realized world. Could this journalist just be exaggerating for hits?

EDIT: Counting deaths and ridiculous respawns as content seems off - perhaps he should time how long it takes to get through the game if you don't die, and compare that number. It seems ridiculous for an OXM dude to directly compare a game he has played for 20 hours with a game he has maybe played for an hour at a gaming expo. I'll probably pick up Dark Souls, but honestly this article reeks of inception.

We've come to the era where games must have 200+ hours single player to be able to compete. svck it CoD!

Dark Souls will punish anything except perfect execution and repetition. He's 60 hours in because when you die EVERYTHING respawns and you start at the beginning of the dungeon.




It's also worth mentioning that Demon's Souls (Dark Souls 1) was a grind title, you were encouraged to do the dungeons SEVERAL times skipping bosses and just clearing the trash to advance your character to the point of being able to have a chance against bosses. Many enemies had unique attacks that gave no indication of breaking your block entirely or just being cheap that would two shot you and send you alllll the way back to the beginning. The selling point of that game is the difficulty, just about every review out there says "It's Nintendo hard, but not cheap in anyway".. It has a dozen or so incredibly cheap moments, where you will feel like you were robbed of your time.

There is one point in the first dungeon where you're very very deep in and you need to cross a bridge. As soon as you get near it you aggro a dragon that starts doing bombing runs on the bridge. Getting caught in the flame is pretty much instant death, and means being sent back to the beginning of the dungeon and having everything respawn. You get to learn by error how to cross that bridge, there are no hints or explanations.


I'd give it a try if it wasn't PS3 only, but if that's the way they are going to be I will save my money for something else.

He was 60 hours in and only a quarter of the way through because he died countless times. That has nothing to do with gameplay content.

Edit: Exactly what Sammich said.

to fair I would say

Skyrim>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>every other thing humanity has ever made EVER.

There's no point in comparing the two since they're so very different. I'd rather just compare red with blue.
Both will be large in their own ways. Playtime is optional in Skyrim, whether you want to spend time on sidequests or not. Whether you want to do the mainquest or not. Both will feature a good balance. Unique content are the games themselves. Skyrim is unique to itself just as Dark Souls is.

Which game will feel more epic? It's a matter of opinion and preference. Me? I'd pick neither. Both will deliver very different experiences through out the game.

I don't think it's fair to compare any game with another, even a TES game. Games are made with different teams of people and with different intent for gameplay. Even among the TES series, different levels of technology and team members have made the games all unique.

Yeah, it's what everyone else is saying. I'm all for a challenge but it has to be put forth in the right manner, at the right time. I just recently finished God of War 3 on Very Hard and man I got some high quality ass kickings, but I was prepared for that. I scaled up to that, having already experience the game, and most of what it had to offer, before having to pull my hair out. I mean, I really don't understand, this is why we have difficulty settings. Some people seem to love it but I have absolutely no desire to die every single time I fight something the first time I play through a game, especially an RPG.

Obviously I'm biased, there's no denying that but this biased motherfrontdoor says Skyrim will own Dark Souls in EVERY SINGLE WAY.

It's on Xbox as well.

That's what I thought, but I have never played Demon's Souls and I was wondering how people who have played it felt about its scale compared to TES. Albeit, we have played neither Dark Souls nor Skyrim, and they could both be more epic than we can imagine, but I think we might have an idea.

I am not going to count the hours I am doing wasteful things with items or NPC lifespans (only to reload after) or alternate character play into the time it takes me to beat Skyrim for the first time. Counting deaths and ridiculous respawns as content seems off - perhaps he should time how long it takes to get through the game if you don't die, and compare that number.

It seems ridiculous for an OXM dude to directly compare a game he has played for 20 hours with a game he has maybe played for an hour at a gaming expo. I'll probably pick up Dark Souls, but honestly that article reeks of inception.

If you were to play through Demon Souls without counting death/respawn time, it would still be way less than doing MQ/Guilds/side quests in an ES game.

Thanks! Would you recommend Dark Souls to us 360 owners, though?

Skyrim is Skyrim

Dark Souls is Dark Souls

There really is not much to compare to be honest

I voted DS, Skyrim, Skyrim, Skyrim. It may end up a bigger game who knows. I know that I am getting Skyrim though before I even think about getting another game and it will last me a long time.

I can't recommend the purchase, but I can say if you have about 30 hours a week to devote to one game then pick up the game and stay away from strategy guides. Trial and error + discovery and freshness are the title's main focuses, using a strategy guide or the internet ruins the experience.

