Darksiders II

It ok, first one is a much better game though. Worth it if you're getting them all in a package deal I guess.

I liked Darksiders 1 quite a bit more, but Darksiders 2 is still a good game.

Darksiders 1's dungeons feel like Zelda dungeons and I prefer how it did equipment and leveling up. It was also a bit more slower paced and deliberate on combat.

Darksiders 2's dungeons feel more like Prince of Persia and has Diablo style random loot and the combat is faster, but doesn't feel as weighty.

Darksiders 2 still has good art direction (which was amazing in DS1), but the whole experience is marred a bit by the extremely drab undead world section that isn't very fun to look at and you spend way too much time there. The art also over all feels kinda "toned-down" in comparison to DS1 for much of the game, which I think was a mistake. It just doesn't feel quite as colorful as it should.

i'm really enjoying this game which is surprising because i hated darksiders

I'm definitely going to echo some of what Sean said, that Darksiders 1 had a bit of a more appealing color palette in a lot of the world. There's also sections in DS2 that i felt were kind of a chore (visiting Earth for example). It's still a good game, and if you like Darksiders 1 you'll definitely like the second. I did like the loot differences in two, but I think War was a better main character than Death was for me as well.

Simply put ~ Its worth playing.

While the game is fun and the art design is phenomenal, the way the game handles puzzles and story advancement is pure shit. It's blatantly apparent that they ran out of steam and just stretched the gameplay by adding pointless puzzles.

No spoilers, but in the 3rd act, you basically just do 12309182319238 puzzles to get from one point of the map to the other. Puzzle after puzzle after puzzle after puzzle, to just open a door and run on another pointless errand.

Which brings up the major point: Death is a fucking wanker. He's ignorant of everything he shouldn't be to further the story and is misused as the player character. This is motherfucking DEATH, a horseman, one of four, bringer of end times; and Vigil would have us assume his avatar to run errands for assholes. His motives are fine, but his "ok, whatever, I'll do your dirty work" vibe just doesn't mesh with who he is supposed to be.

Also, more God of War, less Zelda-lite. It's a shame so many good ideas go to seed with such a piss poor understanding for pacing and dynamism.

Sean_sl said:

the whole experience is marred a bit by the extremely drab undead world section that isn't very fun to look at and you spend way too much time there.

Click to expand...

I have to second this. I picked up DS2 right after finishing DS1 and really just lost momentum on that second act. You have an epic boss battle at the end of act 1 that cast a shadow over everything else and I can't get myself to pick up the game.

Beef Supreme_sl said:

Also, more God of War, less Zelda-lite. It's a shame so many good ideas go to seed with such a piss poor understanding for pacing and dynamism.

Click to expand...

I'd rather they do the exact opposite. Less combat, more Zelda-designed Dungeons. Darksiders 1 was a better game *because* it was more like Zelda in its dungeon designs than Darksiders 2 was. Darksiders 2 was basically like the newer Prince of Persia games in its dungeons and was worse off because of it.

We don't need more Devil May Cry style combat-action games like God of War and all its bretheren that were birthed from DMC - there's plenty. On the other hand we BADLY need more Zelda style dungeon crawler games, because there's... well there's Zelda and Darksiders 1 and that's pretty much it and it's a god damned shame.

Sean_sl said:

I'd rather they do the exact opposite. Less combat, more Zelda-designed Dungeons. Darksiders 1 was a better game *because* it was more like Zelda in its dungeon designs than Darksiders 2 was. Darksiders 2 was basically like the newer Prince of Persia games in its dungeons and was worse off because of it.

We don't need more Devil May Cry style combat-action games like God of War and all its bretheren that were birthed from DMC - there's plenty. On the other hand we BADLY need more Zelda style dungeon crawler games, because there's... well there's Zelda and Darksiders 1 and that's pretty much it and it's a god damned shame.

Click to expand...

As long as they don't phone in the puzzles like they did with most of DS2.

Sean_sl said:

I'd rather they do the exact opposite. Less combat, more Zelda-designed Dungeons. Darksiders 1 was a better game *because* it was more like Zelda in its dungeon designs than Darksiders 2 was. Darksiders 2 was basically like the newer Prince of Persia games in its dungeons and was worse off because of it.

We don't need more Devil May Cry style combat-action games like God of War and all its bretheren that were birthed from DMC - there's plenty. On the other hand we BADLY need more Zelda style dungeon crawler games, because there's... well there's Zelda and Darksiders 1 and that's pretty much it and it's a god damned shame.

Click to expand...

Well shit, I totally agree. These bastard children are the ones that irk me and it's easier to go GoW than Zelda. Lowest common denominator; ask the least of devs because expecting something more isn't in the cards. Unless your're CD Projeckt Red.

It's that they want to wear the most amount of hats to please the most people, and end up making something pale, forgettable and generic. I don't think Vigil has a handle on how marry a meaningful story with meaningful/thoughtful/clever game play.

With the first one, I tried both with a controller and mkb on the PC, I could not stomach any more of the hookshot bullshit and quit around the time you got to the Archangel. I didn't go crazy for the first one, but I am not a fan of puzzle/gimmick games in the first place. I didn't expect the 2nd to be so close to Prince of Persia, as you mentioned. Vigil is just grabbing mechanics from other games in place of their own ideas and it shows.

With THQ going through bankruptcy and Vigil losing Joe Mad, I shudder to think how many masters they will try to serve with the next one.

Sean_sl said:

I'd rather they do the exact opposite. Less combat, more Zelda-designed Dungeons. Darksiders 1 was a better game *because* it was more like Zelda in its dungeon designs than Darksiders 2 was. Darksiders 2 was basically like the newer Prince of Persia games in its dungeons and was worse off because of it.

