Help me decide what to play next!

July 5, 2013 6:53 AM

For years, I've lived by an absolutely inflexible rule: I will play only one console video game at a time until I beat it. I'm about to finish Deus Ex: Human Revolution on the 360, and my next game will be either Skyrim or Batman: Arkham City. Each is well-reviewed--which one should I play first? Heavy weight is given to freedom/non-linear gameplay and short load times. Again, this is on the 360.

I don't get a lot of time to play games, and it has taken me--with no exaggeration--over a year to finish DE:HR. For a long time, I was stealthily sneaking around, but now I'm just blowing shit up and killing everyone just to finish the game and move on.

My big qualms with DE:HR is that, for all the decision making, you're really on rails--each chapter requires you to complete a few objectives, and your only freedom is the tools you use (stealth, force, hacking, etc.). You must complete the objectives to move forward. I want more freedom.

And, good lord, the reload times on the 360 when you die are insanely long. I just can't bear it much longer.

So, if I'm looking for freedom and for quick reloading times, which of Skyrim and Arkham City should I play first on the 360?

I'm definitely going to play them both, I just want to know which to play first based on these criteria. I don't want to try them both--I think that if I personally try them both and one is a clear winner, I'll have too much of a preconceived notion of how much I will enjoy the runner-up selection, particularly given how long it takes me to finish a game. Your recommendations will help keep the second game fresh!

posted by Admiral Haddock to Sports, Hobbies, & Recreation (22 answers total)

First of all I have a PS3, so no idea on loading times for you. Skyrim on the PS3 definitely has longer loading times than Batman, but on the other hand you can save PC style at any time, which helps.

Skyrim will take you a very, very long time to beat if you explore all the content. At your pace maybe a couple of years. So bear that in mind.

The two are very different games in some ways: Skyrim is an RPG vs an open world action game. I would say that Skyrim has a lot more net freedom in that you can really do what ever you want and there is an absolutely silly amount of side content (IE, whole long 6-8 hour non-main questlines). Plus you can alter your playstyle more with different character design choices more than Batman. On the other hand, the combat in Batman is a lot more satisfying.
posted by selfnoise at 7:03 AM on July 5, 2013

So, if I'm looking for freedom and for quick reloading times, which of Skyrim and Arkham City should I play first on the 360?

I can't speak to loading times on the 360 (and because I honestly don't remember for the PS3), but for freedom of gameplay, you really can't beat Skyrim. Arkham City is "free form" in the sense that there's some freedom of choice in completing side quests and the like, but it's nothing like Skyrim which is much more of an actually open world where there's tons of stuff to do. So much that you really might want to reconsider it if you're actually trying to "beat it" in the sense of completing all the content.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:04 AM on July 5, 2013

I haven't played Arkham City, but Skyrim is among the most open games of this sort I've ever played. I suppose you could do the main quest linearly and call it a day, but you don't have to do the main quest at all, if you don't want to. And (assuming you do) along the way, you're bound to run into tons and tons of other things to do. All of which you're free to ignore, postpone, do immediately, etc.

Generally speaking, Bethesda's games of this sort are always this way: extremely open and nonlinear. Other games in the Elder Scrolls series, as well as games in Bethesda's portion of the Fallout series (I'm not saying pre-Bethesda Fallout was not this way; I've just never played pre-Bethesda Fallout yet, so I can't say one way or the other).
posted by Flunkie at 7:11 AM on July 5, 2013

I should say: I bought Skyrim about a month before the birth of lil selfnoise... that would have been around January 2012. I still haven't beaten it. My character is level 36 so I shudder to think of my total hours of play. To be honest the main quest isn't very long, but there are many, many, many distractions. I pick it up once every few months and play for a week or so.
posted by selfnoise at 7:14 AM on July 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

First: they're both terrific games and worth playing. That said, skyrim, while collosal and awesome, becomes very easy past a certain point, as most enemies level until they meet you for the first time. While the tombs do throw out harder iterations of bad guys, there came a point in the game where hardly anything could challenge me, so while there was still a fair amount of content for me to do (I hadn't actually completed the main plot) I didn't realy feel like doing the rest. If you really feel the need to actually complete everything I think Skyrim might be a bit tedious because of this problem. Arkham City's later challenges are actually pretty hard, so for a completionist I'd think its more fun. That said, it has much less freedom: all the many many side quests are available from quit early on, but the main content of the game is the main plot, which has to be done in order.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 7:21 AM on July 5, 2013

Response by poster: Thanks for the answers so far--pretty much as I figured w/r/t freedom. I should have added that I played Elder Scrolls for forever, and so I'm familiar with the series's open world and sidequests (I know literally nothing about Arkham City). I wouldn't say I go for 100% completion, but I do loves me a sidequest.

