The Darksiders 2® Catch-All

Vigil gave some details on the Wii U version:

You can play:
everything on tv screen or everything on the gamepad.
with tv screen and gamepad at the same time, using gamepad for inventory, etc. No pausing needed.
with tv screen and pro controller.

So basically play any way you want.

and there's this:

Darksiders II on Wii U will offer multiple pieces of bonus content not featured on the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 or PC versions, including the recently-released Argul’s Tomb content with new dungeons and armor and the Death Rides Pack with three new side quests. Also included will be the Angel of Death and Shadow of Death packs with new legendary armor and weapon choices, plus the upgraded horse speed boost from the Deadly Despair Pack. Players will also have access to additional unique legendary weapon and armor sets from the moment they start the game.

I personally think getting more stuff / DLC on the disc is worth having to wait to get the game.

It's a little different when it's a loot game, where you rarely end up using a particular item for terribly long anyway.

I'm more interested in how they expect people to play the entire game on the gamepad. Seems like a really tiny screen for a game with so much detail.

I still want to play the first one. I'm always seeing it at Best Buy for like $20 and I'm like.... "should I?". But I still have so many other games that are sitting on my shelf that still have the shrink wrap on, if you catch my drift. lol

I'm a bit sick of most of these dungeons being Fetch 3 quests.

In fact, I may be interfering with my own ability to fully enjoy this game. I should have known that the end of...let's call it "Act I" was hardly as close to the end as I thought it would be, but it only frustrated me that all of "Act II" did nothing to push the story forward. Just a bunch of fetch quests without answers. Act II basically exists with no purpose but to pad on game length, really. It could have been a lot shorter and accomplished just as much.

As a result, when I get to Act III and...

Spoiler:

I'm told I have to go to Earth to grab this Rod, only it turns out the Rod is in 3 pieces (ALWAYS THREE! Three heart stones! Three stones to summon the champion! Three Lords! One Lord demanding three souls for judgment! What the f*ck?!)

I feel I would have enjoyed it more if I didn't already spend all of Act II doing such inane quests. Act III varies things up a bit, but varies it up with repetitive gameplay.

I'm having fun, but I feel like I want to beat the game too desperately. I've basically spent the last ten hours of the game wanting to reach the end, and after 10 hours of the plot going nowhere I hit the end of Act II which informs me I have several hours yet to go.

If I didn't want to beat the game, if I didn't have my pile in the back of my mind, would I be so frustrated? I'm 20 hours into the game, haven't been trying to backtrack and find all the secrets, and think I'm finally reaching the final few hours (let's say I beat Act III and am about to start Act IV). But when I think of replaying the game in the future, I have mixed feelings.

On one hand, I like Darksiders 1 better because Legend of Zelda gameplay appeals to me more than Diablo-esque loot gameplay. On the other hand, I like the combat in Darksiders 2 better, as well as the Prince of Persia elements. But when I think of replaying Darksiders 2 I just feel like 20+ hours is too damn many to invest in a game a second time.

I dunno. It's fun, but damn is it longer than it really needed to be.

EDIT: And I beat it tonight. I feel like there was a good story in there, but they didn't effectively pull it off. Not to mention your traditional "Alright, they beat the game, let's not waste too much budget on the ending. Give them a two or three minute clip and move on".

Ah well. Was a fun game, otherwise I wouldn't have spent 21 hours on it, but I can't imagine even wanting to go through Nightmare mode like I've considered in the first Darksiders (with the Abyssal Armor, of course).

DOUBLE EDIT: From a Facebook comment I wrote to a friend explaining why I was so disappointed in the ending. While I'd hardly call the spoilers spoilers as it is all broadcast so obviously throughout the game, I'll hide it beneath a spoiler tag anyway.

