kupomogli said:
The 37 weapons at once was sarcasm, simply meaning, you could hold a lot. The airplane and your avatar is me stating, it went over your head. You're acting like you couldn't hold one of each weapon in Resident Evil 4. Playing on normal mode you won't ever come close to running out of ammo and you might have quite a few herbs and grenades stocked in your inventory throughout the game with as many weapons as you're planning on using. Coincidentally, harder modes on Dead Space 3 reduce amount of ammo you pick up and there's a survival option which ammunition and health can only be created at the bench. You stated that I'm attacking another series when I'm not. I'm comparing, only because I'm pointing out how hypocritical people are praising one while bashing another for doing the exact same thing. Also yes, you use a single ammunition type in Dead Space 3, and the reason for that is literally how many different weapons you can actually combine. Having different ammunition for each would be a bit much, so they decided to go with a single ammunition type. About not explaining how Dead Space 3 is good, I shouldn't have to. Do you always explain why a game is good every time one is brought up? Infact I'm pretty sure along with several games that receive constant bashing from people who haven't played the games, games like White Knight Chronicles, DmC Devil May Cry, Lords of Shadow 2, etc, I've probably explained more than once why I thought Dead Space 3 was a good game. None of the poor reviews ever say it's gameplay is specifically bad, just that it's a shooter and let's whine and bitch about it, blah blah blah, here's a 7/10. As I was comparing above, so is Resident Evil 4, except where Resident Evil went from almost no shooting to Rambo, Dead Space started out as a shooter in the very first one and it just became more of a shooter in Dead Space 3. I mean do you really want to see a third game in a row where Isaac is shooting aliens in the dark? I didn't. If it was that all over again I would have just played Dead Space 2 again because it'd have been a third time in a row where they're in the same environment yet again. |
...I picked up on that much. I used 37 for the same meaning you did; to imply a lot.
Personally, I ran into ammo trouble on a number of ocassions, but I suppose that lends itself to how good of a player you are. I do think I'm justified in saying that, even if RE4 does go overboard, Dead Space 3 gives you MUCH more ammo than RE4 does. I don't think I ever dipped below several hundred bullets left after a couple hours of playing time, whereas I got close with RE4 on several ocassions.
Regardless, even if RE4 was as freely giving of ammo as Dead Space 3 was, it still does a much better job in creating an atmosphere of dread and attempting to actually frighten the player ocassionally, as opposed to Dead Space 3, which doesn't even bother in setting the mood. Monsters will jump out at you, but there's never an attempt to set any sort of tense atmosphere. The original Dead Space was set in an incredibly atmospheric environment; dark, creepy, with you being isolated and vulnerable at all times. Dead Space 3 takes place (mostly) on a planet that simply lacks that same atmosphere. It's hard to feel isolated in the same way when the co-op character keeps randomly popping up on ocassion (even in the single player).
And while I certainly don't go into an in-depth review of a game I like every single time I mention it, if I'm going to debate with someone on the merits of said game, then yes, I will usually attempt to explain why I believe it's good instead of simply attacking other games in the same genre.
