Here, it is more like, "Oh, I was wondering how long it would take you. Before you destroy me and everything I hold dear, would you mind going to light this fire for me, and maybe pick up a few special rocks along the way so I can make a bracelet before you send me into everlasting torment? Thanks, you're a peach!"
Another thing: Let's say that you are a weapons-maker, you just met Death, and you ask him to go fight Chaos for you... OK, makes sense I guess – but then when he asks you to maybe make him a weapon to make it a little easier for him to kill Chaos you're like "Meh – even though we're all safely locked behind this massive unopenable gate with absolutely no enemies to fight on this side of the wall, and nothing more to do than to stand around making weapons all day, I am not going to give you any weapons, Mr. Bringer of the End of all Worlds, until you prove to me you can fight. So go face something I'm too scared to battle on my own, even with my magic super-awesome weapons, and if you survive ... (Death can die, too, right?) ... then I might sell you some gear."
What?!?
There is just too much to have to overcome to even begin to comprehend this story.
OK, now on to the gameplay.
Fighting is little more than boring, can't-tell-what's-going-on, button-mashing. Which I'm guessing is OK, because I kept winning.
Seriously, once you get more than, say, two enemies on the screen at once, it's just a mess. It is not because my system couldn't handle it – I'm not saying there was lag or anything – I'm saying there are just too many vivid colors swirling around the screen with the armor and the weapons and the magic and the special effects and the HUD... It is just a technicolor explosion until everybody is dead but you.
This kind of defeats the purpose of the very deep weapons system. If I can beat enemies with whatever standard weapon I just happen to have picked up, why bother upgrading? There seems to be little reward to putting the effort into getting new gear other than some completionist sense of "I did it!"
The puzzles vary wildly from the most common "no problem" to the nearly impossible. Fortunately the latter are few and far between, but they seem so out of place next to the fairly simple ones that make up most of the game. It actually makes them far more frustrating than they would normally be.
Article comments
1 - Red rum
I think you shouldn't have come to the game with any expectations that it follow Revelations. Death is not the Grim Reaper, Death is just an epithet.
2 - Dana
Seems like you are reviewing your expectations of the story, characters, and not the game proper. Also, you may want to learn the story of the first game before diving into (and reviewing) the second one. It is a sequel after all.
Certainly games story do tend to serve the gameplay which can make it pretty difficult to suspend disbelief but nearly all games do this so it should not be a major point of criticism.
There is just so much good stuff going on in this game (and some bad for sure) its tough to take much value from this review because it touches on so little of the good and bad in the game.
3 - Chad W Smith
There is over a full page of review that isn't about the story. But as I mentioned, any sequel should provide enough of the story to stand alone. I played Infamous 2 without having played Infamous 1 - and I was not the least bit lost. However - had I gone back and played the first game, I am sure that I would have been given a lot more insight, and had a lot more "A-ha!" moments. Furthermore, Infamous 2 is a great example of what a sequel should be, because even though it happens after the first game, it doesn't spoil the first game. (I have learned more about the first game since completing the second one, and the big twist was not revealed in the second one.) It does this while still referring back to the first one, and not ignoring what happened. It is really well done.
Like I stated in the review - I see storytelling and game play as both being important to the game. And since - at its core - this game is just a hack-and-slash adventure game with some puzzle elements - the story is what sets it apart from others in the sub-genre (like God of War, Dante's Inferno, etc.). And - as such - the story is the important part.
Quite simply - the story completely failed. It is confusing and doesn't flow, even taking away my pre-conceived notions of what it "should be". Stories should make internal sense, this one doesn't.
And if you want to avoid the audience having preconceived notions - do not use pre-existing characters. It is as simple as that.
4 - Addison McConnell
No offense, but I do not see what credibility you have to review this game. As a reviewer, it is your job to review the game fairly with as little bias as possible and as much information you can get. This is something you did not do as you did not even take the time to play, review, or read up on the story, of the original Darksiders.
To go on a rambling spree of audiences having "preconceived notions" and the story being confusing simply proves to any reader that you are not fit to review this game. I respect you not liking the game, but please make your reviews more insightful, because this is not helpful for anyone. Far too little is said about the actual game play mechanics, and the target audience (people who have played Darksiders I and want to play Darksiders II) is completely ignored.
The story does not completely fail for most, and although it is perfectly fine to have the opinion that it does, you can not support that argument having not even touched the first game. Also, it's a story which uses adaptations of preexisting characters, you should know that going into the game, and you being surprised by it shows your lack of research and knowledge concerning the game.
If you are not qualified to review a game, why bother? Please leave it to individuals who are more cut out for it.
5 - Derek Griifin
I don't really understand what exactly you're saying here. It's obviously a story driven game, so you have to take it the same way would a movie. Are you saying that a good game/movie/book sequel shouldn't rely on somebody being familiar the previous installments? Because, that's silly. Doesn't matter how good of a movie Return of The Jedi is, you wouldn't really have much of a clue of what was going on if you hadn't seen the others ("Who's this little green guy and why should I care?!?!?") Not trying to be disrespectful, but it seems kinda lazy, like reading the last chapter of a book and trying to write a report on it. Everything in this game is a direct result of events in the first. granted, there are some games that you can just walk in on, The Uncharted games are a good example, but other games , Assassin's Creed for example, are telling a broader story over multiple games. The Darksiders games are like that so, even though you went into it with good intentions, it's not really fair to judge a story that you just waded into halfway through its telling.