kupomogli said:
Three posts ago, not two. Also, I said I wasn't going to reply, as I was being courteous rather than just completely ignoring your reply, but after yoru bs comment I've got to reply. The very post thatt I stated "why should I defend the game," I pointed out three things about the game, several that you commented about being a bad quality of the game. You ignored most of the comments I made, brushed off others. Previously I also said things in the games defense. I didn't go in depth about it, but I made comments about it. I'll quote them, you can go back through the replies and see them yourself. "Dead Space 2 was actually pretty shooter heavy and everyone praised as such a remarkable game, Dead Space 3 is only a bit more of a shooter than Dead Space 2 is. Co op was added to the mix so people could play two player. Heaven forbid Visceral allowing players to enjoy a great game with a friend." You did reply to being barely more of a shooter than the second, but you stuck to it being too much of a shooter. You completely brushed off my comment about co op. "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 didn't acknowledge this. "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. " You didn't acknowledge this. "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. " You didn't acknowledge this. "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." You made a comment two posts later not directed towards this, but when I already stated this, I wasn't going to make my statement again. It's before I said I'm not going to reply. So yeah. I did point things out about it that defended gameplay mechanics and the level design. You just chose to overlook them. Purposefully to win your argument, who knows. Or you just spun whatever I said to make your side of the argument look good. Between the series never being much of a survival horror series to begin with and two posts ago where I stated unreasonable expectations of it being a survival horror game and then you make the comment "because the previous ones were survival horror." The previous Resident Evil titles weren't a constant barrage of bullets and explosions. Your post makes you look like as much of a hypocrite as the journalists. Giving one game a free pass when the series goes from complete survival horror to shooter when the next one goes from shooter with a semblance of survival horror to shooter. |
#1: Saying it had co-op had, quite literally, nothing at all to do with our argument. I never once criticized it for being co-op. Nor does including cooperative mode somehow make it a better game, which is the topic at hand. So this is completely irrelevant.
#2: I responded to this with my points about atmosphere. I repeatedly discussed how simple ammo scarcity is by no means the only thing that makes a horror game "horrifying." Saying there's a "hard mode" with less ammo does not make an already not scary game and turn it into something scary, at least no more than Halo 3 is a horror game with less health and less ammo in weapons on higher difficulties.
#3: ...this was meant as a serious defense of the game?
Here, let me read this back to you.
"The game developers made a poor design choice, so we had to make this bad gameplay choice in order to keep the previous poor choice from completely ruining the experience."
That isn't a defense. That's simply saying that the situation is bad, just not quite as bad as it could be. There's still a problem, and one inherent to the developer's choice in the first place.
#4: Again, this is a defense? What reviewers say?
I guess Other M is also a great game, and Skyward Sword is the best Zelda of all time.
And, besides, this claim is a completely false one above all else. Take a look at this review, if you don't believe me. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. All of which critcize the combat, along with newly directed focus on action.
And I don't remember #5 at all, but whatever. In regards to that, no, quite honestly, I'd prefer not to have another game with the exact same plotline as the first. In fact, I think Dead Space worked quite well as a stand alone game. But I'll say that I would much rather prefer another survival horror with a similar plot and setting than the three hundredth addition to the gritty third person shooter genre.
And lastly, you've got some mistaken idea in your head that I'm some major advocate of the Resident Evil series. I'm not. Pretty much every Resident Evil game outside of 4 and Revelations is, at best, mediocre, and at worst awful. 4 is decent, for at least trying to be survival horror and realizing that no one takes the Resident Evil seriously, and Revelations does a good job of pretty much everything except for the parts where it makes you go along with a partner character...which is way too much of the game.
I've criticized the heck out of the Resident Evil games in the past. I was in this exact same spot when Resident Evil 6 came out, arguing that it was another misstep in the series.
