2012 was a dark year for gaming - perhaps a controversial opinion but here me out - Far Cry 3 was released, marking a turning point in Ubisoft's design philosophy, Call of Duty fans were just about to turn on their own franchise, the Wii U released to much criticism and started a dark age for Nintendo, FPS games were still in the "brown and linear" military phase, Mass Effect 3 divided fans, Resident Evil was still in its action phase, I could honestly keep going but I hope you see my point. There were good releases in this year but a lot of the releases are marred with general disappointment and anger. Mark of the Ninja was certainly a highlight for me, as was Prototype 2 and Hotline Miami, but I feel as though one entry in this year that is often overlooked is The Darkness II, developed by Digital Extremes.
The Darkness II is not the best game ever made, nor is it the best game released in 2012, but I do believe more people should appreciate it way more. It’s unfairly compared to games released after it, and those comparisons are very surface level. I highly recommend this game to people who like games like F.E.A.R. or Vanquish; those tactical shooters that don’t let themselves be carried by cover mechanics or regenerating health.
To begin with, the game looks... alright? Not off to a good start, but I believe this game has aged fairly well graphically; it's not a pretty game but I don't believe it's supposed to be, the story follows Jackie Estacado, a Mob Boss who contains within him a powerful and corrupting force known as "The Darkness", and the game is in general "Dark". The grungy visuals, while not always pleasant to look at, do help keep the game's tone consistent. Plus, the game does have a lot of visual variety, going from DIY hallways to open scrapyards and even some marble based architecture from time to time.
The story is a major complaint for many people, as it is apparently a step down from the first game. I will be completely transparent, I have not played the first game, but I would like to defend this game quickly: while the story is probably a step down, I don't feel like prioritising story in a game that is clearly action focused is the best way to experience it. While they are valid criticisms, this game should still be taken on its own merits, because there are two factors in determining if a sequel is good; is it functionally good and is it contextually good?
If a series is going to go in a new direction, as long as that direction is good, I'm fine with it. For example, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night takes a very different direction from the "Classicvania'' titles of old; rather than being a linear series of hallways with impressive art and simple but engaging combat, Symphony of the Night spices things up by adding various elements from Zelda titles, namely progression. The new direction does pay off, as the game - alongside Super Metroid - paved the way for an entirely new genre, Metroidvania. While it is a little sad that Classicvania titles became much more scarce after SotN's release, we can still appreciate the Metroidvania titles for what they bring to the table. If this game were just a shallow slog then yeah, I'd probably understand people's grievances more. But this game is much more than the Call of Duty clones it's lumped in with, and I'd like to articulate why.
Now, how exactly do we review a game based on action? Well, I think these parameters should be fine: Depth, pacing, level design and enemy design. First, let's define what "Depth" means. Depth is a term thrown around a lot when talking about various forms of media, not just video games and whilst depth can be more easily defined in other mediums, it doesn't really have a "set in stone" definition for video games. One interpretation of depth is "adding new elements to influence decision making", for example, adding a new enemy type that can only be taken down once a certain requirement has been met, like taking out a weak-spot. However, another interpretation is "adding meaningful options to change how you get from point A to point B", and which could be adding a new weapon that changes how you approach a scenario, for example, a shotgun vs a sniper rifle; this definition is different because one is adding a new element that limits options, but adds variety, and the other one adds another option. I think arguments could be made for both of these definitions and I personally lean more towards the latter, but it's not like that entirely matters because The Darkness II actually does both of these things.
For starters, it frequently introduces new enemies into the various combat encounters, such as enemies that teleport or have shields. The shield guys in particular are hard to deal with because you usually have to damage the shield before you can rip it off, but once you do, you can use it for yourself and on top of that, you can use it as a projectile; that's actually one of the biggest parts of this game, being able to throw stuff at enemies on top of using guns. This singular system, the ability to remove the protection of enemies and use it for yourself, is already a showcase of the depth this game has to its combat.
