Arkham City, BF3, Or Skyrim?

[Phoenix]

Arkham City or Skyward Sword gets my vote.

 

[Slyfox696]

Cuz its Zelda, do I really need to give any more of a reason.

Yes.

I hear you on the extended gameplay, I understand that point but it doesn't mean that the 100 hours of gameplay is quality all the way through.

That's why the other couple hundred hours that is quality takes over???

The time you spend is completely dependent on how much time you want to spend. I could have finished Oblivion's main quest in 20-30 hours (I would guess). However, between side quests, enchanting your weapons and armor, creating your own spells, building potions, etc. you could spend as much time as you wanted.

Zelda is always the safer bet in my experience, I would still take Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time over almost any other game.

Your support is two games which came out 10-20 years ago?

Because I'm more of a Zelda fan than a Elder Scrolls fan, & Zelda is about the only RPG I've ever really been able to get into

Which is understandable, but to someone who doesn't seem to have such loyalties, why would you go for Zelda instead of Elder Scrolls?

I'd definitely say go for Skyrim. It's annoyingly good. Actually, you probably shouldn't get it, as you won't want to stop playing, I don't remember the last time I've played something this addictive.

I think it was called Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Two quick questions, because I'm not really a gamer.

1. Should I play Oblivion before playing Skyrim, or does it matter? Because it sounds interesting, but I don't know if it's absolutely necessary, or even preferable, to play IV before V?

2. How does it compare to Zelda? I have played a coule of the Zelda games and thought they were pretty good, how does Skyrim compare?

 

[Slyfox696]

Two quick questions, because I'm not really a gamer.

1. Should I play Oblivion before playing Skyrim, or does it matter? Because it sounds interesting, but I don't know if it's absolutely necessary, or even preferable, to play IV before V?

Not at all necessary. Recommended to play it though, because it's a great game.

2. How does it compare to Zelda? I have played a coule of the Zelda games and thought they were pretty good, how does Skyrim compare?

I've never been able to get into Zelda. So someone else might be better to ask.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Thanks.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Yes.

That's why the other couple hundred hours that is quality takes over???

The time you spend is completely dependent on how much time you want to spend. I could have finished Oblivion's main quest in 20-30 hours (I would guess). However, between side quests, enchanting your weapons and armor, creating your own spells, building potions, etc. you could spend as much time as you wanted.

Your support is two games which came out 10-20 years ago?

I have lots of loyalty to Zelda, I've played them all (Including Twilight Princess which BTW came out FIVE years ago not 10-20) and have always had immense fun. Frankly Zelda has never disappointed for me and the truth is I never got into Elder Scrolls. I can appreciate them as good games but never got into it personally, just not my cup of tea.

Also with Twilight Princess I played about 60-70 hours before I beat it the first time just doing random shit and enjoyed the game immensely. Reviews aren't always right but everyone who reviewed it says its better than Twilight Princess, if that's the case I'm sold.

 

[Slyfox696]

I have lots of loyalty to Zelda

Which this OP does not seem to have.

I've played them all (Including Twilight Princess which BTW came out FIVE years ago not 10-20)

That's great...let's look what you said which I quoted:

I would still take Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time over almost any other game.

Don't see anything about Twilight Princess, as your indignant post would have one believe.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Which this OP does not seem to have.

That's great...let's look what you said which I quoted:



Don't see anything about Twilight Princess, as your indignant post would have one believe.

First off you dont need to be loyal to Zelda to enjoy it. You're not able to get into it which is fine but there are millions of people who play Zelda and most of them aren't die hards as I am. Twilight Princess sales the first year had a near 1:1 ratio with people who bought a Wii. You don't have to be a die hard to enjoy any game, you just got to appreciate and have fun with it, I'm not loyal to Batman but I still love playing Arkham City.

With my initial posts I was just using the best examples I'm not going to list every awesome zelda game because there is plenty to choose from.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Sly, you know how to do everything.

Create 40 hour days. Or a potion that makes me not need sleep.

Please and thankyou.

 

[Slyfox696]

First off you dont need to be loyal to Zelda to enjoy it.

Never said you did. However, if one is not loyal to it, and they're choosing between Skyrim and Zelda, why pick Zelda? That's been my point the entire time.

Sly, you know how to do everything.

Create 40 hour days.

Already possible, you just have to fly backwards REALLY fast.

Or a potion that makes me not need sleep.

