So, let's talk Darksiders...

Recommended Videos

Dane Tesston

New member
Jul 27, 2010
136
0
0
So let me begin by being blunt: Yahtzee dropped the ball on this one. Hard. There's a lot that the man skimmed over, and then proceded to hate on the games for the things that were missed. So, pretty much par the course for a Yahtzee review. Anyway, I feel that Darksiders deserves more credit then it got. Thus, I have decieded to present to you a quick version of what's going down in Darksiders. Be thee warned, spoilers abound. And buckle up. This gon' be long.


Setting the stage
To put it simply, War was set up. The Apocalypse seen in the game was in fact preamature, and was put into motion by the general of Heaven's forces, Abaddon. Abaddon, fearing the battle against the darkness was slowly but surely failing, sought to end the conflict between his kind and the demons. To do this, he conspired with the Angel of Death Azrael and the Maker Ulthane. The plan was to destroy Six of the Seven seals of the Apocalypse. The Seals, set in place by the Charred Council, were meant to keep the forces of Heaven and Hell from waging a war that would result in the desruction of the kingdom of Man. The Seals were only meant to be broken when Mankind was capable of defending itself. The Seventh Seal was meant to go unharmed, as it's destruction would call the Four Horsemen, the agents of the Charred Council's will. Seeing as Abaddon was breaking the truce between Heaven and Hell, this was something he needed to avoid. It was by the hand of Azrael that the Seals were broken. Ulthane's part in the conspiracy was to reforge the seals, eliminating the evidence. From there, once the Demons set to earth, Abaddon would be able to claim that they had broken the truce.

Now, to Abaddon's credit, he never intended for Mankind to get wiped out, beliving he'd be able to bring the wrath of the Council down on the Demons before any fighting started. Unfortunetly, the Demons were more prepared for battle then anticipated, and had started to raze the helpless humans right out of the gate. Worse still, the Council was already aware of Abaddon's betrayal, informed by an outside party belived to be Lilith, the "mother" of the Demons and the Nephilim, the race the Horsemen belonged to, but we'll get to that later. The Council sought to punish Abaddon by way of the Horsemen, but with the Seals repaired at this point, couldn't justify putting Abaddon to the chopping block. And so the Council, still seeking proper restitution for the broken treaty, called only one of the Horsemen to the battlefield, who they would then lay the blame upon in the hopes that they would seek to defend their innocence and hunt down the truly guilty. War, considered the most honourable of the Hoursemen but also notorious for his temper, was the chosen fall guy. Thus, War was stripped of his rank and most of his power and, after a century of imprisonment, shackled to the Watcher and sent to the battle scarred Earth, unaware as of his role as a pawn in the Council's own plot.

Or, to put all that more simply; War didn't cock up shit. Mofo just got saddled with the blame for the actions of some angel dude with an eyepatch who got overzealous about his job. Said mofo's bosses were too lazy to get they own job done properly, so they frame said mofo and send him to smack down the bitches who caused all the trouble in the first place.


In Defense of a brother's honor
Now we come to the events of Darksiders 2, which run concurent with the first game. When the other Horsemen were informed of War's imprisonment, Death prostested that his brother, as the most honourable of the Four, couldn't be responisble for starting the Apocalypse. So Death set out to right the wrong befallen to War. To make things brief, Death's journey eventually brings him to the Well of Souls, the place where the souls of all things go to be purified and reincarnated. Death sacrifices himself to restore mankind by tossing himself into the well, absolving War. But this occures at the same time that the Seventh Seal is broken, resurrecting Death and War, who had died befriefly before the Seal was broken. With this, one of the most powerful forces in the universe was brought together, who will likely set about a campaign of vengeance against their former masters.

Or, to put all that more simply; Death calls bullshit, knowing his homie War wouldn't just go around wiping entrie races off the face of existence, and goes out to prove War innocent, ultimately making the greatest sacrifice to do so, like the OG mofo he is.

