-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Darksiders 2 new info! [one month away from release]
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
Again, brand new and final "Behind the Mask" Darksiders 2 video, reposted for the new page:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyHDJURbVM4
[loot, weapons, armors, possessed weapons, tech trees, and more]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyHDJURbVM4
[loot, weapons, armors, possessed weapons, tech trees, and more]
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
I have massive levels of hype for DS2 after reading this thread and I'm happy I've only had a months wait LonelyGreyWolf
Banned
Shrug all ye' want mate, but I cannot buy items from the THQ store as I do not live in one of the five countries. It sounds like too much DLC for me. Why not include it all in the game? Answer me that.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Why don't you ask HDN directly he post here. Although he already explained it. I'm not getting the free season pass. I'm putting money where my mouth is and if I love the game which I'm sure I will they are getting money for the dlc as a tip from me which is what I view dlc as these days. Tips
I rather not have the game be delayed any longer, and THQ needs the money and this game out really fucking badly
It will one way or another, it's full Steamworks. Every PC copy requires Steam. So even if there's no key which I don't see why there wouldn't be, after you downloaded the game you would have to put your steam login stuff in before being able to complete the install.
Sentenza
Member
Every single (PC) version of this game gives you a Steam key, as it's a Steamworks product.
LonelyGreyWolf
Banned
Ask HDN? Come on mate, everyone understand that it's a rhetorical question. What do you think he'd answer? Nay, there's no excuse. Granted I will absolutely be getting the game but it still think it's bad of them. Probably not Vigil Games decision anyway. And nope, as far as I've seen he hasn't answered it, but if he did then I'd be happy if you could quote it because I might have missed it.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
I was bored.... Who wants to play... match the icons up with the skill? Actually that doesn't seem hard hahaha
The part where I said they spent the last few months bug testing was a comment by him. It's not a rhetorical question at all. You are just being whiny and refuse any logical reason. That's the only thing rhetorical at the moment
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Not sure, there are 29 points spent in that picture though. Not sure what the level cap is in the game
I was bored.... Who wants to play... match the icons up with the skill? Actually that doesn't seem hard hahaha
Can crows restore my health AND restore energy? Or just one? Does their bonuses stack?
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
They have both of those skills with points in them in that picture ;P Talent point style systems always let their own abilities stack with each other in every game I can think of outside of maybe some shitty free to play korean mmo
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
29 points in the tree so maybe that's all we get to work with then... hmm should make for interesting builds with it being that limited
Hnd told us that there will be re-spec of skill points.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Edit:
DERP yeah 30 seems like the cap so lots of different talent build styles should pop up
DERP yeah 30 seems like the cap so lots of different talent build styles should pop up
LonelyGreyWolf
Banned
Yeah, I took a quick glance at the achievements and there's an achievement for getting to level 30 and also a minor one for doing your first re-spec.
So.... we know that in NG+ we will be able to carry our old equipment.
But, all equipment has a level requirement [in "Your Death" video we can see possessed scythes with lvls 25/29/30], so that leads me to belive that we will be able to continue leveling after lvl30, maybe up to 50.
The only question remains, will we be able to get more than 29 skill tree points in NG+ ?
But, all equipment has a level requirement [in "Your Death" video we can see possessed scythes with lvls 25/29/30], so that leads me to belive that we will be able to continue leveling after lvl30, maybe up to 50.
The only question remains, will we be able to get more than 29 skill tree points in NG+ ?
LonelyGreyWolf
Banned
I thought they did that so you wouldn't trade über weapons to other low-level players. It would exploit the game if you knew someone who was the top level and could just trade you one of the best weapons in the game when you're still a rookie.
You think that all NG+ weapons will all be @ lvl30?
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Well seeing how "some items and special things only unlock on your second playthrough" I'm pretty god damn sure we get to keep our levels and everything is going to be pumped up to match the level we are from the start.
I am going to laugh so hard if this game handles loot better than Skyrim did. That's a really good start.
LonelyGreyWolf
Banned
When you start NG+, do you keep your levels? I know that you keep your loot and gear but I can't remember if HDN said anything about the levels, but if you do keep all your levels then I can only assume that you''ll also be able to gain a higher level. It wouldn't be as fun and rewarding to be stuck at the same level through an entire playthrough, but likewise your character wouldn't feel as unique if you could get all or nearly all talents and the decisions wouldn't be as tough and satisfying to make, so I really don't know how they'll design that.
