Which game has deeper lore: This or Skyrim?

#121DaLaggaPosted 12/25/2012 5:26:19 AM
BigHatLongCoat posted...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profound
1a : having intellectual depth and insight
b : difficult to fathom or understand
2a : extending far below the surface
3a : characterized by intensity of feeling or quality
b : all encompassing : complete <profound sleep> <profound deafness>

Only 3 applies to The Elder Scrolls; all of these apply to Dark Souls. Its main story is highly conceptual and mythological. It's about ideas rather than events. Dark and Light. Life and Death. Humanity. You don't meet a living human during the entire course of the game. Lodran is not a normal human world; it is the underworld of a larger world that we know little about directly. Dark Souls lore is far more "profound" and has far greater intellectual depth compared to The Elder Scrolls which, while generally good, is very generic.


You have yet to explain how anything in Dark Souls has even the slightest amount of intellectual depth. By your logic, if we randomly removed 99% of the lore from TES, it'd have a lot more depth because none of it would make much sense and you'd have to invent most of the story on your own. Which is precisely what you have to do with Dark Souls. There's next to nothing to go on and what little we do know is not deep or innovative in the slightest. It's just a generic dark fantasy world with a brief and fragmentary plot/lore.
#122slayer921Posted 12/25/2012 5:45:44 AM
which one

skyrim : sissy game but actually has a story

dark souls : hard as h*ll but most of the time, you must find out the story yourself
---
PSN : Hobbes921
PSN : Muramasa_Ciaran
#123Guillaume777Posted 12/25/2012 6:36:45 AM(edited)
This debate reminds me of a very well though off article about the lore in Skyrim vs Dark Souls:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7290527/one-night-skyrim-makes-strong-man-crumble

Basically, the main point is that the lore in Skyrim doesn't really need to be there in the first place for the game to work. The strengths of Skyrim - the endless exploration, the freedom to set your own goals, the joy of discovering the world - do not need the lore Skyrim has.

In fact, the lore in Skyrim would probably be better off being taken off the game and put into a "big fat fantasy novel". Reading about character interactions would be far more entertaining than listening to an interminable monologue from an NPC while he undynamically cycles through his half dozen animations. Skyrim dialogues just aren't dramatically interesting.

The author goes further still and is willing to "wager that the sort of person who loves Skyrim's expository lore loves expository lore of all kinds — loves expository lore in principle. Asking an expository-lore-loving gamer whether there should be expository lore in a game like Skyrim is like asking an alcoholic if he'd like a drink. (He would.)".

Be honest. How many of you skipped through the lengthy expository narrative sequences of Skyrim?

Compares this to Dark Souls. In Dark Souls, the primary vessels for storytelling are the nonpareil environments and the player's experience within those environments. The lore is never shoved in your face through tedious dialogue, but instead subtly included in the environment you traverse and in the descriptions of the items you collect. Essentially, the stories of Demon's and Dark Souls are told in a way that only video games can tell stories.

And that makes the lore of Dark Souls far more suited to the videogame medium than anything coming from a TES game.
#124Cecero2Posted 12/25/2012 6:57:34 AM
Elder scrolls (skyrim) definitely has deeper lore. To say otherwise is just confusing your own bias into answering the question.

There are too many holes in the dark souls lore that the player needs to fill on their own. Even if you watch ENBs videos he fills In a lot of speculative holes.

I think dark souls has better lore, but that doesn't make it deeper. I also think dark souls is a better game. A much much better game. That also doesn't make the story deeper.
#125Xdz89Posted 12/25/2012 7:09:07 AM
Number4Rocket posted...
Scorex_VII posted...
Ummm... So, who is "Sen"? Since there is "Sen´s fortress"... Yeah, i know.


Does knowing Sen's birthdate, age at death, number of children, favorite food, architectural degree, and other tidbits actually matter, or is it filler?

Sen is the guy who constructed the fortress to test the undead who managed to ring the two bells. Knowing other details that aren't further tied to the overarching plot doesn't really do much.


Yes, all of the info you mentioned is filler, but you failed to mention the compelling things that would also be told to, maybe not for every character but for a lot of them. What motivated him to build this place past "I wanna test this stuff"? did he have experience with undead before? Did he have any other adventures before? After? No one is going to argue that every bit of lore and historical information in Skyrim is absolutely necessary, let alone compelling. In fact, I agree with one of the above comments that 50-75% of the exposition and back story could be cut from it and it would still be fun.

The last sentence of your comment there is where I find it difficult to believe you are looking at this with an objective point of view, because information about people outside of the overarching plot is what makes most fictional histories deep.
#126Xdz89Posted 12/25/2012 7:31:48 AM
Guillaume777 posted...
This debate reminds me of a very well though off article about the lore in Skyrim vs Dark Souls:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7290527/one-night-skyrim-makes-strong-man-crumble

Basically, the main point is that the lore in Skyrim doesn't really need to be there in the first place for the game to work. The strengths of Skyrim - the endless exploration, the freedom to set your own goals, the joy of discovering the world - do not need the lore Skyrim has.

