#1 Posted by psylah (2170 posts) -

It just reminds me of how shortchanged it was when it came to the GotY discussions at the end of 2010. When Jeff had first played the game and talked about it on the Bombcast (1/12/2010) he was as enthusiastic as I had ever heard him about a game until Trackmania. Still, no one else played it. Hearing Patrick praise it recently, and then Brad say he'll play it before June reminds me that he was the BIGGEST detractor of Darksiders (in favor of Limbo) for it being derivative of other games. That has bugged me ever since I heard those arguments, that such an enjoyable game could be shot down by 3 others that didn't even play it until after the fact.
 
I hope the rest of the crew (and more gamers in general) come around after they have actually PLAYED Darksiders, and give it the credit it was due: for it being a Zelda-inspired game that you would actually enjoy playing in this day and age.

#2 Posted by thechronodarkness (294 posts) -

It is a good game, Heck, its a great game. But its not a GOTY contender. Its graphically awful. There is no reason the original xbox couldn't play it. Starts out, and the cutscenes are looking great, then you get to the main game- it just isn't technically impressive. Of course you have the different artstyles, but it doesn't excuse all the terrible textures. Playing god of war 3, ninja gaiden 2, or even devil may cry 4- it just can't compare. I would go on record and saying the original ninja gaiden, an xbox game, looks a step above darksiders. THQs games never really have, that visual punch though. Beyond saints row anyways.

The music isn't anything special. Just simple synthesized tunes, that never really engage you in the action. I mean, the gameplay is really where this game is. Which obviously, its great, but I wouldn't rank it any higher than 4 stars, or an 8.5. But even its not perfect. The dungeons, for alot of them, just are tedious. Like whenever you first get to use portals.

Its a great game that everyone who wants an alternate zelda experience should play, thats not a GOTY contender like skyward sword, and should have their expectations accordingly. The bombcast crew gave this game all the credit it needs and deserves.

#3 Posted by cstrang (2381 posts) -

It happens a lot, it even happened that same year with Red Dead and John Marston. Jeff never played the game, but he was the most vocal opponent of naming John Marston the best character of the year. I will go on to say that 2010 had some fantastic games come out and, while you are entitled to your opinion, I think you might be hard-pressed to find people that agree that Darksiders was the best game that came out that year.

#4 Posted by Bocam (3722 posts) -

@cstrang: Jeff played Red Dead, he didn't like it.

#5 Posted by Animasta (14673 posts) -

Pretty sure lots of people enjoyed playing skyward sword, just sayin

#6 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

You will never see a retroactive change of Game of the Year stuff unless the development company responsible for the game reveals they only made the game by selling their souls to Satan and engaging in coitus with mares. The whole idea is that it's "of-the-moment." And, ultimately, doesn't really matter that much to begin with, as Game of the Year is a purely subjective award based on who likes what.

Vinny was also pro-Darksiders, as I recall.

#7 Posted by cstrang (2381 posts) -

@Bocam said:

@cstrang: Jeff played Red Dead, he didn't like it.

He didn't play anywhere near the amount the others did, which meant he didn't even get to see most of the story he was commenting so fervently on.

#8 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

@cstrang said:

@Bocam said:

@cstrang: Jeff played Red Dead, he didn't like it.

He didn't play anywhere near the amount the others did, which meant he didn't even get to see most of the story he was commenting so fervently on.

Jeff wasn't talking about the story, if I recall, he was commenting on how much he hated everything about the way it played. It does have a slow start for both gameplay and story, too, so the first couple hours can go real badly if you don't like westerns quite a bit. He played a couple hours and gave up, saying "no thank you."

...I listen to the GOTY podcasts way too many times every year.

#9 Edited by psylah (2170 posts) -
@Little_Socrates said:

You will never see a retroactive change of Game of the Year stuff unless the development company responsible for the game reveals they only made the game by selling their souls to Satan and engaging in coitus with mares. The whole idea is that it's "of-the-moment." And, ultimately, doesn't really matter that much to begin with, as Game of the Year is a purely subjective award based on who likes what.

Vinny was also pro-Darksiders, as I recall.