Also that screencap from the vid you took had health regen as an option for weapon builds.So i think they'll probably have HP+ or something.
You can also get regen from spells in tech-trees [both as warrior and necromancer].
Sort of off topic, but on the topic of the "no multiplayer" remark, I play games to.. play games!
Developers are constantly trying to implement new, "innovative" community features into their games for some reason, while forgetting that outside of repetitive multiplayer, gamers only play through games once or twice then moves on to another game.
There are already communitities built specifically for that very purpose, like NeoGaf or IGN. Why would anyone want to establish/limit themselves in a single game community? I'm talking about the sort of trend for multiplayer with chatrooms, semi-forums and stuff like that. Obviously chat in multiplayer GAMES are ok and necessary, but outside of that it's pointless and unnecessary.
And on that topic, developers are also forcing multiplayer into their "single player games", in the misguided belief that it will extend the longevity/community & consequently sales of their games. Perhaps MP inclusion will result in 10% more sales in the first month, for example, but it might hurt the overall sales since it usually results in a poor multiplayer mode and a single player mode that could have been vastly/greatly/moderately improved with the multiplayer funds. And it certainly hurts the developers reputation and overall sales of future games.
When will developers and gamers realise that multiplayer is sort of a side branch/genre of gaming, similar to competitive sports like fotball, rugby, tennis and so on, in the sense that both types of "sports" are mechanically similar, and is psychologically identical/similar? (Risk>Reward. Besting other players/teams/people.)
Multiplayer is limited to a couple of mechanics and maps, and the very essence and purpose of it is to "best" other players. Yes there are similarities to a single player experience, in wanting to improve your gaming skills and such, but it's entirely different in design, implementation and the psychological input/reward structure of it all.
The gaming community at large seems to have the appeal of multiplayer and single player mixed up, which have resulted (And continues to do so.) in missed opportunity-games that try to meld the two, failing to appeal fully to either fanbase (Multiplayer/Singleplayer.)
Single player games are appealing for their "adventures", journeys, experiencing new things, and so forth, while multiplayer can be compared to soccer, fotball, tennis -- limited, set types of goals with similar gameplay mechanics.
If developers and gamers realise the difference between SP and MP, then there might be a couple of "standard, go-to" MP games like the set different genres of sports (Fotball, rugby, tennis.) when graphics reach their peak, obviously with far fewer "limits" due to the freedom of game design. In all likelyhood, the confused design of SP and MP (Melding the two, making a new MP for each game.) is because of the constant evolution of graphics and technology, along with new design ideas for multiplayer goals.
However, the actual implementation of new MP ideas in games haven't changed all that much. I expect that when graphics do reach their peak, there will (Eventually.) be some set games for each specific multiplayer mode that are extremely refined (Like real life sports.), and perhaps, eventually but rarely, new MP games with new, unique multiplayer design, but I don't think that they will try to merge SP and MP games, or combine the 2 modes in 1 game at that point. Co-op will most likely remain as an optional mode in single player games though.
The idea of standard, go to games for certain mp modes has already started, sort of, with Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty as the, basically standard "go to" games for console shooter multiplayer modes -- but they were developed with a lot of focus on the multiplayer modes. However, this may simply be because of how succesfull and well known they are, as opposed to a cultural realisation of MP with set games and modes as a sport.
And that is also a huge part of why developers try to implement multiplayer in their single player games -- the success of multiplayer games. But they are (Sort of.) forgetting that multiplayer modes shouldn't be confused with single player, and that a lot of people who bought CoD and BF3 are into them for the sports (MP), not the experience (SP.).
When everybody realise the difference between MP and SP, I think "games" might correct themselves again (As games.). Currently, it certainly seems like gaming overall is experiencing a period of confusion, where developers try to appeal to the "gamer" and the "sports fan" due to the recent successes of MP games. Hopefully, soon, there will be some established rules, genres and known differences between the two difference experiences (Single player and Multiplayer.).
A nice comparison, in my opinion, would be single player is to books, as multiplayer is to sports.
