This game ruined the franchise

[Kai]

Darksiders 2 was among the top hack'n'slash games of all time and they somehow thought going soulslike was a good idea. Could you guys go back to hack and slash please for D4 and save this? Please dont half@ss it with a mid budget game as its probably the most valued and massive IP owned by THQ nordic rn.

[Swifty404]

You know that Vigil Games died and THQ Noridc tryed to do something new? They updated Darksiders III play style by a update becorse so many people didn't like it.

And when Darksiders 4 is like DS 1 or DS 2 it will be cool

[Mazile]

They didn't try something new, they wanted to squeeze as much money as they could by investing as little as they could
In press at the time of game's release it was praised for hugh financial success despite it's low budget
Thus we get badly implemented souls mechanics
Just think about it if there were no respawning enemies, checkpoints were like in previous games, where was a map, game could be finished in a few hours
It's small nearly empty game, that's why they needed tools to artificially prolong playtime
And don't forget that there are gamebreaking and some lesser bugs that weren't fixed, cos they published all the promissed content and don't give a f anymore about ds3
It's low-budget piece of code with loved title so they can grab your money

[Swifty404]

Originally posted by Mazile:

They didn't try something new, they wanted to squeeze as much money as they could by investing as little as they could
In press at the time of game's release it was praised for hugh financial success despite it's low budget
Thus we get badly implemented souls mechanics
Just think about it if there were no respawning enemies, checkpoints were like in previous games, where was a map, game could be finished in a few hours
It's small nearly empty game, that's why they needed tools to artificially prolong playtime
And don't forget that there are gamebreaking and some lesser bugs that weren't fixed, cos they published all the promissed content and don't give a f anymore about ds3
It's low-budget piece of code with loved title so they can grab your money

The map is empty. Nah bruh Darksiders 2 was empty big as f@ k map and there was almost nothing. DS III has more things to find in the world.

And that they just invested litte money. For the arena DLC I agree to 100 % but the enemies respawn when u die but (I think don't know it anymore) when u go back to the spot again they don't respawn. DS II the enemies didn't respawn again when u leave the are and come back. DS I they respwaned but not everything spawned again.

[Mazile]

Ds2 has needlessly large "open" world thus making it feels empty, but in dungeon sequences it was way better than ds3
Yes enemies in ds3 respawn only on ur death, but all of them will respawn if u die
In ds1 and 2 there are enemies that respawn in transit zones and if you're killed you are resurrected before the room you've died in and only enemies in that room are respawned
If for some reason you've abandoned exploration of any "side-quest" dungeon in ds2 you won't face any previously killed enemies again even you'd died in between two runs
But my main issue with ds3 is it's boring press dodge to win core combat mechanic

[Whitey]

Originally posted by Mazile:

Ds2 has needlessly large "open" world thus making it feels empty, but in dungeon sequences it was way better than ds3
Yes enemies in ds3 respawn only on ur death, but all of them will respawn if u die
In ds1 and 2 there are enemies that respawn in transit zones and if you're killed you are resurrected before the room you've died in and only enemies in that room are respawned
If for some reason you've abandoned exploration of any "side-quest" dungeon in ds2 you won't face any previously killed enemies again even you'd died in between two runs
But my main issue with ds3 is it's boring press dodge to win core combat mechanic

Enemies were respawning if I went too far away. Like after getting the force hallow I walked around to previous areas (never used fast travel and didn't go very far) came back through from exploring and enemies were back. Enemies I didn't want to have to kill again on top of that.

[Grantorino]

OP IMA SAY IT



GIT GUD

[DaylightDemon]

well, darksiders 4 is a diabloesque twin stick shooter and im not complaining. who sais a series cant have different genre games? as long as they are all good games im not complaining. and i think darksiders 3 is solid.

[Mazile]

Genesis isn't forth instalment in the series it's spin-off prequel. But ds3 is.
I don't say ds3 is bad game. Yes it has some technical issues, bugs which won't be addressed anymore and that's a minus to devs. But as the game from darksiders franchise it's awful
You aren't playing as the horseman of apocalypse but as a jester that jumps around with weights attached to all her limbs
Ds3 heavily focused on 1v1 combat which wasn't the best kind in all franchise
There are few interesting boss mechanics in the game
In fact most boss fights are just dodge the attack in the right time, counter it and may be do some of yours, repeat until victory
It maybe fascinating cool and dandy for some but I'm not fan of reaction check gameplay and this is only challenge that is in a game: how quickly you would memorize when to press the dodge button and do it constantly
Thus making it's boring
But if the game wasn't called darksiders 3 but anything else like "Apocalypse: the Fury road of deadly sins" i'd say that game is pretty solid, yeah

[DaylightDemon]

Originally posted by Mazile:

Genesis isn't forth instalment in the series it's spin-off prequel. But ds3 is.

do you really think there will be a D4 after D3s reception? okay dude.

[DaylightDemon]

but honestly, i dont get the hate. i played the game (not all the way through though) when it was out and yeah sometimes the hitboxes where fishy and combat felt a bit cheap at times. but now that im playing it again i think its great. the game rewards exploration, the upgrade system is fun, the combat aswell, its one of the easier soulslikes and i feel with all the metroidvania like exploration its not even that different to darksiders 1 and 2. and tbh i dont miss the weird loot system of darksiders 2 one bit.