In fact, the lore in Skyrim would probably be better off being taken off the game and put into a "big fat fantasy novel". Reading about character interactions would be far more entertaining than listening to an interminable monologue from an NPC while he undynamically cycles through his half dozen animations. Skyrim dialogues just aren't dramatically interesting.

The author goes further still and is willing to "wager that the sort of person who loves Skyrim's expository lore loves expository lore of all kinds — loves expository lore in principle. Asking an expository-lore-loving gamer whether there should be expository lore in a game like Skyrim is like asking an alcoholic if he'd like a drink. (He would.)".

Be honest. How many of you skipped through the lengthy expository narrative sequences of Skyrim?

Compares this to Dark Souls. In Dark Souls, the primary vessels for storytelling are the nonpareil environments and the player's experience within those environments. The lore is never shoved in your face through tedious dialogue, but instead subtly included in the environment you traverse and in the descriptions of the items you collect. Essentially, the stories of Demon's and Dark Souls are told in a way that only video games can tell stories.

And that makes the lore of Dark Souls far more suited to the videogame medium than anything coming from a TES game.


I agree with most of your comment, because I DO enjoy almost all medieval/fantasy fiction, but that doesn't make whats bad worse or whats good better. I'd like to think that I can tell what a good story is or a bad story is. I won't argue for a single minute that all of skyrims story is good, and there are PLENTY of plot holes here and there, but many holes are filled by books in the world. Are they filled neatly with a little bow and really profound story? Mostly no. But there is plenty of profound topics in the universe.

Your quote about the alcoholic is good, but I still bet he has a better taste than you or I about good liquor and bad liquor, its just that he doesn't care which it is.

The only part I may take issue with is that DS story is told in a way that only video games can tell. This really depends on the game. For instance, the way games like Mass Effect and the walking dead handle dialogue may not be very "gamey" but it would be difficult to get user/viewer input through any other medium, while tying it all together. The DS story would have the same effect for the watcher as it does for the player. More player-focused games tell a more personal story, so the person sitting next to you may not entirely understand your choices in certain situations or why certain actions affect you much.

For instance my hero in Skyrim is a chaotic-neutral thief type who started out normal went through a few guilds and then became a werewolf, however he then felt bad because of his wanton killing and decided to cure his lycanthrope an then went on to be the thieves guild master AND mages guild master, and now most days just quests about doing his own thing. DS is more about the worlds story instead of the player story. Neither one could be conveyed very well in another medium, but saying one style is better than the other is a matter of preference in the end.
#127-Damien-Posted 12/25/2012 8:16:09 AM
Xdz89 posted...
Guillaume777 posted...
This debate reminds me of a very well though off article about the lore in Skyrim vs Dark Souls:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7290527/one-night-skyrim-makes-strong-man-crumble

.


that's very good article, basically the notion that Skyrim has depth is just an illusion, a 1000-pages book that tells nothing, just a bloated bull****, epic-wannabe trash
#128wyvernhbabyPosted 12/25/2012 8:59:52 AM
By some of the post I'm reading it seems even kingdom hearts has "more". but that certainly doesn't make it deeper.
#129CaliberChampPosted 12/25/2012 9:09:27 AM(edited)
After reading this topic, I confirmed my beliefs that dark soul fan boys are the worst, they even try changing definition terms. Guess what though, the word depth has the same meaning for years. Don't act like you're smart cause you are pretty dumb. All those debate classes did was make you argue about rock solid facts.
---
Recommended games: Guild Wars 2, The Witcher 2, Skyrim, Batman arkham city, Brutal Legend
Terrible games: Dark Souls, Demon Souls, Diablo 3, X-Com, War Z
#130Magoo111Posted 12/25/2012 9:14:43 AM(edited)
Skyrim itself doesn't add nearly enough lore or depth to be deeper than Dark Souls.

Now, the series as a whole is deeper than Dark Souls, but that's to be expected.

Guillaume777 posted...
This debate reminds me of a very well though off article about the lore in Skyrim vs Dark Souls:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7290527/one-night-skyrim-makes-strong-man-crumble


While I only grabbed the top of what this poster wrote, I do agree with him in general.

CaliberChamp posted...
After reading this topic, I confirmed my beliefs that dark soul fan boys are the worst, they even try changing definition terms. Guess what though, the word depth has the same meaning for years. Don't act like you're smart cause you are pretty dumb. All those debate classes did was make you argue about rock solid facts.


And after reading this post, I confirmed that you're rude and wrong.
---
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]