I don't typically like to be one of "those guys" but giving Darksiders a 7.75 is fucking stupid. Yes, it borrows concepts from other great games, but it impliments them amazingly well. The Halo, Call of Duty, and Gears sequels all borrowed a ton of gameplay concepts from their predecessors, Mass Effect borrowed the "cover system" from Gears, etc. But somehow it's okay for games to be derivative if the game is in a series that came up with the concepts? Or perhaps it is ok to copy ideas in the FPS genre but it is not allowed in others?
I don't see what being a part of a series that originated a concept has anything to do with the quality of a game. It's not like it makes seeing the exact same ideas more "fun" or enjoyable because of the name on the box is the same name that used those concepts before. I'm not sure why series get a pass on reusing concepts where, when another game borrows them, it somehow is sacrilege.
I wish more company followed Darksiders approach, taking lots of cool ideas from else where and blending them together in a polished experience to make a great game. It's not like it doesn't impliment these ideas well, and it even uses many of them for some very cool new puzzles and combat additions.
Ideas are cheap and everybody borrows from everybody . It's the implementation that counts. Darksiders is an amazingly fun game. It doesn't deserve to be crapped on just because of some reviewers schizophrenic, poorly thought out concepts of the corporate ownership of ideas. Their belief that this imaginary corporate ownership of ideas is somehow more important than a fun, well designed game is patently absurd.