I'm not talking about going back and making it game of the year, but there are categories like "2011's 2010 game of the year". The GB guys have made categories for games they enjoyed, and I hope Darksiders wins some sort of merit of that sort. Maybe not "2012's 2010 game of the year", but maybe it could be considered the best Zelda game they played this year.
 
@thechronodarkness said:

It is a good game, Heck, its a great game. But its not a GOTY contender. Its graphically awful.

Did you play Darksiders on a PC with a 10 year old graphics card? I played it on my PS3 and saw no graphical issues with it at all. I heard of some tearing issues on the 360 version, but that was patched. In fact, I felt the graphical style and emotive qualities of the character models worked well to give me the impression that these were indeed comic book characters in original design, not just animating polygonal models. The characters wince, snarl, and furrow brows quite well when they need to  emote.
 
I can't attest to the music being particularly memorable, but I wouldn't call it horrible or detracting from the experience in the least.
#10 Posted by cstrang (2381 posts) -

@Little_Socrates said:

@cstrang said:

@Bocam said:

@cstrang: Jeff played Red Dead, he didn't like it.

He didn't play anywhere near the amount the others did, which meant he didn't even get to see most of the story he was commenting so fervently on.

Jeff wasn't talking about the story, if I recall, he was commenting on how much he hated everything about the way it played. It does have a slow start for both gameplay and story, too, so the first couple hours can go real badly if you don't like westerns quite a bit. He played a couple hours and gave up, saying "no thank you."

...I listen to the GOTY podcasts way too many times every year.

I'm not going to derail this topic any further, but if you go back and listen to the GotY podcast where they're discussing best new character, Jeff clearly has no idea about the things he talks about when he brings up John Marston and his arc.

#11 Edited by Cloudenvy (5891 posts) -

From what I've played of Darksiders it just seemed like they tried to make Zelda but couldn't design dungeons or bosses as well as Nintendo.

Maybe I'll give it another go someday.

#12 Posted by Dixavd (1354 posts) -

I played Darksiders to completion and got every collectable (espect the two event ones from earlier on the flying segment and competition with the hammer guy as I only found out after finishing it you could get something out of it .... which brings up my huge problem with the game - I never want to play it again, ever.

It was an enjoyable but broken experience:

  1. The controls were clunky along with annoying camera angles which gave playing it some really annoying moments. And because of the clunky button-to-animation times made the combat not have any feeling of actual power in it of the player which they really have to nail when taking the God of War battle system.
  2. The music was forgettable and lacked any emotive prowess to make any moment feel incredible or legendary.
  3. The Story wasn't very well made, making none of the characters either likable or relatable.
  4. The bosses weren't very well made - especially the end which requires the player to show no master of the items and combat as simply having the unlockable armour made it mindnumbingly easy.
  5. The puzzles weren't very well designed; in fact the dungeons generally were badly designed (with stupid amounts of backtracking within them fighting the same monsters being respawned, and odd choices like having their version of the compass to show where all the treasue was being a treasure that you had to go out of your way for - forcing some players to actually having to look up the location of the treasure that tells you where all the other treasures are - this is pure bad game design).

Darksiders is a great game that I urge anyone who hasn't played it to go through, but it is no where near game of the year or even a good Zelda game. It is a broken fluke of a game that is nice while it lasts but many design choices mean it won't leave many people with lasting memories of it and could just turn a lot of people away very early on.

#13 Posted by psylah (2170 posts) -
@Dixavd said:
 
In response to the combat: I found the combat to be more involved than that of God of War, with the varieties of defensive and offensive spells adding to the melee combat, which itself had a developed combo system. It gave it a sense of depth that I wasn't getting out  of God of War's, where I would find myself pressing square 3 times until he swings his blades in a circle. I place it just under Bayonetta when it comes to combat in character action games.
 
I can agree that the music is forgettable, in that I can't remember anything good or bad about it.
 
As for the story and character development, I found them all to be compelling, but certainly not characters that I resonate with. Remember, the cast is made up mostly of demons. But I still found Samael, Vulgrim, and Uriel to be interesting. Samael was especially fierce and seething with evil, and brings back memories of Tim Curry in Legend. The story of Abbadon and his downfall, his relationship with Uriel, the misuse of War by the council, and the fact that all of this takes place after the destruction of mankind which is a minor footnote made it all incredibly engaging to me.
 