[Kai]

Originally posted by DaylightDemon:

but honestly, i dont get the hate. i played the game (not all the way through though) when it was out and yeah sometimes the hitboxes where fishy and combat felt a bit cheap at times. but now that im playing it again i think its great. the game rewards exploration, the upgrade system is fun, the combat aswell, its one of the easier soulslikes and i feel with all the metroidvania like exploration its not even that different to darksiders 1 and 2. and tbh i dont miss the weird loot system of darksiders 2 one bit.

Because this isn't supposed to be soulslike, not by lore or by original concept.

By logic she is a horseman of Apocalypse, she is supposed to be played like a god ripping through the horde of enemies, not scurrying away from them like a defenceless survivor like soulslikes are

And the core design was always hack/slash, combos and abilities, not a dodge and attack simulator. You would make a Darksiders rts and even if that is a decent rts by itself, its not a darksiders game. They can probably get away by calling it a spin off, but not the core title.

If you dont get how important a franchises's identity is and what it does by alienating its fans, only then its going to fine for you.

[Mazile]

Originally posted by DaylightDemon:

Originally posted by Mazile:

Genesis isn't forth instalment in the series it's spin-off prequel. But ds3 is.

do you really think there will be a D4 after D3s reception? okay dude.

It's not about will there be ds4 or not, it's about fact that genesis isn't ds4 that's why it can be justified to have completely different type of gameplay
Ds2 had it flaws like questionable loot system, needlessly large open world thus making it empty but combat was gorgeous: combos, abilities, items
And as ds2 was needlessly large ds3 is too small, there are few places where you can fight more than 3 enemies if it's not trash mobs that were killed by one button in previous games, cos the game is about fighting mostly 1v1
And speaking of 1 button: dodge is your "press X to win" with one addition you must time it perfectly
All fights in ds3 has same pattern if you can't kill or stagger enemy with basic attacks you can just stand still and push dodge at the right time
And the problem is counter attack and bullet time aren't reward for well time dodge but core combat mechanic
You can't just dodge the attack, you can't break distance you either make a perfect dodge or get hit
There is nothing to master in ds3 besides learning the timings and pressing one button at the right time

[DaylightDemon]

Originally posted by Kai:

Because this isn't supposed to be soulslike, not by lore or by original concept.

By logic she is a horseman of Apocalypse, she is supposed to be played like a god ripping through the horde of enemies, not scurrying away from them like a defenceless survivor like soulslikes are

And the core design was always hack/slash, combos and abilities, not a dodge and attack simulator. You would make a Darksiders rts and even if that is a decent rts by itself, its not a darksiders game. They can probably get away by calling it a spin off, but not the core title.

If you dont get how important a franchises's identity is and what it does by alienating its fans, only then its going to fine for you.

so by that logic, darksiders 2 isnt supposed to be a game centered around loot, because why the ♥♥♥♥ is death an item hoarder, hes a horseman not a materialist. honestly thats just justifying that you dont like soulslikes or you dont like that game series try out new concepts.

not as many people despised the changes from D1 to D2, but they are there. and they also have no point. dont like it? dont play it. but dont tell the devs or other people how the game is "supposed to be" in your opinion.

i happen to like soulslikes. and i like the concept, artstyle and plot of darksiders. soulslikes are not my favourite thing ever, but i can easily get the appeal.

also the only critizism this game gets is "its a soulslike now buuh huuh". completely ignoring that the combat in general feels so much more free flowing than in D2, the graphics and artstyle are quite nice and fit very well into what the series established. the dialogue is nice, there even is a bit of development going on between the watcher and fury. the boss design is at the series peak.

ofc you could say "oh these things are to be expected". no they arent. many of the mentioned things could have easily been minimal effort. but this attempt at a spin on the soulslike genre is not cheap. its quite well executed. not that any of those would know who cant get over the fact that "buh huh game is a soulslike now mommy who let this happen"

in the second game you couldnt block. it was also dodging only. no one took issue (maybe some did). the first too games also had quite the minimal combo system, nothing compared todevil may cry for example. and its not like combos are completely gone either. you can still chain attacks from weapon types together, every weapon has different base combos (not many, granted). it has become a trend even in combo heavy games to not give tons of combos to a single weapon but rather chain weapon attack together for some inetersting style, flair and posibilities.

[Mazile]

Loot system in ds2 is just poorly implemented item upgrade system
Yes it's somewhat bad but it didn't change combat
In ds2 there is a skill in combat tree that allows you dash through enemies so not only dodge
Also you could run around from enemy to enemy, prioritizing ones that you wanted to kill first
In ds3 if you are surrounded your only hopes is to have wrath ability ready or to perfect dodge the first attack aimed at you or else you are gonna be killed while being staggered
In ds3 you are playing by the rules not creating ones in opposite to ds1 and 2
I don't say ds2 doesn't have it flaws there are plenty of them but by comparing ds3 is much worse

[Kai]

The core mechanics of darksiders has been hack/slash, even gensis is hack/slash. The loot system is the progression, even if they had a rpg level based progression or a experience based leveling or the kind Genesis has, it would not have made much difference as the core game is the same. They can add different mechanics to improve upon it, not change it.

Let me make it simple. If tomorrow Dark Souls 5 becomes devil may cry like hack/slash, souls fans will riot, review bomb and the journalists will devour FromSoftware. Me who doesnt really care for darksouls would have no problem with that, i Like hack/slash so ill be glad to try it for once.

So, the same way, when they changed Darksiders, fans like us were unhappy. people who dont really care for the franchise wouldn't care less and souls fans would be glad they had another game can now play, then be done with it and leave it behind.

Alienating the franchise for people who like something else is the dumbest thing these devs can do. And most of the time its the suits aiming to earn a quick buck, thats all.