Isn't that what cocaine is for? I hear that's how Vince McMahon does it.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Never said you did. However, if one is not loyal to it, and they're choosing between Skyrim and Zelda, why pick Zelda? That's been my point the entire time.

Simply put Zelda is a storied franchise that never disappoints. You always know what you will get with Zelda and that's a quality game. Its rich in visuals, gameplay and storytelling and Skyward Sword is the perfect place to start as is the first game in the storyline. I'm just going off personal preference too, if you really want to recommend a game the best way to do that is ask the person what they like in gaming, their preferences, and go from there.

The OP gave 3 very different games as a choice so I just went with what I feel would be the best that's upcoming. The truth is there is no good reason to recommend Skyrim over Skyward Sword either, graphics and length don't matter, overall experience and gameplay matters

 

[Slyfox696]

The truth is there is no good reason to recommend Skyrim over Skyward Sword either, graphics and length don't matter, overall experience and gameplay matters

Gameplay and length very much add to the overall experience, so you cannot say they really don't matter. At the end of the day, aside from 1:1 swordplay (which does look intriguing) I doubt there is anything major you can do in Zelda you cannot do in Skyrim. The opposite cannot be said.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

thats what SHE said

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Gameplay and length very much add to the overall experience, so you cannot say they really don't matter. At the end of the day, aside from 1:1 swordplay (which does look intriguing) I doubt there is anything major you can do in Zelda you cannot do in Skyrim. The opposite cannot be said.

For me it doesn't matter who does what more, its who does it better is what I'm interested in. To be fair, Skyward Swords reviews have been higher than Skyrims bu every site that's reviewed both games, once again reviews don't always properly dictate what's better its all about personal taste.

For example Wrestlemania 21 had better graphics and was longer than Here Comes the Pain but Here Comes the Pain did everything better than Wrestlemania 21 therefore you would be more willing to play Here Comes the Pain. Note I'm not saying that Skyrim is Wrestlemania 21 cuz Wrestlemania 21 sucked and I can at least say Skyrim is a great game but if Zelda does everything superior to Skyrim, why not buy Zelda.

Both games are going to be a long, immensive experience, the truth is chances are the OP wins either way and only time will tell which game is better.

 

[Slyfox696]

For me it doesn't matter who does what more, its who does it better is what I'm interested in. To be fair, Skyward Swords reviews have been higher than Skyrims bu every site that's reviewed both games, once again reviews don't always properly dictate what's better its all about personal taste.

I own a website, and I think Skyrim is better. Reviewers will mark Dynasty Warriors 8 at a 5.0 because it's the same game as last time, and yet will rank Call of Duty a 9.

You see what reviews are worth.

but if Zelda does everything superior to Skyrim, why not buy Zelda.

That's the catch though. It doesn't. Aside from swordplay, what does it do better?

 

[Harthan]

I am entirely prepared to say that Skyrim is the best video game I have ever played. There is no other game this holiday season more essential to own. Buy it.

 

[Lee]

Thanks.

Zelda is more action adventure whilst Elder scrolls is a full out RPG.

Not much customisation in Zelda, tons in ES. Very different games to be honest.

I own a website, and I think Skyrim is better. Reviewers will mark Dynasty Warriors 8 at a 5.0 because it's the same game as last time, and yet will rank Call of Duty a 9.

It's sad because it's true.

You see what reviews are worth.

I always read the reviews rather than the score as you can read a review saying "average at best" and it gets 2 out of 10 or "This game is near perfection" and gets 10 (that last one was an exact quote from a review on skyrim).

That's the catch though. It doesn't. Aside from swordplay, what does it do better?

I don't think you can compare them, it's like comparing Mario Kart to Grand Theft Auto.

If you like Zelda get Zelda, if not get Skyrim. Though I think to answer the OPs question they should rent all three and see which one they like the most.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I own a website, and I think Skyrim is better. Reviewers will mark Dynasty Warriors 8 at a 5.0 because it's the same game as last time, and yet will rank Call of Duty a 9.

You see what reviews are worth.

That's the catch though. It doesn't. Aside from swordplay, what does it do better?

The real catch is we both don't actually know yet as Skyward Sword isn't out.

Reviews aren't always accurate but one thing I will say I usually look at IGN for reviews, mostly because 9 times out of 10 I agree with them so it works for me at least. Not saying they're right but they usually do well for my personal taste of games and they gave Skyward Sword a perfect score so I'm not going to ignore it.

