95 réponses à ce sujet

[KBomb]

Sajji wrote...

Na, ill be good. I have little doubt the first game was probably great. But then EA caught scent. I have little interest in Gears of Dead Space, as it undeniably is. See, this is what happened with Mass Effect, and all preliminary evidence indicates this is what has happened here. I'm glad you enjoy it, however.

 
I haven't seen any indication that it's a Gears of War clone. Odd people keep making this comparison. It makes me wonder how many people have actually played through the GoW (which was pretty good, imo) trilogy and how many people are just following the trend of contributing any change whatsoever to the game becoming like CoD or GoW. Both DS games were heavy in action. srsly.

What is it exactly that makes DS3 mimic GoW? Is it the action? There have been changes like crouch and dodge, but I don't see how that can be a bad thing. You don't even have to utilize those things and I am glad they added it. That electric slide move he did was just useless. Is it the addition of now being planet-side? If so, why is that a big deal? Especially considering we don't know how long you'll be planet-side. Maybe you don't like the fact that you'll be fighting some people, too. It makes sense you would, especially the unitology ilk. I guess I am trying to understand this line of thinking.

[spirosz]

@Sajji

I really suggest at least playing the first one. It really was one of the great games to come out in recent years, with some flaws, but what game doesn't have that. The atmosphere and setting are great, weapons were interesting and overall, I felt the game was really well done. I don't think you'll be disappointed, but do what you wish.

[chunkyman]

I saw some new gameplay footage at E3. It's weird because they switched the protagonist to a female and they renamed the series Tomb Raider.

[Sajji]

KBomb wrote...

Sajji wrote...

Na, ill be good. I have little doubt the first game was probably great. But then EA caught scent. I have little interest in Gears of Dead Space, as it undeniably is. See, this is what happened with Mass Effect, and all preliminary evidence indicates this is what has happened here. I'm glad you enjoy it, however.

 
I haven't seen any indication that it's a Gears of War clone. Odd people keep making this comparison. It makes me wonder how many people have actually played through the GoW (which was pretty good, imo) trilogy and how many people are just following the trend of contributing any change whatsoever to the game becoming like CoD or GoW. Both DS games were heavy in action. srsly.

What is it exactly that makes DS3 mimic GoW? Is it the action? There have been changes like crouch and dodge, but I don't see how that can be a bad thing. You don't even have to utilize those things and I am glad they added it. That electric slide move he did was just useless. Is it the addition of now being planet-side? If so, why is that a big deal? Especially considering we don't know how long you'll be planet-side. Maybe you don't like the fact that you'll be fighting some people, too. It makes sense you would, especially the unitology ilk. I guess I am trying to understand this line of thinking.

One of the key elements to survival horror games is ammunition. I learned at E3 that there will be a lot more ammunition. Combine that with a third person cover mechanic, and now the player has tons of ammo with cover. Its easy to see from there what happens: stay in cover...shoot.

The choice for more ammunition is clear in EA's attempt. Instead of conserving ammo and having a sense of fear due to the fact its limited, that seems like it would be completely gone. Other posters have said the second half of Dead Space 2 was a third person shooter. Considering the fact its EA and word is out on more ammo and a third person cover mechanic, its logical for me to assume, along with the direction and evolution (for the worse, imo) of Mass Effect 3, I can see what's up ahead. Don't forget co-op, too.

The trailer also came across very immature, with over the top profanity and an attempt to be cool. Now...I'm not bashing this IP...I haven't played any of the games and have heard a great deal of how good a survival horror the original is.

I might eventually give it a whirl. I hope fans find the game fun, but it doesn't look like my game

[KBomb]

Sajji wrote...



One of the key elements to survival horror games is ammunition. I learned at E3 that there will be a lot more ammunition. Combine that with a third person cover mechanic, and now the player has tons of ammo with cover. Its easy to see from there what happens: stay in cover...shoot.

The choice for more ammunition is clear in EA's attempt. Instead of conserving ammo and having a sense of fear due to the fact its limited, that seems like it would be completely gone. Other posters have said the second half of Dead Space 2 was a third person shooter. Considering the fact its EA and word is out on more ammo and a third person cover mechanic, its logical for me to assume, along with the direction and evolution (for the worse, imo) of Mass Effect 3, I can see what's up ahead. Don't forget co-op, too.