Can anyone speak specifically to the load times on the 360? Thanks to selfnoise for pointing out the ability to save any time--that's definitely my preference...
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:37 AM on July 5, 2013

Open world: You really can't do better than Skyrim when it comes to open-world gameplay. Arkham Asylum is more open-world than a lot of games but it pales in comparison to Skyrim. As others have mentioned, Skyrim is so open-world that completing every last little piece of the game is unrealistic. There are main quests and side quests and miscellaneous quests (many of which can be completed an infinite number of times).

Loading times: I played Skyrim on the xBox 360. I'm pretty sensitive to loading times and I really wasn't bothered by them in Skryim. I thought that the loading times for Skyrim were better than they were for Oblivion. And for what it's worth, the loading screens are a lot more interesting in Skyrim than they were in Oblivion, too.

Miscellaneous: I agree with Cannon Fodder's note that once you seriously level up your Skyrim character, the "challenge" of the game noticeably diminishes. Just like in Oblivion. But one caveat: if you install a DLC, the challenge comes back. (At least, this was my experience after I installed the Dawnguard and Hearthfire add-ons.) It was confusing at first, though I still enjoyed the game. Something to keep in mind.
posted by The Girl Who Ate Boston at 7:44 AM on July 5, 2013

I use the XBox 360.

Loading on Skyrim only happens when you... well... load (e.g. you start up the game and load your last save) or when you enter or exit something like a building, cave, or a distinct zone of a building or cave or whatever. There is no loading as you're just running around; you could run from one end of Skyrim to the other with absolutely no loading.

When it does happen, it's... I don't know... fifteen seconds? Maybe? This is a total guess.
posted by Flunkie at 7:47 AM on July 5, 2013

You should play Arkham Asylum then Arkham City because they're amazing and won't take nearly as long as Skyrim, and then you can play Skyrim fooooooreverrrrrrr.

So, if I'm looking for freedom and for quick reloading times, which of Skyrim and Arkham City should I play first on the 360?

Dark horse suggestion because it came out the same day as Skyrim... play Dark Souls! But... I'm biased because I found Skyrim boring and hollow.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 7:52 AM on July 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

Arkham city is not particularly open world. You can fuck about, but it's telling you a story and wants you to stick with the script. Also it's not really a video game so much as a bunch of quicktime events.

So: Dark Souls. Very exploration based with a few plot points one must hit at times to unlock new areas. No load screens except when you die, and they're pretty short. Which is good, because you'll die frequently until you get out of the "press x repeatedly to win" mindset.
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:53 AM on July 5, 2013 [4 favorites]

Like you I only play one game at a time and I've been working on skyrim since Christmas 2011 I think. I have a 360. I can't really compare loading times because I don't play enough games to tell what's normal, but the skyrim load times seemed incredibly long. So frustrating! Especially bad if you are tying to leave an extensive dungeon and then fast travel when you might need to load three times in a row. The loading is long enough that I always had my knitting beside me to work on during loading - I'm thinking a minute to two minutes each time. (Seriously long enough that I kept thinking the game had stalled or something). But Skyrim is still worth it.
posted by heybearica at 8:05 AM on July 5, 2013

One suggestion is that you'll probably have better load times if you download the game to your 360 hard drive instead of playing from the disc.
posted by meta87 at 8:29 AM on July 5, 2013

Another comment from one of the zealously converted (Dark Souls fans are like Ayn Rand fans in their evangelism, I guess): Skyrim offers the promise of an endlessly expansive and interesting adventure, but in reality I found it bland and vanilla after around 30 hours. It's like a lovely landscape painting that doesn't hold up well upon careful examination. Dark Souls, on the other hand, was nonstop edge-of-my-seat tension and exploration, with complete immersion and investment in the world and my character.
posted by naju at 8:45 AM on July 5, 2013

Best answer: You should play Arkham City because it's a better game with extremely well-tuned gameplay mechanics and because the loading screens in Skyrim will absolutely get annoying if you're sensitive to that.

Arkham City is an open world, moreso than DX:HR was even though it isn't the size of Skyrim -- you can explore the city finding Riddler trophies, solving Riddles, and tackling sidequests rather than playing the main story.

One of the most frequent criticism of Skyrim is that it has the breadth of an ocean and the depth of a puddle. The world is huge, and there's theoretically a lot of stuff to do, but a lot of it is repetitive and kind of cookie cutter. Not that it isn't a good game in its own way, but I got bored of it, and the loading times didn't help, whereas I played all the way through Arkham City and then went back for a New Game+.
posted by ludwig_van at 9:01 AM on July 5, 2013

Yeah, have you played Arkham Asylum yet? Cause that game is a lot of fun, but it's definitely pretty on-rails. Not having played Arkham City myself yet, I can't tell you whether or not it's required or even helpful to have played AA first or not. Maybe someone who has can chime in?

I'm similar in my gaming to you now, as I don't have much time to do it. But I like to try and complete a game before moving on. In your case, I'd probably go for Batman first, just because Skyrim can literally occupy you for YEARS at your pace.

OnTheLastCastle: "Dark horse suggestion because it came out the same day as Skyrim... play Dark Souls!"

