Darksiders

Objectively better than Zelda.

Other urls found in this thread:

nintendolife.com/news/2012/11/the_legend_of_zeldas_link_was_inspired_by_walt_disneys_peter_pan
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

bump

Objectively deader than Souls too

At least it's not DMC

>Objectively deader than Souls too
Is this a compliment or an insult?

I don't get this post

I don't think he really knew what he was trying to say, either.

Prove it.

what is better darksiders 1 or 2?
ive got 2 and its okay, wondering if darksiders 1 is better or still worth the purchase

2 is Prince of Persia + Diablo, 1 is God of War + Zelda.
1 is also more straightforward, the combat isn't as good as 2 but overall it feels less padded.

Objectively not, also nobody care's about your opinion and your whole life

Darksiders is the better game by a mile, IMO. It's sort of like Zelda but with more focus on combat. More of a linear progression with classic Zelda-style dungeons and items, etc. Darksiders 2 started drifting more into looty hack and slash territory and lost its charm. Also, the protagonist/characters in the first one are way, way better.

>Objectively not, also nobody care's about your opinion and your whole life
t. assmad Zelda autist who can't accept reality

I doubt you've actually played the game, but tell me, why is Zelda better?

I prefered 1, felt like new weapons actually changed gameplay, but I really hate Diablo loot system

Apart from the third game coming out soon?

They're pretty different. First game is Zelda, second game is Diablo.

Darksiders does everything Zelda does, but better. The combat is far more complex and engrosssing, the dungeons are better designed and have more in them (including optional stuff which serves as an incentive to re-visit dungeons even once you finish them), the graphics and art style are much better (at least compared to post-Wind Waker 3D Zeldas, Ocarina of Time was great looking)... the list goes on. I mean, it's kind of hard to think of what the game DOESN'T do better.

The only thing I can possibly think of Zelda doing "better" is having more optional sidequests/minigames, but generally these boil down to tedious fetch quests and stupid stuff like shooting galleries. It isn't missed in my opinion. Oh, and music. Zelda always has great music. Aside from that, Darksiders is superior.

You have so few things to say about your shitty game that you just make a stupid punk ass bitch troll thread without any arugment just for e-attention, killing yourself will probably be the best option for you

>You have so few things to say about your shitty game that you just make a stupid punk ass bitch troll thread without any arugment just for e-attention, killing yourself will probably be the best option for you
Lol, boy are you upset. So few things to say? I just listed quite a few things right above your post. You won't even say a single thing about your own shitty game. If you want to have an actual debate and discuss the positives and negatives of each game, let's do it. But so far you're acting like a mega retardoid with no argument for why the game isn't good.

I mean dude, you're literally telling me to kill myself because I like Darksiders more than Zelda... get help. Seriously.

How many people in this fucking thread even played the first darksiders? Because the first one dosn't have zelda style dungeons and instead has something closer to dmc style arena rooms.

Percent chance this thread is made by a single drone with maybe an hour of playtime in the 2nd darksiders and that is it? About 90.

...

Not him, but all Zelda games have hugely better level design and pacing.
Darksiders dungeons are very uncreative and monotonous compared to most Zelda ones

>Because the first one dosn't have zelda style dungeons and instead has something closer to dmc style arena rooms.
Uhh, yes, it does actually. It literally has dungeons filled with block moving puzzles, tool items, bosses, treasure chests, maps, "compasses", the whole 9 yards. I mean, what?

Nah, they don't. Most Zelda games actually have really, really terrible dungeon design. A few standouts would be OoT's Forest Temple or TP's sky dungeon. But by and large, they are ridiculously simple, filled with repetitive tasks like shooting switches and pushing blocks, and can be cleared in about 20 minutes. They are also beyond formulaic and follow the same pattern of puzzle-mini boss-item-boss. Over and over.

Darksiders on the other hand, there's really nothing monotonous about its dungeons. Each one is very different, with different gimmicks and challenges, and they usually have optional side areas that house useful but non-critical items, sometimes there are even areas which can only be accessed after acquiring an item from another dungeon and coming back. They're much more intricate and interesting.

I mean, you can say they have better "design and pacing", but these are really just filler words that don't mean anything. The dungeons are pretty bad, frankly.