The trailer also came across very immature, with over the top profanity and an attempt to be cool. Now...I'm not bashing this IP...I haven't played any of the games and have heard a great deal of how good a survival horror the original is.

I might eventually give it a whirl. I hope fans find the game fun, but it doesn't look like my game

 
Well, as for the ammo—I never remember running out before. Not saying I didn't, just saying I don't recall doing so. I thought there was plenty of ammo, especially since you could buy it at regular intervals throughout the game. Covering isn't a bad thing and it adds a bit of tactical play. Also, I don't see anyone staying in cover with the necros. Most likely it will only be useful during the time you're fighting human enemies and if you want to make it a bit more challenging—just avoid cover and don't purchase ammo often, etc. I, for one, am looking forward to the dodge move. ME1 had unlimited ammo (cooldown only, which was quick) and it had a cover mechanic, too.


Co-op doesn't bother me, really. It's optional (as long as they stick with that, not like Bioware and their EMS malarky) Co-op, if done correctly, can be fun.


As for the trailer, I didn't get that vibe at all. It was action packed like most trailers are. You should really play these games. It's seems like it would be hard for you to complain about changes they made when you don't know what it will change from. To me, Dead Space was never scary. Never. So, this whole “survival horror” turning into “action game” doesn't make any sense to me. The two previous games had tons of action.

Modifié par KBomb, 08 juin 2012 - 05:28 .

[Hyperglide]

Doom 2 had co-op and many thought of it as a horror shooter and it was done well. How quickly we forget.

I think KBomb said it best. The co-op it's optional and if done well it adds more to the game for nothing. If it doesn't detract from the single player game then well, I welcome it. I love co-op play and it might be done well so I am anxious to see more but I'm not getting my hopes or anticipation to high up.

Also I read some people said they had to much ammo and it wasn't scary. If you want a challenge in the 2nd game (for the people who said they had to much ammo) play the game on hardcore. You have to really watch your ammo and change your gameplay style.

There were some setpieces in Dead Space 1 and 2 that were very creepy the whole section at the end of the game (not going to spoil it) for example.  Mid-game too also had a great setpiece that while it felt recycled to add more length to the game enough was modified to realize it wasn't just shoehorned in.  Sure it had a lot of those cheap jump scares (what horror game doesn't?) but it was still pretty scary, and offsetting (I was grinding in my couch a lot).

The end "boss" left something to be desired though.  

Modifié par Hyperglide, 08 juin 2012 - 05:45 .

[Hyperglide]

Sajji wrote...

Hyperglide wrote...

Sajji wrote...

It looks terrible. I heard so much good stuff about Dead Space...even considered trying it out. Not going to now.

That's too bad, for you.  It's your loss.  Dead Space 1 and 2 is 1 of my fave new IPs from this generation.  Just because the 1st trailer for the newest one doesn't meet some people's unreal expectations.  Don't be so quick to judge it and write it off as such.

I will watch with bated breath to see if this gets better.  They could still be holding back on showing a lot of stuff that looks amazing and/or hasn't been developed yet.

Na, ill be good. I have little doubt the first game was probably great. But then EA caught scent. I have little interest in Gears of Dead Space, as it undeniably is. See, this is what happened with Mass Effect, and all preliminary evidence indicates this is what has happened here. I'm glad you enjoy it, however.

The only way this game is even remotely comparable to Gears of War is that it's got a 3rd person perspective and you shoot things.  That's it.  Again if you don't want to play it that's your prerogative.  Whatever boats your float.  That's just your opinion.  Even if it is wrong.  

Modifié par Hyperglide, 08 juin 2012 - 05:48 .

[Sajji]

Hyperglide wrote...

Sajji wrote...

Hyperglide wrote...

Sajji wrote...

It looks terrible. I heard so much good stuff about Dead Space...even considered trying it out. Not going to now.