Unless you enjoy slamming your actual head against actual walls because you love self-inflicted pain, I would avoid playing Dark Souls. Ever. And especially avoid it if you don't have hours and hours and hours of free time to repeat killing the same impossible to kill enemies over and over and over because they respawn everywhere always.
posted by Grither at 9:04 AM on July 5, 2013

Response by poster: One of the most frequent criticism of Skyrim is that it has the breadth of an ocean and the depth of a puddle.

Yeah, I found Oblivion to be like that, and I assume Skyrim will be a bit similar. And, as others have noted above, if you spend a lot of time playing sidequests before the main story, the main quest can be very easy.

Dark Souls Evangelists: your enthusiasm is duly noted, and I may be on the lookout for a copy in two years+ once I finish Skyrim and Arkham City. But the choice really and truly is one or the other of those two.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 9:06 AM on July 5, 2013

I played Skyrim on an Xbox 360 and the load times were the worst of any game I have played in recent times. When you're just running around the world, the game runs smoothly. What I found most frustrating though was that every time you you go into or leave a store or a house there is an obscenely long load time. There are also long load times when you enter caves. The cave part isn't so bad because you tend to spend a long time in the cave, which makes up for the long load time. The store/house load times were painful. I would literally start playing a game on my phone or read for while the game loaded.
posted by parakeetdog at 2:08 PM on July 5, 2013

Best answer: I agree with parakeetdog: the load times for Skyrim were pretty bad. The screen shows you a statue that you can rotate while it loads, but that only kept my interest the first time or two I saw each statue. After that, it was boooooring.

Arkham City has a linear story, but lots of things to do in the open world as well. I would compare it to a shorter version of a Grand Theft Auto game. Some people (even some people here) complain that it is just QuickTime button mashing, but I personally really enjoy the combat in it. It has a rhythm and flow that is engaging to me.

Oh, and Skyrim bored me after a few hours and I quit playing it. There were *too many* different ways to play (too many ways to make armor, too many items to manage in the inventory, too many kinds of magical enhancements, etc.).
posted by tacodave at 3:59 PM on July 5, 2013

OK, I just played Skyrim on the XBox 360 for approximately two real life hours, and kept track of the loading times. I will give individual load times at the end of this comment, but first some summary:

The initial load of the save file was significantly longer than any other load time.

Also, I suspect that the relatively large load times for entering "Lakeview Manor" (approximately 30 seconds apiece) are due to the fact that I'm a hoarder, and I have hoarded literally tens of thousands of items (possibly hundreds of thousands), the vast majority of which I have stored in Lakeview Manor.

So, I am going to give three separate sets of totals and averages:

(A) All-inclusive
(B) Excluding initial load
(C) Excluding initial load and entering Lakeview Manor


(A) Total: 9 minutes, 46 seconds
(A) Average: 27 seconds

(B) Total: 8 minutes, 11 seconds
(B) Average: 24 seconds

(C) Total: 5 minutes, 30 seconds
(C) Average: 22 seconds

And the details:

1:15 - Initial load -> Exterior
0:15 - Exterior -> Windpeak Inn
0:18 - Windpeak Inn -> Exterior
0:18 - Exterior -> Hob's Fall Cave
0:24 - Hob's Fall Cave -> Exterior
0:29 - Exterior -> Lakeview Manor
0:15 - Lakeview Manor -> Lakeview Manor, Cellar
0:29 - Lakeview Manor, Cellar -> Lakeview Manor
0:15 - Lakeview Manor -> Lakeview Manor, Cellar
0:30 - Lakeview Manor, Cellar -> Lakeview Manor
0:48 - Lakeview Manor -> Exterior
0:31 - Exterior -> Lakeview Manor
0:15 - Lakeview Manor -> Lakeview Manor, Cellar
0:32 - Lakeview Manor, Cellar -> Lakeview Manor
0:48 - Lakeview Manor -> Exterior
0:14 - Exterior -> Grave Concoctions
0:14 - Grave Concoctions -> Exterior
0:16 - Exterior -> Gray Pine Goods
0:15 - Gray Pine Goods -> Exterior
0:29 - Exterior -> Halldir's Cairn
0:26 - Halldir's Cairn -> Exterior
0:30 - Exterior -> Lakeview Manor
posted by Flunkie at 7:13 PM on July 5, 2013 [3 favorites]

Response by poster: I finished DE:HR over the weekend (glory be), and decided to play Arkham City. Thanks to all who responded.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 6:34 AM on July 9, 2013

Response by poster: I should add that it's totally fun and load times are short. A really great contrast to DE:HR.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 6:17 AM on July 19, 2013 [1 favorite]

Response by poster: And a final (I swear!) follow up: I started playing Skyrim, and I loathe it. Load times are interminable and frequent. The game itself oscillates between boring and laughable. I played long enough to hear an NPC say he took an arrow to the knee, and that's it for me. A rare game I'll abandon, but it deserves a special exception. I'll give it to Goodwill and buy GTA V.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:50 PM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]