Developers are constantly trying to implement new, "innovative" community features into their games for some reason, while forgetting that outside of repetitive multiplayer, gamers only play through games once or twice then moves on to another game.
There are already communitities built specifically for that very purpose, like NeoGaf or IGN. Why would anyone want to establish/limit themselves in a single game community? I'm talking about the sort of trend for multiplayer with chatrooms, semi-forums and stuff like that. Obviously chat in multiplayer GAMES are ok and necessary, but outside of that it's pointless and unnecessary.
And on that topic, developers are also forcing multiplayer into their "single player games", in the misguided belief that it will extend the longevity/community & consequently sales of their games. Perhaps MP inclusion will result in 10% more sales in the first month, for example, but it might hurt the overall sales since it usually results in a poor multiplayer mode and a single player mode that could have been vastly/greatly/moderately improved with the multiplayer funds. And it certainly hurts the developers reputation and overall sales of future games.
When will developers and gamers realise that multiplayer is sort of a side branch/genre of gaming, similar to competitive sports like fotball, rugby, tennis and so on, in the sense that both types of "sports" are mechanically similar, and is psychologically identical/similar? (Risk>Reward. Besting other players/teams/people.)
Multiplayer is limited to a couple of mechanics and maps, and the very essence and purpose of it is to "best" other players. Yes there are similarities to a single player experience, in wanting to improve your gaming skills and such, but it's entirely different in design, implementation and the psychological input/reward structure of it all.
The gaming community at large seems to have the appeal of multiplayer and single player mixed up, which have resulted (And continues to do so.) in missed opportunity-games that try to meld the two, failing to appeal fully to either fanbase (Multiplayer/Singleplayer.)
Single player games are appealing for their "adventures", journeys, experiencing new things, and so forth, while multiplayer can be compared to soccer, fotball, tennis -- limited, set types of goals with similar gameplay mechanics.
If developers and gamers realise the difference between SP and MP, then there might be a couple of "standard, go-to" MP games like the set different genres of sports (Fotball, rugby, tennis.) when graphics reach their peak, obviously with far fewer "limits" due to the freedom of game design. In all likelyhood, the confused design of SP and MP (Melding the two, making a new MP for each game.) is because of the constant evolution of graphics and technology, along with new design ideas for multiplayer goals.
However, the actual implementation of new MP ideas in games haven't changed all that much. I expect that when graphics do reach their peak, there will (Eventually.) be some set games for each specific multiplayer mode that are extremely refined (Like real life sports.), and perhaps, eventually but rarely, new MP games with new, unique multiplayer design, but I don't think that they will try to merge SP and MP games, or combine the 2 modes in 1 game at that point. Co-op will most likely remain as an optional mode in single player games though.
The idea of standard, go to games for certain mp modes has already started, sort of, with Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty as the, basically standard "go to" games for console shooter multiplayer modes -- but they were developed with a lot of focus on the multiplayer modes. However, this may simply be because of how succesfull and well known they are, as opposed to a cultural realisation of MP with set games and modes as a sport.
And that is also a huge part of why developers try to implement multiplayer in their single player games -- the success of multiplayer games. But they are (Sort of.) forgetting that multiplayer modes shouldn't be confused with single player, and that a lot of people who bought CoD and BF3 are into them for the sports (MP), not the experience (SP.).
When everybody realise the difference between MP and SP, I think "games" might correct themselves again (As games.). Currently, it certainly seems like gaming overall is experiencing a period of confusion, where developers try to appeal to the "gamer" and the "sports fan" due to the recent successes of MP games. Hopefully, soon, there will be some established rules, genres and known differences between the two difference experiences (Single player and Multiplayer.).
A nice comparison, in my opinion, would be single player is to books, as multiplayer is to sports.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Ok, I haven't really been paying attention to this game as I found the first one boring, But I accidently clicked on a video today and im kind of interested.
The zelda themes and the RPG elements put me off though. I just want to go in and wreck shit. I hope that they have some kind of bloody palace type mode with re-spawning enemies so you can put the combat system through its paces once completed.
So far the biggest thing that is making me want this game is on of the devs offhand comment that the game is their to be played by you, not for the game to play itself through cut scenes and the like. That kind of development attitude will always get rewarded by me.