The weakest point I had with the bosses was the Spider boss, I frequently ran into range issues with that fight. The last boss was mostly a defensive battle for me, since I didn't get the unlockable armor set before hand. Plenty of dodging and the occasional defensive spell got me through it.
 
I'll have to play through it again to tell how much backtracking there was, from what I remember the most egregious I had to deal with was getting back to the spider boss' chamber which was largely displaced from the location of the key needed to open it. The puzzles in Azrael's dungeon were sinister, but not impossible. The weighted scales, the spinning tower, they were wholly unique and a welcome departure from pushing blocks (which it still had its share of).
 
And once again, I'm not saying it should have been game of the year, but maybe a mention in the top 10 that year. I am not claiming that the game was perfect, but that it was shot down unfairly by members of the crew that had not played it, and did not discredit it for any of  the reasons mentioned here. They decried it for its unoriginality, despite not seeing it for themselves. Just the year prior, the gang gave Wii GotY to SH: Shattered Memories based solely on Brad's word, with him being the only person to vouch for it. Shattered Memories had a whole pile of issues, but no one ragged on them from what they heard by word of mouth to the point where it was dumped.
#14 Posted by stryker1121 (1404 posts) -

Darksiders was a good, not great game. Some fun dungeons, puzzles and crunchy combat, but the story/characters were forgettable and the open world felt empty (yeah I know it's the apocalypse) aside from re-spawning monsters. Plus the 360 version had some pretty nasty screen-tearing. A very good core that I hope is improved for DS2.

#15 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@Animasta said:

Pretty sure lots of people enjoyed playing skyward sword, just sayin

But those people were so hopped up on goofballs and whacky-pills that their opinions are questionable.

#16 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@stryker1121 said:

Darksiders was a good, not great game. Some fun dungeons, puzzles and crunchy combat, but the story/characters were forgettable and the open world felt empty (yeah I know it's the apocalypse) aside from re-spawning monsters. Plus the 360 version had some pretty nasty screen-tearing. A very good core that I hope is improved for DS2.

This is the real answer to your question. Darksiders was great for being the game you've wanted from the Zelda series for so long, but let's not pretend it was somehow groundbreaking or without fault. I loved playing it, but I recognize that it's but a footnote in the history of gaming.

#17 Edited by psylah (2170 posts) -
@cstrang said:

@Little_Socrates said:

@cstrang said:

@Bocam said:

@cstrang: Jeff played Red Dead, he didn't like it.

He didn't play anywhere near the amount the others did, which meant he didn't even get to see most of the story he was commenting so fervently on.

Jeff wasn't talking about the story, if I recall, he was commenting on how much he hated everything about the way it played. It does have a slow start for both gameplay and story, too, so the first couple hours can go real badly if you don't like westerns quite a bit. He played a couple hours and gave up, saying "no thank you."

...I listen to the GOTY podcasts way too many times every year.

I'm not going to derail this topic any further, but if you go back and listen to the GotY podcast where they're discussing best new character, Jeff clearly has no idea about the things he talks about when he brings up John Marston and his arc.

I'd say that you're as on topic as possible, I am talking about members of the crew talking mess about games that they hadn't played. Jeff hadn't played through Red Dead to get to any of the turns in Marston's character development (Blackwater really spelled out how much he hated the law for me) but still weighed his opinion as heavily as the others. In the end I agreed that Marston was a typical Rockstar protag whose actions are disjointed from his goals or morals, but at least I played through the game to come to that conclusion.
#18 Posted by GetEveryone (4455 posts) -

@thechronodarkness said:

It is a good game, Heck, its a great game. But its not a GOTY contender. Its graphically awful. There is no reason the original xbox couldn't play it. Starts out, and the cutscenes are looking great, then you get to the main game- it just isn't technically impressive.

Absolute nonsense. When you first see Samael he looks incredible up-close. Besides that GOTY is, obviously, purely subjective.

Looking back at that year, Darksiders is very close to, if not the, game I enjoyed most. Probably one of my favourite games this generation.

Granted, it had its share of faults, but hopefully the sequel remedies any small niggles I, and others, had.