We don't need more Devil May Cry style combat-action games like God of War and all its bretheren that were birthed from DMC - there's plenty. On the other hand we BADLY need more Zelda style dungeon crawler games, because there's... well there's Zelda and Darksiders 1 and that's pretty much it and it's a god damned shame.

Click to expand...

I like DS2, not as much as DS1 granted. But I have to agree. I walked away from DS1 thinking "holy shit, that was an awesome game with some zelda shit thrown in." Wish they would have stuck closer to that design philosophy in hindsight.

to be perfectly honest, i'm happy with the changes. i'm only about 9-10 hours in to DS2, and i'm loving it. it is a different game than the first one, but that's okay. because it's a different game. i like that death plays differently than war. i like that it borrows from prince of persia. because prince of persia is a fun game. just like zelda is a fun game. these were very similar to the complaints from the first game. "oh it's just zelda with a different skin!" SO WHAT! zelda fricken rocks!

same with God of War/DMC style action. so what! is it fun? it is for me, and that's all i can comment on. i can't say which i like better yet, as i haven't finished it and i may change my mind entirely by the end of the game... but i like death. i like how he's more the agile hit-and-run character, as opposed to war being a tank. i feel like it gives meaning to them being different characters.

now, does it all work? no. mostly, i think. but not completely. and that's fine. because it is at least putting SOME effort into evolving. i'd rather a game TRY to be innovative and fail, then sit on it's laurels and be "safe."

They could have innovated without completely abandoning almost everything from the first game.

Gavinrad_sl said:

They could have innovated without completely abandoning almost everything from the first game.

Click to expand...

what exactly do you mean by "almost everything"? i mean... that seems a little obtuse... if you've got a beef with the game, that's fine. to each his own... just, that's a cop-out statement.

the earth levels in darksiders were somehow more depressing to me than the undead levels in darksiders 2. they were just visually unappealing and i also preferred darksiders 2's combat.

I liked the first one. The second one I've stayed away from, because it appears to have caught dlc-itis. Some titles can command that devotion. This franchise hasn't earned that from me yet. To be honest, what bothered me about the first game were the puzzles. Throw them into Zelda games and whatnot because they fit. If I'm one of the four horsemen of the fucking apocalypse, I shouldn't be shifting stones or jump starting arcane electronics. I should be wrecking shit, plain and simple. The puzzles were weak and felt thrown in, as if they were a prerequisite just because it was an adventure/platformer. The story wasn't bad and the voice acting was good. I was a bit surprised when I found out who Mark Hamill voiced.

Bacon_sl said:

I liked the first one. The second one I've stayed away from, because it appears to have caught dlc-itis. Some titles can command that devotion. This franchise hasn't earned that from me yet. To be honest, what bothered me about the first game were the puzzles. Throw them into Zelda games and whatnot because they fit. If I'm one of the four horsemen of the fucking apocalypse, I shouldn't be shifting stones or jump starting arcane electronics. I should be wrecking shit, plain and simple. The puzzles were weak and felt thrown in, as if they were a prerequisite just because it was an adventure/platformer. The story wasn't bad and the voice acting was good. I was a bit surprised when I found out who Mark Hamill voiced.

Click to expand...

Yup.

The choice of story and characters does not mesh well at all with the gameplay type they chose. War and Death don't have any business moving fucking blocks, pulling levers and wall running while running bullshit errands for NPCs. It makes sense for a character like Link, not War or Death.

Also, echoing your sentiment about tacked on puzzles, why the fuck would you introduce useless puzzle-centric moves that provide nothing other than their assigned, primary function? Why even have them in the game at all. At this point, it's only a RCH away from being just one long QTE game.

Are you serious? Puzzles are a hallmark of the genre, if I wanted to do nothing but mash my attack button, run down a hallway, and then mash my attack button some more, I'd fire up an emulator of TMNT or Streets of Rage. Or Space Marine, which is pretty much the exact game you are describing. And I don't know how the hell you get the impression that the puzzles were weak and thrown in, there wouldn't have been a game without the puzzles. The voidwalker sections were easily the most enjoyable part of the game, except for maybe how awesome the splinter cannon or whatever the hell-themed heavy weapon was called was. If you don't think War spent enough time wrecking shit in the game, I can't even begin to imagine what kind of nonsensical standards you have for time spent wrecking shit.

Bacon_sl said:

Throw them into Zelda games and whatnot because they fit.

Click to expand...

I mean that's exactly what Darksiders was, a hyper-violent Zelda game, because the puzzles fit perfectly.

My beefs with Darksiders 2 are that the god awful loot system felt half-assed and tacked on, the puzzles were half-assed and phoned in, and the shift from a linear story to a semi-open quest progression felt like they were just trying to cram an awesome action-puzzle game into a boring and generic RPG mold. Now if you want to complain about things one of the horsemen of the fucking apocalypse shouldn't be doing, it's taking the time to complete a bunch of miscellaneous bullshit tasks for every tom, dick, and harry he encounters on his quest to redeem his fucking brother. You are Death. Fucking DEATH, Nephilim, Rider of the Goddamned Motherfucking Pale Horse. Not LegoDeathlas the lvl 90 Death Knight collecting bear asses.

Not to mention the fact that they managed to take one of the most fun little diversions from the first game, the heavy weapons, and turn it into the most annoying and tedious part of the second game (Earth).

Beef Supreme_sl said:

Also, echoing your sentiment about tacked on puzzles, why the fuck would you introduce useless puzzle-centric moves that provide nothing other than their assigned, primary function? Why even have them in the game at all. At this point, it's only a RCH away from being just one long QTE game.

Click to expand...

What?

uh, if the game didn't have puzzles, what else would you be doing? i can't imagine the game would be fun if you were doing nothing but killing stuff