That's too bad, for you.  It's your loss.  Dead Space 1 and 2 is 1 of my fave new IPs from this generation.  Just because the 1st trailer for the newest one doesn't meet some people's unreal expectations.  Don't be so quick to judge it and write it off as such.

I will watch with bated breath to see if this gets better.  They could still be holding back on showing a lot of stuff that looks amazing and/or hasn't been developed yet.

Na, ill be good. I have little doubt the first game was probably great. But then EA caught scent. I have little interest in Gears of Dead Space, as it undeniably is. See, this is what happened with Mass Effect, and all preliminary evidence indicates this is what has happened here. I'm glad you enjoy it, however.

The only way this game is even remotely comparable to Gears of War is that it's got a 3rd person perspective and you shoot things.  That's it.  Again if you don't want to play it that's your prerogative.  Whatever boats your float.  That's just your opinion.  Even if it is wrong.  

^^I see what you did there. It does float my boat. In fact, the volume of water is more than sufficient, enabling me to focus on real games, not EA Gears clones.

Modifié par Sajji, 08 juin 2012 - 06:34 .

[Naughty Bear]

Hyperglide wrote...

Sajji wrote...

Hyperglide wrote...

Sajji wrote...

It looks terrible. I heard so much good stuff about Dead Space...even considered trying it out. Not going to now.

That's too bad, for you.  It's your loss.  Dead Space 1 and 2 is 1 of my fave new IPs from this generation.  Just because the 1st trailer for the newest one doesn't meet some people's unreal expectations.  Don't be so quick to judge it and write it off as such.

I will watch with bated breath to see if this gets better.  They could still be holding back on showing a lot of stuff that looks amazing and/or hasn't been developed yet.

Na, ill be good. I have little doubt the first game was probably great. But then EA caught scent. I have little interest in Gears of Dead Space, as it undeniably is. See, this is what happened with Mass Effect, and all preliminary evidence indicates this is what has happened here. I'm glad you enjoy it, however.

The only way this game is even remotely comparable to Gears of War is that it's got a 3rd person perspective and you shoot things.  That's it.  Again if you don't want to play it that's your prerogative.  Whatever boats your float.  That's just your opinion.  Even if it is wrong.  

Your wrong, oh so wrong. It is EXACTLY like Gears of War. Third person shooter? Check. Cover system like Gears of War? Check. Drop in and out co-op? Check. A **** ton of action? Check. You must be blind Hyperglide. And how could you say an opinion is wrong? Its a god damn opinion you muppet, Saji never said it was a fact!

[KBomb]

Naughty Bear wrote...

Your wrong, oh so wrong. It is EXACTLY like Gears of War. Third person shooter? Check. Cover system like Gears of War? Check. Drop in and out co-op? Check. A **** ton of action? Check. You must be blind Hyperglide. And how could you say an opinion is wrong? Its a god damn opinion you muppet, Saji never said it was a fact!

 
Oh well, if it's a third person shooter it has to be like Gears of War. How correct. I mean, the first two Dead Space games were fine as a first person shooter, but then....oh yeah..


And a cover system. Ooooh how degrading to a game. Even though Mass Effect had one and it didn't seem to take anything away from that experience. Jesus, taking cover is the end of gaming as we know it. I mean, in a real situation if unitologist were coming after you, guns blazing, anyone knows the thing to do would be run towards the bullets with no thought to being out in the open and being turned into swiss cheese. Yeah, covering is only for people who play Gears, amirite?


Oh and the action. A ton of it, you say. Honestly. The two other Dead Space games were full of action. Almost every corridor had something popping from above, below or out of a wall at you. You constantly are fighting your way out of something. Dead Space has always been an action game. Even if you label it a survival horror, it's going to have action. In Resident Evil, you don't have conversations with the zombies in hopes of persuading them to allow you passage. In Silent Hill, you didn't pick an option to intimidate Pyramid Head. You fight to survive.


But yes, I suppose in this era of hyperbole-- if a game is a third person shooter, has the option of taking cover and action, it's EXACTLY like Gears of War.

[Naughty Bear]

KBomb wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

Your wrong, oh so wrong. It is EXACTLY like Gears of War. Third person shooter? Check. Cover system like Gears of War? Check. Drop in and out co-op? Check. A **** ton of action? Check. You must be blind Hyperglide. And how could you say an opinion is wrong? Its a god damn opinion you muppet, Saji never said it was a fact!