#19 Posted by Hosstile17 (763 posts) -

Glad to see that you guys are willing to let something from two years ago go.

#20 Posted by psylah (2170 posts) -
@Hosstile17 said:

Glad to see that you guys are willing to let something from two years ago go.

Darksiders has been discussed  for the past two weeks running, bro. Forgive me if my memory serves better than others and reminded me of GotY deliberation shenanigans.
#21 Edited by GetEveryone (4455 posts) -

Man, I fucking hate the internet.

I'm guilty of claiming opinion as objective truth, too, but those espousing the idea that Darksiders is objectively a footnote in the annals of gaming (in that it is perceived as a half-effort) are full of shit.

Shit like this.

@BrockNRolla said:

@Animasta said:

Pretty sure lots of people enjoyed playing skyward sword, just sayin

But those people were so hopped up on goofballs and whacky-pills that their opinions are questionable.

You, BrockNRolla, are the problem. To each their own, and to all a good game.

OT: I am going to stand firm-footed and declare, perhaps blindly, that I adored Darksiders.

Bring on the muhfuckin' sequel.

#22 Posted by Jimbo (9804 posts) -

It was competent. I didn't finish it and won't buy the sequel.

#23 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

@GetEveryone said:

Man, I fucking hate the internet.

I'm guilty of claiming opinion as objective truth, too, but those espousing the idea that Darksiders is objectively a footnote in the annals of gaming (in that it is perceived as a half-effort) are full of shit.

Shit like this.

@BrockNRolla said:

@Animasta said:

Pretty sure lots of people enjoyed playing skyward sword, just sayin

But those people were so hopped up on goofballs and whacky-pills that their opinions are questionable.

You, BrockNRolla, are the problem. To each their own, and to all a good game.

OT: I am going to stand firm-footed and declare, perhaps blindly, that I adored Darksiders.

Bring on the muhfuckin' sequel.

Sheesh buddy, I don't profess that the Darksiders is "objectively" a footnote. That's just my opinion. And were I to actually believe people who like Skyward Sword don't have valid opinions, I probably would have chosen serious vocabulary rather than "goofballs" and "wacky-pills." Perhaps people who are easily angered and lash out at people on the internet are the problem. Perhaps YOU are the problem.

#24 Posted by spankingaddict (2661 posts) -

I loved looking for the shards in Wind Waker . Surely there are others here who agree , yes ?

The guys were bashing on it on this weeks bombcast.

#25 Posted by SSully (4164 posts) -

@Little_Socrates said:

@cstrang said:

@Bocam said:

@cstrang: Jeff played Red Dead, he didn't like it.

He didn't play anywhere near the amount the others did, which meant he didn't even get to see most of the story he was commenting so fervently on.

Jeff wasn't talking about the story, if I recall, he was commenting on how much he hated everything about the way it played. It does have a slow start for both gameplay and story, too, so the first couple hours can go real badly if you don't like westerns quite a bit. He played a couple hours and gave up, saying "no thank you."

...I listen to the GOTY podcasts way too many times every year.

You nailed it. And coming from a person who LOVED Red Dead, I can see Jeffs point. The game has a very slow pace throughout for the most part, and I have had multiple friends who gave up within the first few hours of the game because of its slow start. So obviously Jeff is not alone in his distaste for the game.

Now on topic, I think that the crew should try better to play most of the games they are nominating for GOTY. What happened to darksiders wasn't fair, and many other games for that matter. It's just hard to feel a game is justly disqualified when the people arguing against it never played the game.

#26 Posted by psylah (2170 posts) -
@SSully said:

I think that the crew should try better to play most of the games they are nominating for GOTY. What happened to darksiders wasn't fair, and many other games for that matter. It's just hard to feel a game is justly disqualified when the people arguing against it never played the game.

Basically this.
 
Even during the 2011 GotY deliberations, Jeff argued against L.A. Noir making it into the top 10, even when Brad called him out on having not played it. Even then his main argument was that the game was a glorified tech demo for the facial technology. 
 