Truthfully we will both be spinning our wheels until Skyward actually comes out. Yes I'm arguing a game that isn't out but I have the upmost confidence in Zelda and believe it will be better. All we can do is play both games, decide which game does what better and go from there based on personal preference. After that we probably still won't agree so all I can say is this, the OP will be satisfied either way and no matter which game he buys he will enjoy it, I can't see how the OP WOULDN'T like them unless he doesn't like RPG's or epic sandbox adventures.

 

[Muffin Top Merkley]

None of these choices can really be compared to another.

Skyrim will get you the most "bang for your buck" with over 100 hours of story to play, plus 300+ hours of additional gameplay (even when the story ends, the game still continues because there is a civil war taking place & you can choose sides,) If you're comfortable with open-world games, this would be a good bet.

BF3 is said to have a very, very shitty single-player compaign, but one of the best multiplayers for a FPS. If you don't like playing online, I'd avoid this. If you enjoy playing shooters online, this litterally provides endless play.

Arkham City is mainly story driven with additional challenge rooms. It's five times larger than Arkham Asylum, but with the same gameplay. If you want a strong, linear story & enjoyed Arkham Asylum, this might be the game for you.

 

[Remix]

I own a website, and I think Skyrim is better. Reviewers will mark Dynasty Warriors 8 at a 5.0 because it's the same game as last time, and yet will rank Call of Duty a 9.

You see what reviews are worth.

But Sly, in Dynasty Warriors all you do is press one or two buttons and kill a swarm of enemies to progress through linear stories based loosely on ancient Chinese history. As opposed to Call of Duty where all you do is press one or two buttons to kill a swarm of enemies to progress through linear stories that are loosely based on events of recent history. They're totally not the same thing.

 

[Ming]

Skyrim. EASILY.

 

[Uncle Sam]

But Sly, in Dynasty Warriors all you do is press one or two buttons and kill a swarm of enemies to progress through linear stories based loosely on ancient Chinese history. As opposed to Call of Duty where all you do is press one or two buttons to kill a swarm of enemies to progress through linear stories that are loosely based on events of recent history. They're totally not the same thing.

I'm not one to defend Call of Duty, but let's not get carried away.

One the one hand, you have Dynasty Warriors. When the current Dynasty Warriors formula first appeared eleven years ago in Dynasty Warriors 2, it was hardly a revolutionary addition to the hack-and-slash genre. Simple and addictive, yes, but nothing particularly remarkable. The game, albeit with some updated tech and some basic strategy elements thrown in, essentially has remained unchanged through countless iterations. They've added samurais, they've added giant mechs - it's all essentially the same game. We're currently on Dynasty Warriors 7, which might not seem like so many installments if you don't take re-releases, Samurai Warriors, Warriors Orochi and the Gundam spin-offs into account.

On the other hand, you have Call of Duty. The Call of Duty formula in its current form first appeared four years ago with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It was revolutionary. I don't like its influence - strawberry jam death screens, lunging one-kill knives, going prone, perks, a million varieties of machine guns that all do the same thing, commercials with rap soundtracks, iron sights, sprinting and corridors with infinitely respawning enemies can all take a dick to the eye socket. I'm not going to lie and say that the updates to the franchise have been more than incremental. Even stuff like zombies haven't really altered the game much. That said, the difference between Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 3 is larger than that between Dynasty Warriors 2 and Dynasty Warriors 6.

One is driven by the lack of Japanese gamers demanding innovative games, the other is driven by the lack of western gamers demanding innovative games.

At the end of the day, Dynasty Warriors is a basic hack-and-slasher. It does what it does well, but it doesn't so much. Call of Duty, much as I don't like it and its influence, is much more complex and a more impressive achievement. Deserving of a 9? Likely not. On the same level as Dynasty Warriors? Let's not be drastic.

 

[Slyfox696]

On the other hand, you have Call of Duty. The Call of Duty formula in its current form first appeared four years ago with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It was revolutionary.

If you've played Super Contra on the Nintendo, you'd realize Call of Duty isn't really that revolutionary.

 

[Harthan]

I think that Call of Duty does change to a degree more than Dynasty Warriors in successive installations, but not by a massive margin. That said I would honestly rather play Dynasty Warriors than Call of Duty.

 

[asslber]

You gotta go with Skyrim, no questions asked. Either Skyrim or Arkham City, can't really go wrong with either one.