The zelda themes and the RPG elements put me off though. I just want to go in and wreck shit. I hope that they have some kind of bloody palace type mode with re-spawning enemies so you can put the combat system through its paces once completed.
So far the biggest thing that is making me want this game is on of the devs offhand comment that the game is their to be played by you, not for the game to play itself through cut scenes and the like. That kind of development attitude will always get rewarded by me.
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
Maybe one of the sidequest things will be an arena, or maybe that will be the final dlc a survival mode type thing like dmc. Would be nice
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
thats what im hoping. I dont see myself completing this game more than once (its too big and I have very limited time to play these days) But it would be amazing if there was an area, to test different weapon/ spell configurations to see how they effect combat.
I like how Death reminds me of both Nero and Ryu hayabusa, with a touch of Dantes real-time weapon switch.
While I prefer huge areas and the RPG like systems because they provide additional incentive and purpose to any game in most cases, I agree that there should be an arena for additional gameplay.
I don't understand why so many games don't offer an additional arena mode, or a procedurally generated dungeon as a new mode that you can access through the menus, or accessed by talking to an NPC/in the gameworld, with random mobs spawning to "flex the combat system"/quick and easy to get into gameplay. I don't think it would take long to either just copy-paste an already designed area as an arena, or make a new one even, cause it would provide a lot of additional gameplay for some people, and it could also be used as a decent demo if explicitly titled/labelled as a "fight gameplay demo".
ThoughtsOfSPeaking, who's that in your avatar?
I don't understand why so many games don't offer an additional arena mode, or a procedurally generated dungeon as a new mode that you can access through the menus, or accessed by talking to an NPC/in the gameworld, with random mobs spawning to "flex the combat system"/quick and easy to get into gameplay. I don't think it would take long to either just copy-paste an already designed area as an arena, or make a new one even, cause it would provide a lot of additional gameplay for some people, and it could also be used as a decent demo if explicitly titled/labelled as a "fight gameplay demo".
ThoughtsOfSPeaking, who's that in your avatar?
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Oh it's me. gaf had a "use your own face as your avi" week, and I haven't been bothered to change it since.
And yes, such a feature should be be in every action game, just like you would never see a fighter without a training mode. It would also remove by at large the need for in game tutorials, if done correctly.
Dear lord why? I'm so torn between getting this and sleeping dogs.....They both look fantastic but offer very different things. i'm not going to lie, i'd very much prefer getting War back, because overall I liked his character alot, but death does look like alot of fun to play.
The problem is that I won't be able to get both right away, and i'm going to have to choose which i'd rather get. So I either bite the bullet and keep my pre-order on sleeping dogs, or switch it over to DS2....still got alittle while to make the choice but I never thought i'd be having this much trouble picking one over these two games. All the videos for both especially recently have been great though.
The problem is that I won't be able to get both right away, and i'm going to have to choose which i'd rather get. So I either bite the bullet and keep my pre-order on sleeping dogs, or switch it over to DS2....still got alittle while to make the choice but I never thought i'd be having this much trouble picking one over these two games. All the videos for both especially recently have been great though.
Ahh, ok. That explains why I don't recognize a lot of the avatars of people around here -- I thought they were some obscure celebrity I didn't recognize, but since there are so many different ones I suspected some were probably users as well.
And yes, I totally agree on the idea of using arenas as a tutorial mode for these types of fighting games -- you usually get a very basic, linear and limited dungeon or area, and in some cases you can't even replay it without starting a new game.
An arena that lets you flex off all abilities against random mobs, or your choice of mobs (Through a menu option, perhaps, that unlocks a new creature after you've killed them *** number of times. And maybe the ability to play as a creature after you've killed twice as many as required to unlock them for the arena.), and, most importantly, lets you return when you've gotten a new ability would be great.
There are a lot of things you could do with such a mode to add extra gameplay that probably wouldn't require a lot of development time, I think
Vermillion
Banned
And I cant wait to see these new environments.
Who knows, maybe we will visit Earth again in DS2.
Not me! I like the train station and the green, flooded areas leading up to it, but everything else was pretty gross and bland.
That's because most RPGs now are trying to be action games like Darksiders and shooters like Borderlands.
The irony is beautiful. And sad.