I think Kuchera is some type of master troll that destroys important issues through judicious application of hyperbole. Is the DLC a bit scummy? Sure, and it always has been (and as pointed out already.) But the ME3 stuff was way scummier (although they did give you free maps and new things to unlock all the time) and I never paid a damned cent and had a really great time.
Man the chainsaw attachment is great. The hammer variant seems to be underpowered though, the wider swing takes longer to use and doesn't seem to turn necromorphs into instant puddles of limbs.
I like to over-explain things. The comment section appears to generally consist of people who want to give EA and / or microtrans a kicking. And at least one comment with a completely unrealistic view about how publishers used to be decent, but are now money-grubbing control freaks. Going back to Atari dominating the market with the 2600, publishers have always manipulated developers.
The difference with the DLC for 1 and 2 is that they're not offered IN GAME. While you're playing the game there should be no mention of the outside world. In DS3 it appears these microtransactions occur at the in game store and items just magically appear. It absolutely is immersion breaking. Having it outside the game, either in the starting menu or even just at the system store front (PSN or XBox stores) and then just tweaking the data in the inventory at least doesn't break your immersion while you're playing. Even better would be that after you buy an item you don't just magically have it. Rather, an item is simply populated in your game world that wasn't there previously or make it simpler, the next time you pick up an item you simply find two instead of one. This enables the transaction but doesn't break the continuity of the game. Not sure that would fly as people might think they may not get the item they paid for and they won't get it immediately (it could simply be seconds as it could be in the next locker or box they open).
I guess I don't understand how access to a system you won't use through a menu option in the storefront matters. It seems like a logical and convenient place to put it, and no more likely to break my immersion than when I get up to go to the bathroom. I would kind of understand if you intended to use it and you wanted the game-breaking part of it downplayed by stealthing it into the game (to avoid feeling like you cheated or anything of the sort), but without using it I really can't see how it can affect your experience significantly. But I expect 100% of complaints about it to come from people that will say they don't want to use it, so I'm curious which step of what we know so far explicitly offends. Because no matter what, when the microtransaction goes off the big green xbox screen will pop up and process your charges and all that good stuff, so it's pretty much a done deal in that respect.
Blah, blah, blah. You really love to hear yourself talk (err, write) don't you? Whether I use it or not the feature is there and if I accidentally hit it or do actually decide to use it, it's implementation leaves something to be desired. The developers went out of their way to keep everything in the game world (no HUD, health displayed on the character, ammo on the weapons, etc.), this is a significant deviation from that. I'm just saying it could have been done better from the sounds of it, something more in keeping with the game's design philosophy. Putting it at the game menu would have been fine.
I do love to hear myself write. Well, I will light a candle for your ability to avoid these accidental button presses that will mark your fall from grace as an immersed gamer. I hope EA takes into account the serious concerns of serious people like yourself the next time they move an option from one menu to another for a secondary, optional feature clearly driven by company marketing strategy rather then developer design philosophy.
This thread is largely responsible for me plucking Dead Space 2 from the Steam Sale backlogged inventory and start it up. So far very early on, my favorite immersion-building design implement is that the station is designed such that if a section starts decompressing, that a helpful switch drops down from the ceiling and the emergency PA helpfully announces that in case of explosive decompression, you should shoot the dangling switch by the breach. Although that did lead to me losing some immersion because I had to pause the game for a bit because I was laughing about it. Then my immersion was further damaged, because the game left out all sorts of other opportunities for shooting-driven interfaces. I should be able to call for elevators by shooting the panels, work vending machines by shooting them with creditguns, etc. All of which leads me to the conclusion that the obvious immersive way of having immersion-building microtransactions would be a main menu system to load up your Origin Wallet with real funds, and in the game you would have a Wallet Gun that shot Dead Cents. Ideally, the equipment vending stations would then actually shoot the various upgrades and things at you.
It just brings up another immersion problem. How does Isaac carry around all of those seals? He can't eat them all at once.
I'm surprised nobody has had shitfits about the all purpose "ammo" you pick up now. It doesn't bother me since it was never fun trying to balance out the 50 types of ammo in DS2 and leave space so you could pick up semiconductors and Peng dolls.
Gamefly shipped mine so I should be all set for the weekend. I hope the coop is good, but after RE6 I'm testing the basic functions of the game before doubling up on a purchase/rental for my wife and me.
Pretty damn mixed so far. Sounds like the game would be fun co-op, but I don't think I'll be picking it up for single-player.