 
Oh well, if it's a third person shooter it has to be like Gears of War. How correct. I mean, the first two Dead Space games were fine as a first person shooter, but then....oh yeah..


And a cover system. Ooooh how degrading to a game. Even though Mass Effect had one and it didn't seem to take anything away from that experience. Jesus, taking cover is the end of gaming as we know it. I mean, in a real situation if unitologist were coming after you, guns blazing, anyone knows the thing to do would be run towards the bullets with no thought to being out in the open and being turned into swiss cheese. Yeah, covering is only for people who play Gears, amirite?


Oh and the action. A ton of it, you say. Honestly. The two other Dead Space games were full of action. Almost every corridor had something popping from above, below or out of a wall at you. You constantly are fighting your way out of something. Dead Space has always been an action game. Even if you label it a survival horror, it's going to have action. In Resident Evil, you don't have conversations with the zombies in hopes of persuading them to allow you passage. In Silent Hill, you didn't pick an option to intimidate Pyramid Head. You fight to survive.


But yes, I suppose in this era of hyperbole-- if a game is a third person shooter, has the option of taking cover and action, it's EXACTLY like Gears of War.

You even seen the gameplay? Compare it to the first game.

DS1 was more slower paced *check corners and behind you* game. DS2 became more of a you vs wave after wave and generally more faster pace.

Now DS3 has a cover system, enemies with wielding actual weapons, even more action and bloody co-op!

Look at that monster in the DS3 trailer, it does not even look like a Necromorph! I can not even see a single Human form on it and appears to come out of Lost Planet.

The environment does not even look scary, Isaac seems to swear constantly and so does his buddy John.

Look at the trailers and comapre them to each game. You got to be pretty ****ing blind to not see a difference between the three. EA has made it clear they want to reach a wider audience, unfortunately that wider audience happens to be the CoD crowd.

And no, this is not hyperbole, this is the truth and not exaggeration. Yeah ok, i'm frustrated and potentially speaking out of emotion rather that logic but the difference between the games is that it is becoming faster pace, less jumps and more shooting elements.

Dead Space was not a proper survival horror but it did focus more on the survival horror than DS2.

Modifié par Naughty Bear, 08 juin 2012 - 08:06 .

[Gamemako]

Dead Space was good. DS2 was surprisingly not bad as well. I thought I'd hate the voiced Isaac, but I always got a laugh out of Isaac's cursing while stomping Necromorphs ("****! ****! Die! Mother--****er! Yeeagh!"). Was a bit shooting-heavy, but at least managed to keep things interesting. A little heavy-handed with the hallucination bits, though. Everything I've seen about DS3 thus far makes me think it's Army of Two minus the hilarious bromance.

I mean, Naughty Bear is absolutely right about it. Dead Space 3 suddenly has us shooting people from cover with a teammate, and the dialogue went from functional to downright stupid. It reminded me of Bulletstorm's dialogue, except that Bulletstorm meant it as a joke. John is an obnoxious pain in the ass throughout the E3 demo and can't seem to express himself without fitting the word "****" somewhere in every sentence.

I was pretty skeptical of DS2 and it turned out alright (not great, but alright), so I can always pray that DS3 does the same, but I won't keep my hopes up.

As for survival horror, I do miss the days of Silent Hill 2...

[Arch1eviathan]

KBomb wrote...

Sajji wrote...



One of the key elements to survival horror games is ammunition. I learned at E3 that there will be a lot more ammunition. Combine that with a third person cover mechanic, and now the player has tons of ammo with cover. Its easy to see from there what happens: stay in cover...shoot.

The choice for more ammunition is clear in EA's attempt. Instead of conserving ammo and having a sense of fear due to the fact its limited, that seems like it would be completely gone. Other posters have said the second half of Dead Space 2 was a third person shooter. Considering the fact its EA and word is out on more ammo and a third person cover mechanic, its logical for me to assume, along with the direction and evolution (for the worse, imo) of Mass Effect 3, I can see what's up ahead. Don't forget co-op, too.