While we are at this point, I think it's time I address a personal grievance, not with this game, but with its genre, I strongly dislike tactical shooters. The gameplay loop isn't inherently bad or shallow, it does have depth as "good" tactical shooters give you the ability to outsmart the enemy through flanking and manipulating AI. The issue with a lot of tactical shooters can be boiled down to one, singular, fundamentally flawed mechanic: regenerating health. This is a big problem because it heavily lowers the stakes in combat, you don't have an opening to flank the enemies and outsmart them? Don't worry, you can just hide behind a chest high wall and gain all of your health back, and then play a game of whack-a-mole and continue onto the next area. That's not to say that simply removing this mechanic somehow fixes this, it also relies on good enemy design and arena design, but removing it and replacing it with health packs and/or incentivising movement to avoid damage is a better playing experience, because it encourages movement and motivates you into using the game’s various mechanics. The Darkness II does have regenerating health, however it's used sparingly, as it only regenerates up to a certain threshold. The way you replenish health in this game is by consuming hearts and executing enemies, which is good because both of them encourage you to go out and get back into the fight rather than laying back and waiting for things to miraculously get better. This allows the tactical gameplay to shine through and is overall a more gratifying gameplay experience than most tactical shooters, in my opinion.
But why go for these options, why not pick off enemies at a distance and then move onto the next combat arena? There are two more reasons for this aside from the one I listed, the first one being the light mechanic; The Darkness cannot maintain itself whilst it is in the light, meaning you lose out on all your special powers that come with it. It also comes with the caveat of blurring your vision - now, in most games, I don't like restricting player vision, because there isn't much challenge to be had in it. Vision is so integral to gaming that once you take it away, you're kind of fucked and it doesn’t really feel like it’s your fault. I think there is a little bit of that in this mechanic, but it's used much more tastefully, as if your vision weren’t blurred, then taking out lights would be trivial and the mechanic would basically be useless. Plus, the light mechanic rewards spatial awareness, which then, in turn, puts you into the mindset best suited for a tactical shooter.
The second reason is ammo, because this game purposefully restricts ammo - not to the extent of something like Doom Eternal though. If you only shoot people and don't use any of the other mechanics, you'll start to run out of ammo much quickly and you'll be left scrambling for resources, and the game incentivises you to go head first into combat because of this. For one, enemies drop ammo upon death, which you can only pick up during fights once you start playing more aggressively, but there are also ammo stashes placed around the levels, which, one again, encourages movement and smart play.
Another way you can replenish ammo is the execution mechanic. Now, I hear a lot of people compare this game to Doom 2016, and I guarantee this is the only reason why. Sure, Doom 2016 is generally a better game but I think the comparison is surface level; for one, the executions in Doom 2016 only served to replenish your health, and while that is also true for The Darkness II, once you've upgraded yourself enough, you get access to 3 other types of execution, those being ammo replenish, ability replenish and creating a shield, which you can use for protection or as a projectile, as previously stated. This leads into my first complaint with this game, however, and that's the issue of progression in the skill tree. You level it up through "dark essence", which you collect by just generally playing the game. The problem is that it takes way too long to level up; it took over 2 playthroughs for me to finally max out the skill tree. It's okay if you're willing to stick with the game, but frustrating nonetheless.
There are many more things that add to the depth of this game, first of which being the 2 abilities you obtain, Swarm and Gun Channelling; Swarm is a crowd control ability, it releases a Swarm of presumably bugs that stun a couple of enemies, which can be integral for getting out of a tight spot; Gun Channelling, however, is a little overpowered. For about 3 seconds, it allows you to see and shoot enemies through walls with increased damage and doesn't use up any ammunition. I don't use it very regularly, but it could be seen as a fallback option. This is on top of a unique "Black Hole" mechanic, where certain enemies will drop a Black Hole that can be used as a crowd control option.
This all culminates into a combat system that is both unique and doesn't lack on options, everything you need to finish the combat arenas are at your disposal (provided you've put the time into maxing out the skill tree). But, speaking of those combat arenas, how are they? Well, they're decent, good but not great. Believe me, this is no F.E.A.R. when it comes to arena design or enemy design. It is fairly consistent but some of them just devolve into hallways with a little bit of space. However, they do serve the game well enough, on top of doing the Half-Life thing of spreading various objects such as exploding barrels or projectiles for you to use all over the levels.
There is, however, one part of the game that does certainly bother me: the difficulty. Now, once you're in the "fun zone", playing aggressively and using all the mechanics you have at your disposal, the game can be quite challenging, but oftentimes you can still feel as though you are too powerful. I bring up those linear hallway sections again as they are the main culprits of this. It would be awesome if this game was challenging on top of being fun and deep, but it is inconsistent to say the least. At the end of the day, I will take an easy game that has a lot going on rather than a hard game that is incredibly shallow. Sometimes, fun is more important than difficulty.
But only sometimes.
