The Darkness 2 - Autumn 2011 - PS3, 360, PC

Skarjo wrote:Yes, that's what devastatingly emotional storytelling of the first game really needed.

Quite the most ridiculous thing I've seen in ages.

Exactly.

The Darkness was a story, not a franchise.

At least Bioshock created a world so good that another story could be told there. The Darkness was a story about characters, and that story has been told.

This is the definition of superfluous.

HSH28 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Yes, that's what devastatingly emotional storytelling of the first game really needed.

Quite the most ridiculous thing I've seen in ages.

The Darkness remains the only game I've completed solely because of the emotional kick certain events gave me, and I wanted resolution because of sheer investment.

Besides, your game of the decade can't be enjoyed without a strategy guide, so I'm not sure you're well placed to comment on narrative strength.

HSH28 wrote:
What I've seen of this looks immense, whats important about this franchise is how it plays, not its gooseberry fool story.

Now who's talking ridiculous gooseberry fool?

Skarjo wrote:Exactly.

The Darkness was a story, not a franchise.

At least Bioshock created a world so good that another story could be told there. The Darkness was a story about characters, and that story has been told.

This is the definition of superfluous.

But its not a story, its a game.

Anyone who thinks The Darkness was good because of its story needs locking up. It was good because it had unique and interesting gameplay mechanics which this game is expanding upon.

I want it, like Prey 2 they have taken it in a slightly different direction, hope it delivers in its own right.

HSH28 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Exactly.

The Darkness was a story, not a franchise.

At least Bioshock created a world so good that another story could be told there. The Darkness was a story about characters, and that story has been told.

This is the definition of superfluous.

But its not a story, its a game.

Anyone who thinks The Darkness was good because of its story needs locking up. It was good because it had unique and interesting gameplay mechanics which this game is expanding upon.

No it didn't. It had clumsy gunplay and tentacles.

Anyone who thinks that The Darkness wouldn't have been condemned to the same shitpile as TimeShift and Singularity for it's sole gimmick were it not the fantastic storyline clearly doesn't actually understand videogames as a storytelling medium.

Will Mike Patton be voicing The Darkness again? This is important to my decision over whether to buy the game or not.

Skarjo wrote:No it didn't. It had clumsy gunplay and tentacles.

Anyone who thinks that The Darkness wouldn't have been condemned to the same shitpile as TimeShift and Singularity for it's sole gimmick were it not the fantastic storyline clearly doesn't actually understand videogames as a storytelling medium.

Complete bollocks.

Games aren't a story telling medium. Even with stories you can tell a story properly with a game.

Want a story? Go read a book or watch something on TV or at the cinema.

A game without good gameplay is not a good game, simple as.

HSH28 wrote:Games aren't a story telling medium.

You're an idiot.

Skarjo wrote:Exactly.

The Darkness was a story, not a franchise.

At least Bioshock created a world so good that another story could be told there. The Darkness was a story about characters, and that story has been told.

This is the definition of superfluous.

The game was based on an ongoing comic book which has over 90 issues. From what I've read of the comic the original game deviated massively from it so there's loads more story they could use.

Skarjo wrote:

HSH28 wrote:Games aren't a story telling medium.

You're an idiot.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Saying a story makes a bad game good is nonsense. Like it or not (and I can see you don't) stories are at best completely secondary in games, you can't get around that fact at all.

Later that month, record label Ipecac Recordings confirmed that Mike Patton will be returning as the voice of The Darkness.

Memento Mori wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Exactly.

The Darkness was a story, not a franchise.

At least Bioshock created a world so good that another story could be told there. The Darkness was a story about characters, and that story has been told.

This is the definition of superfluous.

The game was based on an ongoing comic book which has over 90 issues. From what I've read of the comic the original game deviated massively from it so there's loads more story they could use.

Whilst there may be wealth of material to choose from, the first story was just so complete. The themes about guilt, grief and power were just so well explored but also effectively concluded that I don't know how easy it would be to tell another story with the same character.

Though, obviously, this is where comics have always excelled (telling full story arcs with the same characters), so hopefully they'll be able to translate it effectively. Fingers crossed, but I'll reserve my optimism.

HSH28 wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

HSH28 wrote:Games aren't a story telling medium.

You're an idiot.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Saying a story makes a bad game good is nonsense. Like it or not (and I can see you don't) stories are at best completely secondary in games, you can't get around that fact at all.

No, they're not.

Also, I never said The Darkness was a bad game. I said the gunplay was clumsy, and that without a good storyline it would be on the same shitpile of functional but dull games like TimeShift et al. (Though, obviously, when your pitch is something a bat-fuckingly retarded as 'Games are not a story telling medium' I can understand that having to invent straw-man arguments that were never proposed is the only way your brain won't catch on fire).

But whatever, if you're happy to play competent, functional, empty, soul-less and narrative-free games because of your nonsensical aversion to the idea of games being able to tell a story then carry on. I need a little more from my games than base-line functionality, I want to care about what I'm doing, and that's what stories are for.

HSH28 wrote:Games aren't a story telling medium.

I don't think it's possible for you to be more wrong.


They don't have to be, but they most certainly can be.


My favorite games tend to be the ones with great stories. They're the only ones that I just have to keep playing until I finish them.

Skarjo wrote:Also, I never said The Darkness was a bad game. I said the gunplay was clumsy, and that without a good storyline it would be on the same shitpile of functional but dull games like TimeShift et al.

I would call those games bad. The Darkness isn't anything like them and its nothing to do with its story.

What makes games interesting is how they play, what tools they give you and the situations they give you to use them in. None of those things have to have anything to do with the story of a game.

The Darkness gave you interesting tools and well designed places to use them. The only thing of note that the story did was make the game take you to a setting that completely broke the game.

Harry Bizzle wrote:My favorite games tend to be the ones with great stories.

There aren't any games with great stories.

Stories are a linear structure by their nature. Games (even what we call linearly designed ones) are interactive, they don't mesh well.

Are you trying to say that choose-your-own-adventure books don't exist? They're not a linear experience...

HSH28 wrote:

Harry Bizzle wrote:My favorite games tend to be the ones with great stories.

There aren't any games with great stories.

Stories are a linear structure by their nature. Games (even what we call linearly designed ones) are interactive, they don't mesh well.