The trailer also came across very immature, with over the top profanity and an attempt to be cool. Now...I'm not bashing this IP...I haven't played any of the games and have heard a great deal of how good a survival horror the original is.

I might eventually give it a whirl. I hope fans find the game fun, but it doesn't look like my game

 
Well, as for the ammo—I never remember running out before. Not saying I didn't, just saying I don't recall doing so. I thought there was plenty of ammo, especially since you could buy it at regular intervals throughout the game. Covering isn't a bad thing and it adds a bit of tactical play. Also, I don't see anyone staying in cover with the necros. Most likely it will only be useful during the time you're fighting human enemies and if you want to make it a bit more challenging—just avoid cover and don't purchase ammo often, etc. I, for one, am looking forward to the dodge move. ME1 had unlimited ammo (cooldown only, which was quick) and it had a cover mechanic, too.

This was a huge problem in dead space 2. this problem was most prevelent when those zombie children attack in the nursery and when I first got back to the Ishimura.

[KBomb]

Naughty Bear wrote...


You even seen the gameplay? Compare it to the first game.

I'll compare it to the second one, because that's what it reminded me of.

DS1 was more slower paced *check corners and behind you* game. DS2 became more of a you vs wave after wave and generally more faster pace.

Now DS3 has a cover system, enemies with wielding actual weapons, even more action and bloody co-op!

 
Dead Space was slower paced, but I never got the feeling of “omg what is going to come at me next!” I knew what was coming. It wasn't at all scary or suspenseful, considering you knew an enemy was coming from somewhere. It wasn't a movie where you just never knew. It was an action-horror (which is what DS is more akin to than anything), so of course you were going to have enemies coming. I never expected anything less. People keep talking about how scary it was. Imo, it just wasn't.


Again, the covering system is probably being utilized because of the unitologist and that is most likely the only time it will be useful. I don't see being able to stay in cover with necros. People seem surprised that we're going to be having a human element this time and honestly, I cannot fathom why it's surprising. At some point, you'd expect the unitologist to make an appearance. I am surprised it took this long. And co-op. There isn't any reason you'd have to touch it unless they pull off a Bioware. DS2 had MP and it didn't effect the SP and I don't see it happening. I don't see any reason to flip over it just now.

Look at that monster in the DS3 trailer, it does not even look like a Necromorph! I can not even see a single Human form on it and appears to come out of Lost Planet.

It actually looks like the behemoth that tried (and in my case successfully) to kill you in Dead Space 2. I actually enjoyed that fight sequence. Don't see an issue with something like it being in DS3.

The environment does not even look scary, Isaac seems to swear constantly and so does his buddy John.

  
You haven't seen enough of the environment to know if it will remain “unscary”. If you think stumbling around in the darkness makes it scary, you may get that. Personally, I didn't find the environment scary in the first two. Just dark. It's like the fog in Silent Hill—it added to the atmosphere for about an hour, then it became annoying.


And as far as swearing.....can't see the big deal to be honest. Swearing isn't mutually exclusive to huge action games. It wasn't excessive and completely subjective to taste. I don't recall an abundance of cursing in either CoD or GoW and I have played both extensively.

Look at the trailers and comapre them to each game. You got to be pretty ****ing blind to not see a difference between the three. EA has made it clear they want to reach a wider audience, unfortunately that wider audience happens to be the CoD crowd.

And no, this is not hyperbole, this is the truth and not exaggeration. Yeah ok, i'm frustrated and potentially speaking out of emotion rather that logic but the difference between the games is that it is becoming faster pace, less jumps and more shooting elements.

Dead Space was not a proper survival horror but it did focus more on the survival horror than DS2.

 
I won't deny that EA seems to be preening for a wider audience and if we were discussing a rpg or a game that wasn't action packed to begin with, I may even agree with you. DS has and always will be an action/horror game. If someone viewed it as a slow-paced, horror immersion puzzle game that forced you to be tactical and thoughtful in the process of playing it—I'd say they were the one who would have to be blind. And yes, I do feel like most of the reactions to the changes are hyperbole. That is my opinion, though.