In his most recent Extra Punctuation coloum, Yahtzee decried Death's lack of motivation, but this simply isn't true. Everything Death does, he does so out of the desire to defend his brother's honor, to prove he was wrongfully blamed for a crime he had no hand in aside from fufilling his duty. You'll notice that Death's interaction with the various NPC's and quest givers met in the game is filled with sarcasm, insults, and a very apparent lack of interest in their problems. Death cares little for their ills, and only does any of the things they ask of him because it will aid in his quest in some way, which is very fitting of the "arrogant" piece of his character. More over, you get a subtle sense of regret from Death. Though he himself wouldn't admit to it, the things he's done in the past haunt him to an extent. You have to remember, Death and his fellow riders aren't just the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, but the four surviving members of their race, the Nephilim, and Death played a big part in that. As the last of their kind, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a good degree of loyalty between them, and Death, being one of the eldest of the Nephilim and the eldest of the four, would likely hold the deepest loyalty to his fellows.


Even Death has his demons
This all begs the question; Who were the Nephilim? We are told that the Nephilim came about "from the mingled dust of Angel and Demon" by Lilith, the mother of all demons. This also makes her the "mother" of the Nephilim, which she dosen't fail to flaunt to Death when the two meet late in the game. The first of the Nephilim was Absalom, who would sereve as the template for all other Nephilim and became their leader. Absalom would lead his kind on a crusade that resulted in the destruction of countless worlds. When Man was granted Eden by the Creator (our resident God analouge), the Nephilim felt they desereved it, and thus set about to conquer it. By this point, four of the Nephilim grew tired of the ceasless slaughter, and defected from their race. Bringing themselves before the Charred Council, they pledged their loyalty as enforces of the Council's will in exchange for power enough to stop the Nephilim. The deal was struck, and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse were formed. Soon enough, the slaughterers became the slaughtered. As the Nephilim fell, their souls were collected into an amulet held by Death. It was, in fact, Death himself who challenged, and ultimately killed, Absalom.

The amulet containing the souls of the Nephilim serves as one of the most important items in the game, and indeed the overall story of Darksiders. Once the Nephilim were dealt with, the Council ordered the amulet destroyed, but Death couldn't bring himself to do it. He gave it to the Crowfather, also known as the Keeper of Secrets and an ally of Death's at the time, for safe keeping. When War is imprisioned, Death seeks out the Crowfather again, seeking the aid of his secrets in hopes of finding a way of resurrecting humanity. But the Crowfather, nearly driven mad by the howling screams of the souls within the amulet, demands that Death take it back and destroy it. When Death refuses, the Crowfather attacks him, taking on the form of War, no less. At the end of the fight, the Crowfather dies and the amulet falls from his neck and shatters. The shards then embed themselves in Death's chest.

While the irony here is astounding, that the one who led the effort to eliminate the Nephilim is now forced to bear the vessel he put their souls in, it is also a blessing in disguise. If Death hadn't had the souls of the Nephilim with him, his sacrifice alone wouldn't have been enough to resurrect Humankind. But this also has a darker shade of tragedy to it. The souls of one race was sacrificed to resurrect another. While this was done to protect his brother, the betryal Death commited against his own kind has now been rendered concrete, permanent. Again, the irony is astounding. In his efforts to erase the crime his brother never committed, Death's own crime, necessary as it may have been, has been rendered inerasable. Loyalty came with a hefty price, as the right thing often does.

"He who brings death upon his enemies utterly shall be called Death"
Kinslayer and Executioner. These are two of the names given to Death, and this includes the name Death. War, Death, Strife, Fury. These were the names bestowed upon the Horsemen. Remember, the four were of the world slaughtering Nephilim and partook of those battles before realizing the wrong they were doing. We've seen War and Death in combat, and the same ability can be assumed of their brother and sister. It's not much of a stretch to think that they earned their names somewhere along the line. But most pertinent to this point is Death. Among his own kind, Death was also a crafter as well as warrior. It was his idea to use the remains of the Ravaiim, one of the first races to fall to the Nephilim, as material to create the Abominations, weapons of great and terrible power. The genocide of the Nephilim was his idea as well. Death may not be death itself incarnate, but he knows death enough to deserve to carry the title.