Spoiler:

That's the thing, I'm left wondering what the point of the game even was from a basic story-telling perspective. Death wanted to revive humanity and prove his brother's innocence. Well, he revived humanity, but he didn't prove his brother's innocence. He dove into a giant well of whirlymist like he died, but he didn't die because he still rides after the first Darksiders game ends. The game tells you repeatedly that Death doesn't want to destroy the souls of the Nephilim, broadcasts the fact that he has to (and at the end he still stands on the edge and says "I don't know what I'm supposed to do!" even though he has been told for the past 10+ hours of game time), and yet there is no sign of struggle throughout the game. The other characters tell you that Death feels bad for having to kill his brothers, but he does not. And why is he so loyal to War? This relationship sounds interesting, that he'd have such faith in War. Why does he act and not Strife or Fury?

The game spends so much time telling Death he has to do stuff. They tell him he won't like how it ends. They tell him he has to sacrifice the souls of the Nephilim. But mostly they just tell him "I don't like you Death, you have long heavy metal goth hair. Get these three things for me and I'll let you go onto the next quest that requires you to get three things to move on. By the way, you won't be happy when your quest is over!"

It was 22+ hours of errands, and by the end I felt like the game had five minutes of character development and actual story to tell.

ccesarano wrote:

It was 22+ hours of errands, and by the end I felt like the game had five minutes of character development and actual story to tell.

So what you're saying is that it's like Darksiders?

But is it any good?

ClockworkHouse wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

It was 22+ hours of errands, and by the end I felt like the game had five minutes of character development and actual story to tell.

So what you're saying is that it's like Darksiders?

I'm honestly wondering if I should go back and replay the first one and see if I just didn't notice at the time because I was in a different situation with my gaming. Based on my achievements I had just gotten my first out-of-College job, so I wasn't unemployed. Yet somehow the game didn't feel so long, and even though most of the game was certainly running errands for some other guy, it felt like there was some sort of development going on.

I might go back and replay it and see if I'm just full of crap. Then again, I already mentioned that the Zelda style appealed to me a lot as well, and every dungeon felt different...

I dunno. It's going to keep me wondering if I am really judging Darksiders 2 fairly or not.

It sounds like you're getting hung up on the idea that Darksiders 2 does everything in threes. Darksiders was mostly structured along the lines of "Go to dungeon x, unlock item y, kill boss z.", repeated multiple times. Darksiders 2 does tend to set up three things you need to do, but for each step you're still usually just going to a dungeon and killing a boss like in the first one. The major difference is that Darksiders 2 tells you about the next three dungeons/bosses in advance instead of just leading you from one dungeon to the next.

LobsterMobster wrote:

It's a little different when it's a loot game, where you rarely end up using a particular item for terribly long anyway.

I'm more interested in how they expect people to play the entire game on the gamepad. Seems like a really tiny screen for a game with so much detail.

Thread full o' dudes over here that want this sort of game on a slightly smaller screen. It baffles me too!

I wouldn't play a whole Wii U game on just the pad, at least not something like AC3 or Darksiders 2. But I sure would play it for 30 minutes there while watching a TV show out of one eye. Or you know, on the toilet. It's a nice convenience feature, and probably not a whole lot of extra work for the development team.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

It was 22+ hours of errands, and by the end I felt like the game had five minutes of character development and actual story to tell.

So what you're saying is that it's like Darksiders?

Shoooooo!

Seems to me the Wii U controller screen is perfect for inventory screens, quickslot bars, maps, and scrabble tiles (by which I mean any information you might want to keep secret in a local multiplayer game). It seems ridiculous to use it for anything else when it's part of a home console that is presumably hooked up to a TV.

Looking on steam:
Darksiders about 19 hours vs Darksiders 2 50 hours...

I put in about 20 in both. I'm currently on +NG, trying to tech up so I have the necessary items so I can actually do the damn DLC.

That and I want to complete the Crucible. I made it once to wave 75. Had 5 of each potion, with full health and full wrath, but the enemy was a buffed Deposed King. He killed me in 1 shot. Thought it was cheap as hell. So i'm gonna go in again.