Anyway, sorry this title doesn't interest you. Sorry you feel let down. Speaking for myself, I liked what I saw thus far and I am looking forward to it.

 

Modifié par KBomb, 08 juin 2012 - 10:30 .

[Naughty Bear]

KBomb wrote...

Anyway, sorry this title doesn't interest you. Sorry you feel let down. Speaking for myself, I liked what I saw thus far and I am looking forward to it.

 

Oh i'm still buying it, i'm not leaving a story half finished. The story is the only thing that keeps me interested.

[Veex]

Naughty Bear wrote...

DS1 was more slower paced *check corners and behind you* game. DS2 became more of a you vs wave after wave and generally more faster pace.

For me, the only reason DS1 was "slower paced" was because the controls were absurdly awful. It had about the least intuitive mouse input and movement scheme that I've seen in the past decade. I'm extremely glad the rest of the game was enjoyable because had I not finished it that first time I never would have made it back.

[Sajji]

Veex wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

DS1 was more slower paced *check corners and behind you* game. DS2 became more of a you vs wave after wave and generally more faster pace.

For me, the only reason DS1 was "slower paced" was because the controls were absurdly awful. It had about the least intuitive mouse input and movement scheme that I've seen in the past decade. I'm extremely glad the rest of the game was enjoyable because had I not finished it that first time I never would have made it back.

I'm usually that way with games, too. Yet refining mechanics can occur without evolution into a third person shooter. But hey, if those sell, let's try to make a buck by turning it into a shooter! It leaves less games for the purpose of survival horror with some shooting. But elements that help with that, and in some cases and senario would be realistic, is sparse ammo.

But no way could that ever occur. Holy frogs...sparse ammo? A legitimate game mechanic helpful for establishing atmosphere? Big publishers don't care. They inevitably chase phantom dollars packaging it up into a nice, overdone, watered down third person shooter. Of which exists a whole hell of a lot already.

[KBomb]

Sajji wrote...

I'm usually that way with games, too. Yet refining mechanics can occur without evolution into a third person shooter. But hey, if those sell, let's try to make a buck by turning it into a shooter! It leaves less games for the purpose of survival horror with some shooting. But elements that help with that, and in some cases and senario would be realistic, is sparse ammo.

But no way could that ever occur. Holy frogs...sparse ammo? A legitimate game mechanic helpful for establishing atmosphere? Big publishers don't care. They inevitably chase phantom dollars packaging it up into a nice, overdone, watered down third person shooter. Of which exists a whole hell of a lot already.

 
You do know that the Dead Space franchise is a third person shooter already, don't you? It wasn't “changed” into it. It is one.


Also, play on the harder difficulties and ammo will be sparse. I am asking this in the most friendliest way possible: What is it with you and sparse ammo? lol You do know you don't have to purchase it and neither do you have to pick it up. You can opt not to buy extra and you can opt not to pick it up, then there you go: less ammo.

Modifié par KBomb, 09 juin 2012 - 07:12 .

[Gamemako]

KBomb wrote...
 
Dead Space was slower paced, but I never got the feeling of “omg what is going to come at me next!” I knew what was coming. It wasn't at all scary or suspenseful, considering you knew an enemy was coming from somewhere. It wasn't a movie where you just never knew. It was an action-horror (which is what DS is more akin to than anything), so of course you were going to have enemies coming. I never expected anything less. People keep talking about how scary it was. Imo, it just wasn't.

It was more about shooting bodies because you weren't sure if they were actually dead and watching every grate for whatever may or may not pounce on you. It managed to maintain a sense of suspense because you didn't simply assume you were safe when enemies weren't immediately visible, and the enemies pouncing on you were quite capable of ripping your head off (and becoming your new head).

KBomb wrote...

Again, the covering system is probably being utilized because of the unitologist and that is most likely the only time it will be useful. I don't see being able to stay in cover with necros. People seem surprised that we're going to be having a human element this time and honestly, I cannot fathom why it's surprising. At some point, you'd expect the unitologist to make an appearance. I am surprised it took this long.