I hope I've communicated how good this game's combat really is. As stated before, many people write this game off as a "Call of Duty clone" or a "lesser Doom 2016" but I don't think that's doing this game justice. Yes, the story is worse than the first game and it does have a heavier emphasis on action; however, when taken on its own merits, The Darkness II, ironically, manages to stand out in the dark age of FPS games.
The Darkness II is not the best game ever made, nor is it the best game released in 2012, but I do believe more people should appreciate it way more. It’s unfairly compared to games released after it, and those comparisons are very surface level. I highly recommend this game to people who like games like F.E.A.R. or Vanquish; those tactical shooters that don’t let themselves be carried by cover mechanics or regenerating health.
To begin with, the game looks... alright? Not off to a good start, but I believe this game has aged fairly well graphically; it's not a pretty game but I don't believe it's supposed to be, the story follows Jackie Estacado, a Mob Boss who contains within him a powerful and corrupting force known as "The Darkness", and the game is in general "Dark". The grungy visuals, while not always pleasant to look at, do help keep the game's tone consistent. Plus, the game does have a lot of visual variety, going from DIY hallways to open scrapyards and even some marble based architecture from time to time.
The story is a major complaint for many people, as it is apparently a step down from the first game. I will be completely transparent, I have not played the first game, but I would like to defend this game quickly: while the story is probably a step down, I don't feel like prioritising story in a game that is clearly action focused is the best way to experience it. While they are valid criticisms, this game should still be taken on its own merits, because there are two factors in determining if a sequel is good; is it functionally good and is it contextually good?
If a series is going to go in a new direction, as long as that direction is good, I'm fine with it. For example, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night takes a very different direction from the "Classicvania'' titles of old; rather than being a linear series of hallways with impressive art and simple but engaging combat, Symphony of the Night spices things up by adding various elements from Zelda titles, namely progression. The new direction does pay off, as the game - alongside Super Metroid - paved the way for an entirely new genre, Metroidvania. While it is a little sad that Classicvania titles became much more scarce after SotN's release, we can still appreciate the Metroidvania titles for what they bring to the table. If this game were just a shallow slog then yeah, I'd probably understand people's grievances more. But this game is much more than the Call of Duty clones it's lumped in with, and I'd like to articulate why.
Now, how exactly do we review a game based on action? Well, I think these parameters should be fine: Depth, pacing, level design and enemy design. First, let's define what "Depth" means. Depth is a term thrown around a lot when talking about various forms of media, not just video games and whilst depth can be more easily defined in other mediums, it doesn't really have a "set in stone" definition for video games. One interpretation of depth is "adding new elements to influence decision making", for example, adding a new enemy type that can only be taken down once a certain requirement has been met, like taking out a weak-spot. However, another interpretation is "adding meaningful options to change how you get from point A to point B", and which could be adding a new weapon that changes how you approach a scenario, for example, a shotgun vs a sniper rifle; this definition is different because one is adding a new element that limits options, but adds variety, and the other one adds another option. I think arguments could be made for both of these definitions and I personally lean more towards the latter, but it's not like that entirely matters because The Darkness II actually does both of these things.
For starters, it frequently introduces new enemies into the various combat encounters, such as enemies that teleport or have shields. The shield guys in particular are hard to deal with because you usually have to damage the shield before you can rip it off, but once you do, you can use it for yourself and on top of that, you can use it as a projectile; that's actually one of the biggest parts of this game, being able to throw stuff at enemies on top of using guns. This singular system, the ability to remove the protection of enemies and use it for yourself, is already a showcase of the depth this game has to its combat.
While we are at this point, I think it's time I address a personal grievance, not with this game, but with its genre, I strongly dislike tactical shooters. The gameplay loop isn't inherently bad or shallow, it does have depth as "good" tactical shooters give you the ability to outsmart the enemy through flanking and manipulating AI. The issue with a lot of tactical shooters can be boiled down to one, singular, fundamentally flawed mechanic: regenerating health. This is a big problem because it heavily lowers the stakes in combat, you don't have an opening to flank the enemies and outsmart them? Don't worry, you can just hide behind a chest high wall and gain all of your health back, and then play a game of whack-a-mole and continue onto the next area. That's not to say that simply removing this mechanic somehow fixes this, it also relies on good enemy design and arena design, but removing it and replacing it with health packs and/or incentivising movement to avoid damage is a better playing experience, because it encourages movement and motivates you into using the game’s various mechanics. The Darkness II does have regenerating health, however it's used sparingly, as it only regenerates up to a certain threshold. The way you replenish health in this game is by consuming hearts and executing enemies, which is good because both of them encourage you to go out and get back into the fight rather than laying back and waiting for things to miraculously get better. This allows the tactical gameplay to shine through and is overall a more gratifying gameplay experience than most tactical shooters, in my opinion.