And so there you have it. Just about every question Yahtzee had about the games, answered with info given in the games themselves or otherwise gleaned from a little research. At the risk of pissing some people off, it's these two particular reviews that I'll point to when I say that Yahtzee isn't a good critic. Now, don't misunderstand. I think he's a good entertainer and I'd happily call myself a fan. But the cynicism the man is renowned for is also his biggest flaw. This is a man who's philosophy can be summed up as "Everything sucks until proven otherwise, and even then it sucks." In the pursuit of that, he'll go out of his way to make a game look bad, and given the... single mindedness of a lot of his fans, has probably drawn people from a lot games they might have otherwise enjoyed just because it didn't get his approval. The basic duty of a critic is to properly inform their audience of whatever it is they reveiw, and in this instance, Yahtzee has failed. Hell, in general he fails at this, but here in particular. Now again, I know this is going to piss some people off, but before you go off on me, I ask you to consider this. Way back in his Bioshock review, Yahtzee said "Nobody likes me when I'm nice to a game." Just dwell on it for a moment.

But enough of that. What say you guys?
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Eh, I found the first one painfully dull.

The second one was a mild improvement, but still nowhere near good enough to bother finishing.
 

Zantos

New member
Jan 5, 2011
3,653
0
0
There was much a TL;DR there, so I may have missed the finer points in my skim reading, but I think in essence I agree. I really liked the first Darksiders, it had it's puzzle sections, Mark Hamill, mobs and some properly epic boss battles, especially
Jousting against a dragon on a flaming horse with a sword that brings about the end of the world

It had it's weak points as every game does, but overall I really enjoyed it, and will be picking up number 2 when in a better financial situation. Is it for everyone? No, of course not. Does it have a lot going for it, definitely.
 

Scrustle

New member
Apr 30, 2011
2,031
0
0
I admit I haven't actually seen the ZP episode for Darksiders 2 or read the Extra Punctuation article either. I only just finished the game today and I didn't want anything other than the game itself to influence my opinion of it. Naturally, I loved it. Although I thought the last boss fight was a bit anti-climactic.

But I think it's true that the story in Darksiders 2 wasn't all that clear. The Corruption wasn't well explained. I never really felt like I knew exactly what the Corruption was, why it was so bad and what it had to do with clearing War's name. I liked the way Death dealt with NPCs though. It was clear that he was only doing things to save his brother. It wasn't like so many other games where every other side quest was about taking down some threat that's presented as being as world ending as the main antagonist, and Death wasn't happy about having to run errands for people either. His focus was kept strong, even if it wasn't that clear what he was focusing on. Sometimes I was feeling confused as to what I was doing actually had to do with War or The Corruption.

Reading what you wrote here did a good job of laying everything out and it all sounds familiar to me, apart from that bit about the Abominations. Don't think I've heard that before. Is that from the novel or something? Either way, if you asked me to explain everything you just wrote there I wouldn't have been able to do it myself, although I understood it perfectly. Perhaps that shows that the story isn't so well presented in the game. It makes sense, but they don't communicate it well.

I think also a lot of it might be missed on someone who didn't play the first game. Things like seeing Archon talking to The Destroyer for example. If I hadn't played the first game I wouldn't have known what that was or how it was significant. It's okay for a game to have ties in the story to other games in the series, but unless it's supposed to be part of the exact same story arc then I think it's kind of a failure of the game if you have to refer to other games for it to make sense. Yahtzee has played the first so he should know about this wider story, but I also think it's a valid criticism to say that something should be clear within itself without needing to refer to completely separate pieces of media. But then again I guess you could argue that Darksiders 1 & 2 are both in the same story arc since they take place at the same time.

Sorry if any of that didn't make sense. It's 2:30AM right now and I'm pretty tired.
 

Lazy

New member
Aug 12, 2012
328
0
0
Perhaps I'm judging a book by its cover, but the aesthetic of the Darksiders games completely turns me off even trying them. I hate the look of the over-designed characters and grim/dark, super-macho world they inhabit. It strikes me as being the kind of humorless, relentlessly stupid adolescent fantasy that is all too common these days.

PS: If you have to spend this long trying defend/explain the plot of the game, then maybe it's not as straightforward as you seem to think.
 