The guys come up with a list of games for the deliberations, and granted that time is hard to come by, it is easy to see how they may not have the time to play or finish a game. But for God's sakes, they shouldn't vocalize against it when they have no first-hand experience. Like Vinny says, "I have an opinion, but it is not an informed opinion" and then he will digress.
#27 Posted by Dixavd (1354 posts) -

@psylah:

My Combat point wasn't that it was weaker on a complexity and intrigue level (in fact I am with you that I think it is better than God of Wars on that level, really liking the versitility to switch between scyth skills, sword and the giant form/magic stuff for different enemies), my problem was with the technical furition of it leading to what I felt to be very stunted ocntrols as it didn't feel liek my button pressing was doing the things I expected it to do on time and quite a lot of items and skills were ruined from poor controls (i.e. throwing bombs or boomerangs actually became a ture to aim, and the time it took to jump from a normal weapon to the gun or boomerang meant it was never very useful in combat).

I wasn't saying the story was bad and didn't have its moments like the ones you said, but the pacing was poor and the moments wre set so far apart that it felt distanced from the actual gameplay and didn't enter a level of believability because of it. Just because they were demons doesn't mean they couldn't have put in proper emotions that felt true - while I found the voice acting pretty good, the animations around them was poor to complete it. Plus, most of the cool things were about what other characters are, will or have been doing and not linking me as the player with what I have done so far. There is no connection there because what teh game is asking me to do was for the most part taken away from the interesting parts of the stories.

For instance, the second fight on Straga should have been a memorable part where the player truly linked with War as a character: The player has the urge to kill him after the beginning of the game where the player is too weak to destroy him, and War has the urge of revenge after Abaddon's death meaning there is a mechanical reason to enjoy the fight int he player as well as a story reason to bring it in thematically - but I hardly remember that boss battle. The game could have easily taken moments like these and made the story truly fantastic to play, but instead it felt like a comic book where I have to force myself through mediocre puzzles and enemies for hours before I can turn the page and see what is happening to these characters; rather than playing inside that world feeling like everything matters - which surprisingly Zelda games do very well, having some of the memorable parts of the stories when random NPC's you can talk to change acording to things you did as you played the game (i.e. in Ocarina of Time when you do the fire Temple and make the rings aroudn the volacno no longer menacing NPC's in Kariko will say things liek how th eview is much better etc...)

The point is, I just don't think it is anywhere near being mentioned as a high point of 2010 - however that doesn't mean it can't be remembered longer than other titles. For insance in 2006 Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess and Okami came out, the former was said to be one of th ebets games of that year and put on many top 10 lists - the second however didn't have a huge splash the year it came out; however years later Okami is the one remembered fondly and now generally percieved as the best Zelda game that year even though it was and still is a massively copied formula - but it is that fact that at the time it was ignored as it was a Zelda game wihtout the Nintendo mascott, but now it is seen as having quite a lot of fantastic innovations (i.e. them truly starting to mix items in a way that both Zelda and Darksiders hasn't done in combat and equally in puzzles) and looked back on as one of the must-try PS2 games (or Wii now as well).*

We shouldn't make a list or article pointing out the things we missed before, as the people we are now is different and the things we want from games is different; it is however fair to look after a console generation and point out titles originally missed that truly set the bar for how the console generation should be remembered.

*I should also point out this is form my limited memory of English media on the subject and how it is changes, using it more to point things out and less for factual stuff as then I was not into looking at the details of what videogame consumers and critics were saying; but I definitely have seen over the years since how Okami has become more well known while TP has been sort of covered up by zelda-style fans*

#28 Posted by HellBrendy (994 posts) -

Darksiders was one good game, but not a GOTY contender. It was a bit too clunky, keyboard-controls were horrific. I also found it too be a bit too gear heavy. Hope they lose some of the things to use and focus more on the core gameplay.

What surprised me the most was how much I actually enjoyed the story.

#29 Posted by shootermcclay (219 posts) -

I got the platinum on PS3, and while I enjoyed it, I wouldn't say it is a great game. The third-person shooting was terrible, as was the on-rails shooter section. The game was completely forgettable for me except some of the boss battles, the part that ripped off Portal, and the very end cut-scene with the horsemen. Being able to vault on or off the horse was cool, but that came near the end and the horse could only ride in certain areas. I think the game is worth renting, but it is not a must-own of this generation.