Is there any game that Game Informer gives a bad rating too? I mean, they just seem to rate everything on the 90-100 scale so people will rush to Gamestop and buy it, right?
Their scores lean higher than average (and we all know how much fun that average is to compute), but in general it just tends to be more emphatic endorsement of games that others might only call good, and the write-ups usually provide ample grounds to make your own decisions.I'd say their incentives are no worse than those of most people in the game review industry, and it contrasts favorably in my view with magazines like Edge. To someone with no inside information, it just seems to me like GI tends to give more reviews to people that already like the genre rather than generalists whose preferences may lie elsewhere, but that may just be a function of having the funding for a larger staff.
In addition to what LK said, I'd just point out that GI doesn't really dispute that its review scale tends to be from 6 to 10, and typically it's 7 to 10. I listen to the GI podcast on a regular basis and they always sort of poke fun at it. I don't have a copy of the review scale handy, but it's printed in each magazine. I think 7.0 is considered "average," which certainly explains why GI scores tend to fall between 7 and 10.
If you look at the 7/10 Eurogamer review, it seems the primary negatives are the availability of microtransactions and the fact that it's a survival horrorish sequel. Well, that and the pacing, which the GI writer mentions as well albeit targeted only at the end of the game rather than the overall action/horror mix. I don't really expect much since Dead Space has always been a series that I shouldn't enjoy as much as I have based on what they offer in bullet points. It's really going to come down to how much they refine the details (especially those always-addictive upgrade systems) and whether they avoid drawing out the gameplay with trial and error bullshit, as I plan to do the whole thing coop.
I think it's difficult to make the necromorphs scary on your third crawl through, so it becomes a bit of a shooter just because everyone in the fiction knows what they are, and the players absolutely already know what they are. The gameplay itself seems pretty solid though. I'm going to check out GB's quicklook to see if I should buy immediately or not. I really liked DS2 minus the medical scene, but I also watched an older developer walkthrough of one of 3's missions that seemed like they were just killing necromorphs via a stream of bullets instead of dismembering shit. Long story short: those of you who bought this, sway me!
I loved Dead Space 1. I felt the second was a bit of a let down, as it became too action oriented later on which really killed the horror aspect. From what I've read the 3rd one goes even further in this direction.
I didn't come up with GI's review scale. I'm just saying what it is. If your quibble is with my math and my statement that because 7.0 represents the score for an "average" game GI scores tend to be between 7 and 10, then I'll fall on my sword and we can move on.
Reading the Eurogamer review (always my first stop) has not put me off the game at all. I'm really looking forward to my copy arriving today. I think the following sums up the EG review pretty well. The EG review also mentions (1) that the weapons are so powerful that you never feel afraid AND (2) that the game can be frustrating with cheap shot attacks and getting locked in a room with a large number of enemies. I guess technically these points aren't mutually exclusive. One can be frustrated without feeling legitimately threatened, I suppose, but its seems odd to complain about both of those things in the same review. The EG review also mentions that the game clocked in at around 16 hours for the reviewer. I'm a little surprised at that. I think I spent about ten hours with Dead Space 2 and that felt like a good amount to me.
To me it just became more of a sci fi action adventure with horror elements, sort of the classic Alien-Aliens shift. In a best case scenario, 3 provides with Alien Resurrection and skips the horrific Ali3nternative. <insert prolonged argument about the relative quality of alien movies> I think Eurogamer is right that serializing horror is going to lead to disaster if you try to pretend you can keep the same weight to the tone of the game, but I also think that puts you in something of a bind if you're trying to do more in the same world. That is, you will be damned if you move away from horror and your game will be ridiculous if you don't. I do think that the perspective shift in the Wii Dead Space game allowed them to do some really cool things that were still heavily horror-driven without becoming unintentional self-parody like Amnesia, it's just a pity that the Wii graphics were so sub-par relative to a series with such stunning production values and visuals. But that's where I would look for a horror-oriented sequel.
I can see cheap attack complaints. Busting out the QTE from a door you had to open is kind of a genre thing. As well as the annoying "oh look at all the obvious vents that are sure to be popping out bad guys as soon as I walk past" I consider cheap attacks to be very much the "my character would never walk into that situation, it's obviously a trap." followed by your cutscene of walking into the blatant trap. It's again just part of the genre at this point. So far the reviews are interesting and the game seems worthwhile.
Well, if nothing else, this thread made me put Dead Space 2 on my wishlist, awaiting sale. I liked the first one but the movement scheme just made me tired. Now I have a 360 controller, and "a bit more actiony" sounds just fine to me.