Lol you sound like the one who has only played the second Darksiders for an hour. Wtf are you even talking about. DS1 is literally Zelda mixed with God of War. Not sure why you consider that a bad thing anyway.

>The combat is far more complex and engrosssing
Zelda has in general a much smaller focus on combat in general, so it's not that big of a deal.
>the dungeons are better designed
I disagree
>and have more in them (including optional stuff which serves as an incentive to re-visit dungeons even once you finish them)
I don't consider this to be a plus. Usually I take not being able to do everything in one go as a detriment, with some exceptions. Having to trudge through a dungeon to get to the one spot that required a different tool is annoying.
> the graphics
Not really fair seeing how Zelda never got past the Wii hardware until BotW
>and art style
Unless you don't particularly care for insanely overdesigned Warhammer rejects, and even if you do Zelda still has a pretty nice art style.

I would like to propose as an additional plus for Zelda "having more than 0 things that aren't completely and unashamedly lifted from other games". I mean, a fucking gun that opens blue and orange portals?

God of war and Dmc have those things, you know that right? Darksiders just has a selection of smaller maps instead of a one open map or a linear hallways.

The dungeon designs didn't hit zelda tier till the 2nd and even then its dungeons are basic consepts compared to the zelda dungeons they pull inspiration from. The mountain tears section was a bad 64 style water temple. Both great bay and hyrule lake where far superior in layout and puzzles compared to the darksiders version.

>Zelda has in general a much smaller focus on combat in general, so it's not that big of a deal.
I agree, which is another reason why Darksiders is the better game.
>I disagree
Okay, why? I gave a pretty good argument for why Darksiders has better dungeons here , let's hear your reasoning.
>I don't consider this to be a plus.
Why? It's not like these areas ever house a critical item, just optional stuff that makes it fun to return to places you've already been. Zelda does the exact same thing, just out in the overworld and not in dungeons. Darksiders has a much more natural flow in how the overworld connects with dungeons, so it's really no different.
>Not really fair seeing how Zelda never got past the Wii hardware until BotW
And even still, a game from 2009 looks significantly better than BotW.
>Unless you don't particularly care for insanely overdesigned Warhammer rejects, and even if you do Zelda still has a pretty nice art style.
I'd call it more of a comic book style than anything, but frankly I don't think Zelda has a "pretty nice art style". Most of the characters literally look like gay clowns. And I'm not saying that as an insult to your taste, I'm being serious, they look like gay clowns.
>I would like to propose as an additional plus for Zelda "having more than 0 things that aren't completely and unashamedly lifted from other games". I mean, a fucking gun that opens blue and orange portals?
Every successful person or franchise has taken things from something that came before them. Moreover, the devs literally said they did it and weren't trying to hide that fact. A good game is a good game, I don't care if the concept came from something else. That's a non-argument.

The only objective statment that you could make in comparison is that it is a completely different type of game, retard.

Darksiders is something special. Games are awesome. And I HATED God of War. Shit's bland.

Darksiders is a fantastic game

Darksiders 2 is padded and wide open for the sheer purpose of being able to ride your horse through empty fields.

I am hoping Darksiders 3 has a big interconnected world and not hubs.

Well, let's see here...
>3rd person adventure game
>explore semi-open world looking for treasures and health upgrades
>fight enemies with various weapons and special items that have combat uses as well
>heal and enhance abilities with po
>complete dungeons through platforming/combat/puzzle solving, acquire a new item, defeat a boss, repeat
>protagonist on a mission to kill the dark lord
>there's even a fucking horse
And you know, the fact the devs themselves even said they borrow ideas from Zelda. What more does the game fucking need to be considered similar to Zelda? How stupid do you have to be to not see the similarities?

2 is objectively better than zelda but wasn't the first one a shitty god of war?

Agreed. Always hated God of War. Had to borrow from Greek Mythology, couldn't even create its own mythos. Darksiders is the best of the best.

First Darksiders is way better than second and is much closer to Zelda's design formula. I have no idea where you got that from.