#30 Edited by psylah (2170 posts) -
@HellBrendy said:

Darksiders was one good game, but not a GOTY contender.

Once again, the GotY podcasts covered the top 5 that year, not just the #1 spot, along with a large assortment of other category nominations. It was  in the best new debut and was dismissed as a zelda clone when only Jeff had played it.
#31 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

@psylah said:

@SSully said:

I think that the crew should try better to play most of the games they are nominating for GOTY. What happened to darksiders wasn't fair, and many other games for that matter. It's just hard to feel a game is justly disqualified when the people arguing against it never played the game.

Basically this. Even during the 2011 GotY deliberations, Jeff argued against L.A. Noir making it into the top 10, even when Brad called him out on having not played it. Even then his main argument was that the game was a glorified tech demo for the facial technology. The guys come up with a list of games for the deliberations, and granted that time is hard to come by, it is easy to see how they may not have the time to play or finish a game. But for God's sakes, they shouldn't vocalize against it when they have no first-hand experience. Like Vinny says, "I have an opinion, but it is not an informed opinion" and then he will digress.

As someone who has participated in his own Game of the Year Deliberations, I can say that it's INCREDIBLY difficult to play every game on a GOTY Nominees list. The largest reason for this, most of the time, is because the nominees are usually not settled until at best a month beforehand. In the case of this year's system, the top 15 or so nominees were not really decided until the actual deliberations. What people did or did not play is absolutely VITAL to the GOTY discussion. Look, I didn't play Battlefield 3 last year and neither did my co-host. When we didn't nominate Battlefield 3 for GOTY, that's not a disservice to Battlefield 3, it's just a reality. A committee-based Game of the Year system always relies specifically on what people do and don't play.

With a game like L.A. Noire, we all saw a significant backturn on the game almost immediately after release in regards to the gameplay, multiple story elements and its ending. Hearing that would probably be enough to say "it's not really a GOTY contender then." Part of this is out of the expectation that something better will come along later in the year. But nothing better did come along, and so, perhaps two or three weeks beforehand, you're stuck deciding whether or not you need to plow through that game at a faster pace than you'd normally choose to play it or if it's not really going to be a contender. Jeff decided the latter, and that's totally okay.

HOWEVER.

However, however, however. I will agree that this year's podcast has LOADS of these problems, including the aforementioned ridiculous argument against L.A. Noire and, perhaps most ridiculously, the support of Brad's claim that there was loads of cool stuff in Skyrim despite nobody having seen anything that cool. The fact that Vinny and Patrick have come away from that game disappointed in most of the sidequests makes that whole deliberation seem a lot more foolish, and the fact that Ryan has said literally nothing about his Skyrim experience (or, like, playing any of last year's games on his own) since the deliberations stands to say quite a bit, as he'd said he'd played (almost?) no Skyrim before that point.

#32 Posted by ItsAJackal (149 posts) -

Same thing happened this year. Ryan hadn't even played Skyrim but he fought for it against SR3rd. Also, they now all openly bash Skyrim about the ps3 problems and how tiring it is, yet they don't complain about SR. The DLC is not that great, but that's not the point. They had to pick Skyrim as GotY just to fit in with all the other publications.

If you hadn't figured it out by now, Brad always wins the fights because he whines. The others actually use logic, while he just complains and pouts. Therefore he always wins.

#33 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4721 posts) -

@ItsAJackal said:

If you hadn't figured it out by now, Brad always wins the fights because he whines. The others actually use logic, while he just complains and pouts. Therefore he always wins.

No he doesn't. If he did, he would've won the MGS4 vs GTA4 argument. He also would've won Red Dead vs Mass Effect 2. SR3 was my GOTY of 2011, but it's hard to gauge "FUN" against the kind of relaxing, subdued adventure you can find in Skyrim. I love both games, and I've played both games to completion. 40hrs of SR3 and 250hrs of Skyrim. They're completely different experiences trying to do vastly different things. I feel that if Brad argued for the advancements that Skyrim made to not just the genre, but as to what can be done with games (stuff like Radiant Story, and most of what Kleptok brought up), there wouldn't be a large contingent of people hating on Brad, or calling him a whiner. However, he didn't articulate his points well, and that's why people railed against him.

