By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - EA is an Amazing Game Company

Hahahaha



Around the Network
MTZehvor said:

Assuming you're simply referring to there being too much ammunition lying around, I addressed this in my post, but allow me to elaborate. Since the ammunition in RE4 (unlike Dead Space 3) is based on each weapon, and is not generic ammuntion, which weapon you carry around is vitally important, since it can make what ammunition you find around worthless if you aren't carrying the right gun for it.

If that's not, then feel free to actually state your point instead of simply posting pictures implying I'm missing a point. That is, provided you have one.

And you've conveniently ignored my point about Dead Space 3's quality itself. It sounds more like you're simply trying to make EA seem better by making everyone else seem worse. Doesn't speak well to all of these supposed great games EA's produced.

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.



kupomogli said:
MTZehvor said:

Assuming you're simply referring to there being too much ammunition lying around, I addressed this in my post, but allow me to elaborate. Since the ammunition in RE4 (unlike Dead Space 3) is based on each weapon, and is not generic ammuntion, which weapon you carry around is vitally important, since it can make what ammunition you find around worthless if you aren't carrying the right gun for it.

If that's not, then feel free to actually state your point instead of simply posting pictures implying I'm missing a point. That is, provided you have one.

And you've conveniently ignored my point about Dead Space 3's quality itself. It sounds more like you're simply trying to make EA seem better by making everyone else seem worse. Doesn't speak well to all of these supposed great games EA's produced.

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.



At least you didn't say best game company. Even if all their games were groundbreaking and amazing, their practices would make them one of the worst companies.



MTZehvor said:

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.

There you go again.  Stating something I wasn't doing and made clear to you last reply.  I guess people will introduce whatever information they can in attempts to win though.  Anyways, I've said my piece, pointing out that many people didn't have a problem with the gameplay, and that the reviews were nothing more than hypocrisy of this game is a shooter but I love it, this one is a shooter but there's way too much shooting so let me give it a 1/10 - 7/10 .  I could always mention other games that have a lot of shooting with little to no variation in weaponry that scored higher scores and didn't really convey as good gameplay.  This simply got a lower score because they had unreasonable expectations of it being "survival" which it barely was in the first place. 



Around the Network
kupomogli said:
MTZehvor said:

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.

There you go again.  Stating something I wasn't doing and made clear to you last reply.  I guess people will introduce whatever information they can in attempts to win though.  Anyways, I've said my piece, pointing out that many people didn't have a problem with the gameplay, and that the reviews were nothing more than hypocrisy of this game is a shooter but I love it, this one is a shooter but there's way too much shooting so let me give it a 1/10 - 7/10 .  I could always mention other games that have a lot of shooting with little to no variation in weaponry that scored higher scores and didn't really convey as good gameplay.  This simply got a lower score because they had unreasonable expectations of it being "survival" which it barely was in the first place. 

Regardless of what your intentions are, it's still degrading another game instead of defending the actual game in question.

And yes, completely unreasonable expectations of it being a survival horror game. It's not like the previous two games in the series were survival horror or anything.



MTZehvor said:

Regardless of what your intentions are, it's still degrading another game instead of defending the actual game in question.

And yes, completely unreasonable expectations of it being a survival horror game. It's not like the previous two games in the series were survival horror or anything.

I didn't say anything degrading about the game.  And I have said such that does defend the game on several occassions and every time you've completely ignored it and brought up the same attacks against the game, attacks that I've previously commented against them but you haven't even replied to those comments.  Regardless what I write won't matter as it's clear you'll ignore a lot of what I write and pick at a single point to make your argument sound better, so I'll just leave the conversation.  If you'd like to go back and reread what I've wrote to gain some insight, then go ahead and do that, but I'm no longer wasting my time replying.



EA has the same temperament as Microsoft. Their ethic is the same. Keep as much control over their product as possible and milk as many of their top IP's as possible.



kupomogli said:
MTZehvor said:

Regardless of what your intentions are, it's still degrading another game instead of defending the actual game in question.

And yes, completely unreasonable expectations of it being a survival horror game. It's not like the previous two games in the series were survival horror or anything.

I didn't say anything degrading about the game.  And I have said such that does defend the game on several occassions and every time you've completely ignored it and brought up the same attacks against the game, attacks that I've previously commented against them but you haven't even replied to those comments.  Regardless what I write won't matter as it's clear you'll ignore a lot of what I write and pick at a single point to make your argument sound better, so I'll just leave the conversation.  If you'd like to go back and reread what I've wrote to gain some insight, then go ahead and do that, but I'm no longer wasting my time replying.

You quite literally claimed two posts ago that you didn't need to defend it, and now you're arguing that you've been defending it the entire time?

Your flip-flopping puts a sandal selling convention to shame.



S.T.A.G.E. said:
EA has the same temperament as Microsoft. Their ethic is the same. Keep as much control over their product as possible and milk as many of their top IP's as possible.

@Bold And who wouldn't want to milk their top IPs ? Everybody in the industry is doing it ... If Sony had an IP that came close to call of duty they would milk the shit out of it and the same goes for Nintendo. Activision is obviously doing it. EA has sports games to milk. Ubisoft is doing this with assassin's creed. Konami is squeezing the shit out of metal gear. Capcom is taking the life out of street fighter. Square Enix is trying to dry the shit out of Final Fantasy. Sega ain't even giving that pitiful hedgehog a break. Tecmo Koei keeps pushing out more dynasty warriors. 

Almost everybody is doing it STAGE, now tell us something we don't know ...