Currently on Steam's midweek madness sale for $17 (66% off).

http://store.steampowered.com/app/50...

MeatMan wrote:

Currently on Steam's midweek madness sale for $17 (66% off).

http://store.steampowered.com/app/50...

Also $17 for the steam code from Amazon in case any one has any credit/gift card balance they would like to use there.

Edit: Removed broken link. I can't seem to get the link to post correctly from my iPad.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005XFGZ4W

Click platform "PC Download" - the retail box is $42.04.

OK so got the whole franchise thing off of Amazon, way cheaper than Steam.

Jason mentioned that one DLC is included in the Season Pass but also listed separately. Looking at the list, it appears to be The Abyssal Forge. Correct? Anyone else have this issue?

EDIT: Yeah looks like that was it.

Who want's Abyssal Forge? No one has it on their wishlist on Steam.

Arise, 6 month old thread about a game no-one cares about any more! It's just something I found out that might help fellow johnny-come-latelies.

I just fired the game up for the first time, on 360. It is the limited edition, with the Tomb of Argul DLC code.

It is annoying in that you have to go to a website, enter a code, and are then given a Live code by email. Or, at least, it was before THQ had their little problems. The Darksiders.com/tomb site is dead, so the instructions in the box don't work.

Instead of going to that site, go to community.darksiders.com/tomb, enter the code, and it will give you the Live code in the browser, rather than email.

OK. Darksiders 2 is up for $4.94 Canadian right now. I wanna get content DLC at a super cheap rate.

Argul's Tomb is $1.16.

Death Rides is $1.16.

And the Season Pass is $3.29.

Is Darksiders 2 a better game than Darksiders 1? I played and finished the first game and man, there was a lot of walking between missions.

Yes, 2 is much better than 1. All GWJ jokes aside, I really liked both of them.

Strangeblades wrote:

Is Darksiders 2 a better game than Darksiders 1? I played and finished the first game and man, there was a lot of walking between missions.

kexx wrote:

Yes, 2 is much better than 1. All GWJ jokes aside, I really liked both of them.

Well, most people consider the sequel to be the inferior game. Imagine Zelda and a WRPG if you mashed them together. Not much interesting in the world, but plenty of adventuring, collecting, puzzling and fighting.

Strangeblades wrote:

Is Darksiders 2 a better game than Darksiders 1? I played and finished the first game and man, there was a lot of walking between missions.

Good news everyone! Now there's a lot of horse riding between missions!

For some Darksiders 2 is better, but I know for Clocky and I the first one was a better experience. I preferred the more Zelda approach to upgrades that the first game took, whereas the sequel made it all experience/levels and loot. The combat is certainly better, and they really doubled-down on the Prince of Persia style of environment exploration, so mechanically speaking there's a lot there that improved on the first game. But when you complete a 10-minute map-spanning puzzle only to access a chest with worse gear than you have equipped, you start wanting to kick puppies.

The game also has a tendency to rely on the "rule of three". "Hit three switches to unlock the door to the boss". "Defeat three ghosts in order to obtain super awesome key". "Complete these three dungeons which each have their own rule of three within them to progress the story".

These are things that don't bother everyone. They bothered me, but not enough to dislike the game. Death is also a much better character than War, buuuuuut the story manages to be a bit sh*t still, though.

I too enjoyed the first one more. More Zelda and less Diablo.

If it came with the first I'd consider grabbing it, but as it is... naaah.

ccesarano wrote:

If it came with the first I'd consider grabbing it, but as it is... naaah.

My thoughts exactly. No way am I paying another dime for this game when I barely even played the copy I bought.

This game is metal.

So very metal.

[/guitar slide!]

farley3k wrote:

deathinitive

IMAGE(http://static-cdn.jtvnw.net/emoticons/v1/360/1.0)

Top_Shelf wrote:

This game is metal.

So very metal.

[/guitar slide!]

But is it any good?

Once again, would totally be in if the first one was bundled in with it. Just the second gets a mere maybe.