But why go for these options, why not pick off enemies at a distance and then move onto the next combat arena? There are two more reasons for this aside from the one I listed, the first one being the light mechanic; The Darkness cannot maintain itself whilst it is in the light, meaning you lose out on all your special powers that come with it. It also comes with the caveat of blurring your vision - now, in most games, I don't like restricting player vision, because there isn't much challenge to be had in it. Vision is so integral to gaming that once you take it away, you're kind of fucked and it doesn’t really feel like it’s your fault. I think there is a little bit of that in this mechanic, but it's used much more tastefully, as if your vision weren’t blurred, then taking out lights would be trivial and the mechanic would basically be useless. Plus, the light mechanic rewards spatial awareness, which then, in turn, puts you into the mindset best suited for a tactical shooter.
The second reason is ammo, because this game purposefully restricts ammo - not to the extent of something like Doom Eternal though. If you only shoot people and don't use any of the other mechanics, you'll start to run out of ammo much quickly and you'll be left scrambling for resources, and the game incentivises you to go head first into combat because of this. For one, enemies drop ammo upon death, which you can only pick up during fights once you start playing more aggressively, but there are also ammo stashes placed around the levels, which, one again, encourages movement and smart play.
Another way you can replenish ammo is the execution mechanic. Now, I hear a lot of people compare this game to Doom 2016, and I guarantee this is the only reason why. Sure, Doom 2016 is generally a better game but I think the comparison is surface level; for one, the executions in Doom 2016 only served to replenish your health, and while that is also true for The Darkness II, once you've upgraded yourself enough, you get access to 3 other types of execution, those being ammo replenish, ability replenish and creating a shield, which you can use for protection or as a projectile, as previously stated. This leads into my first complaint with this game, however, and that's the issue of progression in the skill tree. You level it up through "dark essence", which you collect by just generally playing the game. The problem is that it takes way too long to level up; it took over 2 playthroughs for me to finally max out the skill tree. It's okay if you're willing to stick with the game, but frustrating nonetheless.
There are many more things that add to the depth of this game, first of which being the 2 abilities you obtain, Swarm and Gun Channelling; Swarm is a crowd control ability, it releases a Swarm of presumably bugs that stun a couple of enemies, which can be integral for getting out of a tight spot; Gun Channelling, however, is a little overpowered. For about 3 seconds, it allows you to see and shoot enemies through walls with increased damage and doesn't use up any ammunition. I don't use it very regularly, but it could be seen as a fallback option. This is on top of a unique "Black Hole" mechanic, where certain enemies will drop a Black Hole that can be used as a crowd control option.
This all culminates into a combat system that is both unique and doesn't lack on options, everything you need to finish the combat arenas are at your disposal (provided you've put the time into maxing out the skill tree). But, speaking of those combat arenas, how are they? Well, they're decent, good but not great. Believe me, this is no F.E.A.R. when it comes to arena design or enemy design. It is fairly consistent but some of them just devolve into hallways with a little bit of space. However, they do serve the game well enough, on top of doing the Half-Life thing of spreading various objects such as exploding barrels or projectiles for you to use all over the levels.
There is, however, one part of the game that does certainly bother me: the difficulty. Now, once you're in the "fun zone", playing aggressively and using all the mechanics you have at your disposal, the game can be quite challenging, but oftentimes you can still feel as though you are too powerful. I bring up those linear hallway sections again as they are the main culprits of this. It would be awesome if this game was challenging on top of being fun and deep, but it is inconsistent to say the least. At the end of the day, I will take an easy game that has a lot going on rather than a hard game that is incredibly shallow. Sometimes, fun is more important than difficulty.
But only sometimes.
I hope I've communicated how good this game's combat really is. As stated before, many people write this game off as a "Call of Duty clone" or a "lesser Doom 2016" but I don't think that's doing this game justice. Yes, the story is worse than the first game and it does have a heavier emphasis on action; however, when taken on its own merits, The Darkness II, ironically, manages to stand out in the dark age of FPS games.
3 Comments
highly recommend playing on don with the hud off. choosing between hip fire and iron sights while managing all the powers (and not having a bunch of fucking garbage on the screen) really feels a lot better and also makes things more challenging
Remliel
2 years ago