I remember after I finished the first world in Demon's Souls... I went in the fourth world just to explore, I ended up finding a BEASTLY 2 handed sword just sitting on the ground... strategy guides would have ruined that experience

Yeah, Demon's Souls was pretty brutal. Fantastic once you get a hang of it though. I definitely plan to pick up Dark Souls while waiting for Skyrim. Keep in mind when comparing, that most people never played Demon's Souls to the max level. It became generally accepted that level 120 was optimal (basically for PVP comparisons), even though you could take it all the way up to 700-and-something. Still though, 60 hours in and only 1/4 of the way through (I assume to total content??) could mean loads of fun. But yeah, as everyone above says, definitely need to take multiple (read: LOTS) of deaths and replaying into account, cause all the time builds up the timer. There's no saving and loading back before you die to reset the timer.

Yes, I would still recommend it. If you don't like punishingly difficult games stay far away though. I'm an "old school" gamer, so I don't mind the challenge, but it will break your soul...no pun intended :laugh:

Have you played Ninja Gaiden? Not the last one, but Black? Many people label it as a hard game, but Demon's Souls is much, much harder. If you found Gaiden too hard, you won't want to touch DS.

BTW, did the OXM journalist directly compare DS to Skyrim? The article talking about the 60 hour/quartet of the way playthrough is IGN?

I read up on Dark Souls and it doesn't seem to be anything like Skyrim. It's mantra is "prepare to die a lot" which does not seem fun to die repeatedly until you learn how "they" want you to play. Not my kind of game.

It sounds a lot like Ninja Gaiden 2 for RPG fans.

I've played Demon's souls, and can't wait for Dark souls. In demon's souls I died hundreds of times on my first play through, but once I beat that boss after the end of each level, BOY DID THAT FEEL REWARDING. Yes Demon's souls ends up being hours and hours because you die many times, but even after beating the game 6-7 times now I still can't get enough. So yes, it does have VERY high replay value. I have put well over 300 hours into demon's souls, and after you become a pro at the game, the levels are like 30 mins max, as opposed to 2 hours when you svcked. lol. Demon's souls also had something called new game+. After you have beaten the game, say you beat it at soul level 50, you start the next game with everything you had, BUT all the enemies are 4x as hard, making 1-1 feel as it did when you first started again. this process can be repeated and it gets harder every time for I think 5 new games. I didn't even get to the best part of all yet... PVP. Lets say you develop some skill and somehow manage to survive long enough in human form... well that may or may not last much longer. While you are just going along trying to beat the whole level and the boss to shift the world towards pure white tendency "Black phantom 1337guy666 invaded your world!" This means that another player has decided to be a jerk and try to kill you and make you start your world all over again and lose human status. While this may svck, it is amazingly fun. From software has done an amazing job making the combat seamless, balanced, and satisfying. You can't pick up demon's souls, and just kill anyone, the combat is made to where it actually takes skill rather than statistic. Now realizing I am extremely off track...


If Dark souls could take more hours of your life than Skyrim could this time around, I really wouldn't be surprised. It is many times more massive than demon's souls, it has improved pvp combat, and it's hard as a motherflip. The Demon's Souls series from From Software has to be the most rewarding, hardest, most re-playable games I will ever play... And Skyrim will kick ass too.

In reply to Erwan Gael: it's way harder than Ninja Gaiden, and it isn't hack and slash at all. It's a much deeper experience than Ninja Gaiden.

I am in no way comparing this to Skyrim, I am just simply answering the question of the poll. Skyrim and Dark souls will both be their own beast, neither is better than the other, because they simply are nothing the same.

Thank you for the insight. Yeah, you actually Ninja'd me there - at the same time as you said that I was making that connection in another post.

However, I referenced Ninja Gaiden 2. I have played both Black and 2 to completion, and I think 2 is the harder game. I certainly beat Black a lot quicker. Most of my gamer friends have agreed with me, but we may just be getting old.

And yeah, he made a direct comparison right there in the title. Ridiculously unprofessional, IMO.

Ninja Gaiden 2 was much easier than Ninja Gaiden Black on the original Xbox, so i'd compare it to Black more. Still though, the difficulty is nothing you've witnessed before.

Edit: We keep ninja'ing eachother :laugh: For whatever reason I found Black harder, and the much better game overall, but that's a discussion for another day

I would honestly rent DS first if you can, before dropping $60 on it and ending up not liking it.

Ninja Gaiden was also way more about hacking and slashing, while demon's souls is more about timing, watching your endurance meter (fatigue), and dodging as much as you possibly can waiting for a good opportunity to attack and not get smashed.

Alright, you just sold me on Dark Souls. Picking that up ASAP.

I was making the comparison in terms of relative difficulty for a genre - as Ninja Gaiden is to action games, Demon Souls is to RPG's - clearly the RPG is going to be the more complex and difficult game :celebration:

Interesting article. I liked Demon's Souls, beat it, but I didn't feel replay value was there. If Dark Souls has a more open world than Demon's Souls I may just pick it up earlier than I anticipated I would.