>I didn't play the first game but let me tell you how it's a shitty God of War

I always heard the first one was linear

this thread has me about to torrent 2 tho

>I always heard the first one was linear
And this is a problem, why?

zelda games aren't linear tho

>God of war and Dmc have those things, you know that right?
No, it does not. It does not have formulaic use of maps and compasses found in specific dungeons, it doesn't have tool items like grappling hooks and boomerangs which are used for accessing particular places you couldn't reach at one point, etc. They have some of that stuff, but the way it actually works in the game is completely different from how you're describing it on paper.
>The dungeon designs didn't hit zelda tier till the 2nd
You are legitimately retarded if you believe this. I don't think you've actually played this game. Even the fucking devs themselves said they modeled the game largely off of Zelda.
>Both great bay and hyrule lake where far superior in layout and puzzles compared to the darksiders version.
Lol what kind of argument is this?

he said wasn't it. Which means he's not sure would like someone who has played it to inform him.

>zelda games aren't linear tho

Uhhhhhhh basically every Zelda game past Zelda 1 is linear unless you sequence break, which can also be done in Darksiders. What the fuck are you smoking?

>he said wasn't it. Which means he's not sure would like someone who has played it to inform him.
It's called:
>implying

And before you say "b-but he wanted someone to inform him", no, he purposely went of his way to call it a "shitty" god of war because he a per-conceived notion about it.

>Objectively
Objectively
>Objectively
Objectively
>Objectively
Objectively
>Objectively
Objectively
>Objectively
Objectively
>Objectively
Objectively
>Objectively
Objectively
>Objectively
Objectively

and 3 looks like shit desu

2's a lot of fun tho
Yes but I understood Darksiders 1 to be linear in the God of War sense where you're pretty much set on a single path and going back is impossible

Don't be a dense faggot you know what I'm talking about. Zelda games always allow you to explore even if you're meant to follow a particular sequence of events.

Oot is my GOAT, well consider me sold, thanks anons

>I understood Darksiders 1 to be linear in the God of War sense where you're pretty much set on a single path and going back is impossible
No, it's nothing like that. You travel around an open world with some paths blocked by your lack of certain items, which you obtain in dungeons with puzzles.

OoT is my favorite Zelda by far, and I'm telling you, I enjoy Darksiders even more. You'll have a blast. Not to spoil anything but there's a particular battle that makes the horseback field fight in TP look like babyshit.

well you should've just told me that in the first place. guess i should play it now

alright

Is the PS4 Remaster still fucked with its audio?

>Don't be a dense faggot you know what I'm talking about. Zelda games always allow you to explore even if you're meant to follow a particular sequence of events.
LOL dense faggot? I'm not the one calling Zelda non-linear. How about learning to convey your thoughts in a way that isn't retarded before calling someone else dense? Anyone who isn't literally retarded knows "linear" means the order in which you complete objectives, not what you do in-between. Holy shit, just go back. Also:
>Yes but I understood Darksiders 1 to be linear in the God of War sense where you're pretty much set on a single path and going back is
Yeah, you understood wrong.

well how about you try to be less defensive all the time when someone is just asking questions about your shitty franchise

>You would wage this war alone?
>No. Not alone.
That ending cinematic was so amazing and had me pumped up for the continuation of the story, but all I got was some fantasy adventure with zero plot relevance.

I can't attest to PS4 but I'm playing the remastered edition on PC right now and I haven't had a single problem. Looks like sex, too.

>try to be less defensive
>shitty franchise
I'm not being defensive, I'm calling a spade a spade and telling you that you're being a fucking retard for calling a franchise "shitty" when you haven't even played it.

It sucks never having a proper sequel, yeah, but frankly I couldn't care less. The game is amazing on its own. I'm almost glad it never got a direct continuation because it feels like a self-contained game rather than a cashcow franchise where the lore gets raped into the ground.

First game is more soul reaver than zelda.

>press x to win
>comparing a 2010 release with a 2006 release

You telling me 2 didn't rape the lore? Alternate universe of dorfs for no reason. Land of the dead with its own king who considers Death just some faggot and sends him on fetch quests. Some stupid origins of horsemen as just normal members of this other fantasy race that was just pretty good at killing shit. It robbed the first game of so much grandure. Now it's no longer metaphysical realities colliding, with characters as conceptual embodiments, now it's just a fantasy about parallel worlds.