Vuliev

Senior Member
Jul 19, 2011
573
0
21
Lazy said:
PS: If you have to spend this long trying defend/explain the plot of the game, then maybe it's not as straightforward as you seem to think.
That statement can be made about any game with a playtime of more than five hours, much less continuing series'. Seriously, you could say that about the Ultima series, the Elder Scrolls series, Deus Ex, Warcraft, Starcraft, Mass Effect, Demon's Souls, the list goes on and on.
 

Dane Tesston

New member
Jul 27, 2010
136
0
0
Scrustle said:
I admit I haven't actually seen the ZP episode for Darksiders 2 or read the Extra Punctuation article either. I only just finished the game today and I didn't want anything other than the game itself to influence my opinion of it. Naturally, I loved it. Although I thought the last boss fight was a bit anti-climactic.

But I think it's true that the story in Darksiders 2 wasn't all that clear. The Corruption wasn't well explained. I never really felt like I knew exactly what the Corruption was, why it was so bad and what it had to do with clearing War's name. I liked the way Death dealt with NPCs though. It was clear that he was only doing things to save his brother. It wasn't like so many other games where every other side quest was about taking down some threat that's presented as being as world ending as the main antagonist, and Death wasn't happy about having to run errands for people either. His focus was kept strong, even if it wasn't that clear what he was focusing on. Sometimes I was feeling confused as to what I was doing actually had to do with War or The Corruption.

Reading what you wrote here did a good job of laying everything out and it all sounds familiar to me, apart from that bit about the Abominations. Don't think I've heard that before. Is that from the novel or something? Either way, if you asked me to explain everything you just wrote there I wouldn't have been able to do it myself, although I understood it perfectly. Perhaps that shows that the story isn't so well presented in the game. It makes sense, but they don't communicate it well.

I think also a lot of it might be missed on someone who didn't play the first game. Things like seeing Archon talking to The Destroyer for example. If I hadn't played the first game I wouldn't have known what that was or how it was significant. It's okay for a game to have ties in the story to other games in the series, but unless it's supposed to be part of the exact same story arc then I think it's kind of a failure of the game if you have to refer to other games for it to make sense. Yahtzee has played the first so he should know about this wider story, but I also think it's a valid criticism to say that something should be clear within itself without needing to refer to completely separate pieces of media. But then again I guess you could argue that Darksiders 1 & 2 are both in the same story arc since they take place at the same time.

Sorry if any of that didn't make sense. It's 2:30AM right now and I'm pretty tired.
Nah, you did fine, and you have a valid point. Things are a little murkey upon first glance, which is never a good thing for the casual observer, but atleast the details are there if you're willing to dig a litte. Truth be told, I don't really get the whole Corruption angle, either. They tell us that Corruption came about from Absalom's death, but never really tell us just how that happens. I think it may have something to do with him being more demonic then other Nephilim, but that in itself is just a theory with nothing to really back it.

And yeah, the whole Abomination thing came from the novel, but I still thought it was worth a mention. Good read, to.
 

Dane Tesston

New member
Jul 27, 2010
136
0
0
Vuliev said:
Lazy said:
PS: If you have to spend this long trying defend/explain the plot of the game, then maybe it's not as straightforward as you seem to think.
Oh, I never said it was straightforward. In fact, I agree that being so convoluted is one of the game's bigger flaws. As for the asthetic of the game, it's the resemblance to WOW that gets me more then anything.
 

Vuliev

Senior Member
Jul 19, 2011
573
0
21
Dane Tesston said:
Vuliev said:
Lazy said:
PS: If you have to spend this long trying defend/explain the plot of the game, then maybe it's not as straightforward as you seem to think.
Oh, I never said it was straightforward. In fact, I agree that being so convoluted is one of the game's bigger flaws. As for the asthetic of the game, it's the resemblance to WOW that gets me more then anything.
I think you meant to quote Lazy, not me.

Anyway, I agree with you on Death's WoW-ish aesthetic--after having just now finished replaying Darksiders, that aspect of D2 really gets to me. I like Death as a character, I like the encounters he has--but the change of delivery from Zelda-style RPG to traditional Western RPG is kind of jarring, and upon reflection, I'm not sure it really fits. The first one did really well with a tight, story-driven focus, with good non-linear flow of setting--the "linear hub" style of D2 makes things feel thinly spread.