But why wouldn't they just volunteer themselves to become necromorphs? That's what made them an appropriately terrifying sort of cult. If they've gone to just being gun-toting thugs, there's just so much less reason to care.

KBomb wrote...

And co-op. There isn't any reason you'd have to touch it unless they pull off a Bioware. DS2 had MP and it didn't effect the SP and I don't see it happening. I don't see any reason to flip over it just now.

Um, as I understand, it's an intergral part of the campaign, like it was in RE5. RE5 was fun with a friend, but really not worth playing alone, and that's what I fear we will get out of DS3.

KBomb wrote...

  
You haven't seen enough of the environment to know if it will remain “unscary”. If you think stumbling around in the darkness makes it scary, you may get that. Personally, I didn't find the environment scary in the first two. Just dark. It's like the fog in Silent Hill—it added to the atmosphere for about an hour, then it became annoying.

Dead Space 3 seems to have lost both the "dead" and the "space" parts.

KBomb wrote...


And as far as swearing.....can't see the big deal to be honest. Swearing isn't mutually exclusive to huge action games. It wasn't excessive and completely subjective to taste.

It was definitely juvenile. I haven't heard real people swear like that since I was a teenager. I still curse liberally, but I don't inject every sentence with a random epithet for no damn reason.

KBomb wrote...


I won't deny that EA seems to be preening for a wider audience and if we were discussing a rpg or a game that wasn't action packed to begin with, I may even agree with you. DS has and always will be an action/horror game. If someone viewed it as a slow-paced, horror immersion puzzle game that forced you to be tactical and thoughtful in the process of playing it—I'd say they were the one who would have to be blind.

You see, that's what's so damn bizarre about it. Viceral Games was called EA Redwood originally. It was formed by EA to make franchise junk, like some mediocre Bond games. Somehow, they got a new IP approved for an action-horror game. And now, after a successful sequel, now they're going to change it due to pressure from their parent company? I just don't get it.

[KBomb]

Gamemako wrote...
It was more about shooting bodies because you weren't sure if they were actually dead and watching every grate for whatever may or may not pounce on you. It managed to maintain a sense of suspense because you didn't simply assume you were safe when enemies weren't immediately visible, and the enemies pouncing on you were quite capable of ripping your head off (and becoming your new head).

Yeah, I got the feeling of what they were trying to do. It was done well, just wasn't scary to me. There was still lots of action. You still have to shoot things. You still have to kill things. Action still played a heavy part in both games, pace or not. Action plays a part in all survival horror games because well, you know...you have to survive.

But why wouldn't they just volunteer themselves to become necromorphs? That's what made them an appropriately terrifying sort of cult. If they've gone to just being gun-toting thugs, there's just so much less reason to care.

It makes perfect sense to have protectors, guardians, if you will. Even though they unleashed the infection on the sprawl, the higher ups didn't become necromorphs themselves. The founders believed that necros were a sign of the power of the Marker, but believed them to be defective. Only later was it accepted that they were more. There was a Unitologist (can't remember off-hand) who helped spread the infection in the sprawl and regretted it, coming to an understand they can not be controlled and died fighting off the necros. It would be foolish of the higher echelon not to have protectors of which to control—such as humans.

Um, as I understand, it's an intergral part of the campaign, like it was in RE5. RE5 was fun with a friend, but really not worth playing alone, and that's what I fear we will get out of DS3.

Unlike RE5, you can play the entire campaign with Isaac alone. It changes some if you decide to use co-op, but it isn't required. To me, that only adds to replay value. I can understand why some would dislike it. I don't see it as an issue, though.

It was definitely juvenile. I haven't heard real people swear like that since I was a teenager. I still curse liberally, but I don't inject every sentence with a random epithet for no damn reason.

Again, subject to opinion. I didn't even pay attention to it. Maybe because I have a friend who uses the f-bomb as casually as he uses the word “the” and I have become desensitized to it. I don't see it as a big deal. Not with such elaborate gore and violence that has been a staple since the first Dead Space. I mean, once you dismember someone, then curb stomp their head into the ground, and it's the curse words that bother you...it's time to sort out some priorities. lol

I respect your opinion though, and the opinion of others who aren't as excited as I am.