Online
#34 Posted by Bobby_The_Great (1004 posts) -

I love Darksiders more than Zelda. For those saying it copies Zelda too much, all I have to say is if people didn't copy pizza or the burger and then try borrow from the concept but make their own pizza's and burgers, we wouldn't have great food. You get me?

I'm hungry now.

#35 Posted by amir90 (2154 posts) -

I love darksiders, i am close to finishing it on PC:)

#36 Posted by theoldhouse (439 posts) -

You guys realise that Jeff is actually a bit of a dick right?

I mean I don't want to sound mean but, he is.

#37 Posted by Shun_Akiyama (490 posts) -

I didn't think darksiders was good at all.

#38 Posted by Hosstile17 (763 posts) -

@Bobby_The_Great: Pizza Burgers.... mmmmm

#39 Posted by Rafaelfc (1332 posts) -

I love Darksiders, but it is way too derivative to be considered a Game of the Year contender, specially if it's competing against Mass Effect 2 and Red Dead Redemption both of which were very distinct and particular experiences. It was on Jeff's and Vinny's top 10 (if i'm not mistaken) and was mentioned a lot by the guests' top 10, which is all the praise it deserved at that point.

that said, I am REALLY looking forward to Darksiders 2.

#40 Posted by Progman9000 (258 posts) -

For what it's worth, which is likely not much at all because I haven't played it in months and will probably never get past the second dungeon, but I feel that painting Darksiders as the "dark Zelda" game that Nintendo would never make is giving a poor representation of the game. Sure, I guess it's dark, what with the end of the world and demons and all. But it's not really dark in the way I was expecting given the way is was talked about. It felt more heavy metal album cover dark to me rather than an oppressive, bleak, end of the world, the entire human race just got murdered kind of dark.

Again, this doesn't really have any bearing on the current conversation, just pointing something out that I noticed after buying the game on their recommendations and subsequently not enjoying it.

#41 Posted by Hunkulese (2702 posts) -

@psylah said:

It just reminds me of how shortchanged it was when it came to the GotY discussions at the end of 2010. When Jeff had first played the game and talked about it on the Bombcast (1/12/2010) he was as enthusiastic as I had ever heard him about a game until Trackmania. Still, no one else played it. Hearing Patrick praise it recently, and then Brad say he'll play it before June reminds me that he was the BIGGEST detractor of Darksiders (in favor of Limbo) for it being derivative of other games. That has bugged me ever since I heard those arguments, that such an enjoyable game could be shot down by 3 others that didn't even play it until after the fact.

I hope the rest of the crew (and more gamers in general) come around after they have actually PLAYED Darksiders, and give it the credit it was due: for it being a Zelda-inspired game that you would actually enjoy playing in this day and age.

Most people forget about GOTY by Jan 15th. Do you really care what some internet people said their favorite games was over a year ago?

Darksiders has gotten more than enough attention and a whole whack ton of people have played it.

#42 Posted by Bobby_The_Great (1004 posts) -

@Hosstile17: I like the way you think. See innovation off of already created ideas.

#43 Posted by CountMacula (234 posts) -

Based on all this recent discussion of Darksiders I've come to the conclusion that I am alone in being reminded more of Soul Reaver than Zelda in playing that game.

#44 Posted by Hosstile17 (763 posts) -

@Bobby_The_Great: You keep settin' 'em up. I'll keep borrowing those ideas and positioning them as my own.

#45 Posted by jakob187 (21665 posts) -

All of these problems that people keep saying exist... I don't remember any of that in my time spent with Darksiders. That game was fucking fantastic.

It's just, ya know...Bayonetta and Alan Wake also came out that year. Those games were more fucking fantastic.

Also, given that I haven't listened to the last month of Bombcasts, I am reminded that I should probably catch up on that.

#46 Posted by Alkaiser (358 posts) -

@Bobby_The_Great said:

I love Darksiders more than Zelda. For those saying it copies Zelda too much, all I have to say is if people didn't copy pizza or the burger and then try borrow from the concept but make their own pizza's and burgers, we wouldn't have great food. You get me?

I'm hungry now.

But how does the pizza burger play into all this?