>press x to win
Are you seriously using this as an argument when every Zelda game can literally be beaten this way, and it's almost impossible to die?
>comparing a 2010 release with a 2006 release
Uh where did I make any direct comparison to Twilight Princess? I'm talking about the franchise as a whole, which includes games made both before and after. Regardless, being 4 years older doesn't mean TP gets a pass for having shit gameplay and art style.

>You telling me 2 didn't rape the lore?
I'm literally saying it didn't rape the lore because it has almost nothing to do with the first game. That's the point.

I said I played and enjoyed two but it seemed to me that when the first one came out it was covered as a shitty god of war clone. Forgive me for being misled, God.

But it's part of the franchise, it's there. You can't just stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalala can't hear you" at that game's existence.

Okay partner, here's the thing: generally, if an intelligent person doesn't know something, they inquire about it in a way that demonstrates a willingness to learn and a respect for the subject. If you actually have an intention of say, learning how to cook Vietnamese pho, you might say "is that similar to regular soup"? If you say, "isn't that just shitty chicken broth?", anyone who's actually educated is going to think you're a retard for making a sweeping generalization about something you don't even know about. It doesn't matter if you don't know or you do know, the point is that you're applying a negative modifier to something because you have a preconceived notion that it sucks, thus demonstrating not a willingness to learn, but a disdain for something which you haven't learned. I feel ashamed for even wasting time explaining this to you, but I hate seeing ignorance go unpunished. Move along now.

Yeah, uh, I'm not. I'm literally saying it doesn't really make a difference because the two games have almost nothing to do with one another, meaning the first game's lore doesn't really even get touched. I don't know what you're not understanding about this, but I don't really care anyway. Whatever floats your boat.

Not sure what this suppose to mean.

ok hillary voter i'll try to be educasheded like u be nigga!

What do you mean the first game's lore doesn't get touched? It changes the opposing factions from heaven and hell to just parallel fantasy worlds or winged guys and horned guys. It changes horsemen from embodiments of human sorrows to just guys. It changes the culmination of conflict of opposite ideas to just territorial squabble between sentient races.

>ok hillary voter i'll try to be educasheded like u be nigga!
I actually voted Trump. But yes, you should try to educate yourself so you don't make us look bad.

Statement. They're done making souls games.

>Statement. They're done making souls games.
>meanwhile, a remaster is coming out in 4 months and Darksiders 3 is on its way
You didn't really think this one through, did you?

>3 will probably do bad because Sup Forumsniggers will REEE about the female protagonist in the same vein as Wolfenstein 2
>We will never get our 5th game

I think you vastly overestimate Sup Forumstards' power. Sure they'll reee here, but the effect it would have on the sales is minimal. It'll go bad if they fuck it up, and since this time it looks like they took souls for the core inspiration, there's a lot of room to do that.

A female protagonist is not the same as a white-hating jew and a black man plundering a fat german girl's pussy, though.

Boy i have both darksiders on steam and got bored a few hours in both, the combat is indeed better but it just lacks the same appeal the legend of zelda has.

>it just lacks the same appeal the legend of zelda has.
What appeal is that? No difficulty, useless currency that is the only thing you ever get rewarded with, a bunch of shitty minigames, toddler-tier combat and formulaic dungeons?

Completed the first Darksiders and I remember nothing, probably because it lacked a sense of identity.

Sounds like you're just retarded.

Well it's not a particularly memorable game is it? Its best ideas are taken from other games (you even get a portal gun if I'm not mistaken).

Why does something taking ideas from something else make it less memorable? The Legend of Zelda is literally fucking ripped directly from Legend starring Tom Cruise, right down to the green tunic, dark lord, magic horse and all. The game was very memorable, you're clearly just biased or didn't really play it.

nintendolife.com/news/2012/11/the_legend_of_zeldas_link_was_inspired_by_walt_disneys_peter_pan

Geez, stop being such an asshat and let it go. It's ok to accept your mistakes here.

I also compared it to Zelda and enjoyed the first game. The second is comfy but also lacking something that keeps me wanting to play