I’m surprised to hear someone say they liked all 3! Most opinions I’ve seen have been that 1 & 2 are great, but 3 is kind of.. Eh. Which is my opinion as well. To me it kinda felt like 3 ditched the Zelda-esque aspects in favor of a pseudo Dark Souls type thing, which just felt really off in a Darksiders game. [spoiler]Plus, I was really bummed when your horse dies. For one, I’m pretty sure one of the other two games said that a Horseman and their steed are linked, and that one can’t die without the other (but don’t quote me on that). But besides that, I really wanted to ride my horse. I’m a Horseman of the Apocalypse jamblasted![/spoiler] Wound up making it to Gluttony before eventually just dropping it altogether. On that note, credit where it’s due; best version of the 7 Deadly Sins I have ever seen!

The combat was more Dark Souks than the first two but they did add a “classic combat” mode which was a lot less Dark Souls and a lot more like the previous games. That’s how I played it. I’m surprised that people think they ditched the Zelda thing because for me it was very Zelda Metroidvania. To me that was the main appeal of the game - the ability to get new upgrades which opened up new areas of the map. I don’t think 3 was an amazing game but it was pretty solid. I think I just went in with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised. I actually think it was better than 2. 2 felt like it moved too far away from the Zelda dungeon style of 1 and went too far towards an open world, hack and slash combat focus. Three felt like it went back to being more puzzle/exploration focused which I like.

It is worth noting, I did play it on release, when the new combat options weren’t there yet. Not sure how much my opinion would change, though, as my biggest gripe wasn’t actually the combat. The reason, I think, most people—myself included—feel Darksiders II kept the Zelda-feel when III didn’t is that II kept dungeons, when III just made each area lead into the next as a singular connected map. From what I remember, it wasn’t very interconnected, either; felt like one line from one area to the next, with very little backtracking. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it was just a very Dark Souls-like level design, which wasn’t what I was hoping for. The upgrades you got in 2 also felt more.. Dungeon item-y? Not sure exactly how to describe it. Most of 3’s items came in the form of the elemental upgrades, right? Those felt more along the line of a Metroidvania as opposed to a Zelda dungeon. Which, perhaps, maybe lead me to be a bit too harsh on 3. I had recently beaten BotW and was still upset they ditched the Zelda formula for the open world, and was kinda holding Darksiders III as my hope for a new Zelda game. When it, in turn, felt more like Dark Souls, I think I was just super bummed I didn’t have any more Zelda or Zelda clones to play. [spoiler]I still don’t, actually, do you know any?[/spoiler] One of these days, I think I should try to replay it. Even if I enjoy it the second time around, though, I think I’ll still be hoping for a return to form come Darksiders IV.

I agree that it was definitely more Metroidvania than Zelda. But seeing as I love Metroidvania style games I personally really enjoyed that aspect of the game. I also agree that there aren’t really any games that come close to traditional Zelda dungeons these days. Not even Zelda does it which sucks. The closest I can think of is the mini tombs in Tomb Raider - but they don’t really scratch that Zelda dungeon itch.