|
On February 07 2011 02:05 bubO wrote:
So is this game any worth buying?
If you don't mind paying the price for what is basically Dead Space 1.1. Exact same ( in fact worse?) gameplay, over use of quicktime events, too easy, more action than horror, uber linear and too short. Its like DLC quality at best, not full blown sequel.
I was surprised by the reviews on metacritic and just put it down to people being fanboys and casual gamers. Some of the critics were giving it 100%'s on the ps3 version WTF?!. But I am truely amazed at the response here. Honestly, can someone explain it to me, how is this game in ANY way an advancement of the game that was released 2 years ago?? Aside from it being a better PC port.
|
I'm curently playing on hard core mode, which is nearly immpossible
|
On February 07 2011 07:29 exKid wrote:If you don't mind paying the price for what is basically Dead Space 1.1. Exact same ( in fact worse?) gameplay, over use of quicktime events, too easy, more action than horror, uber linear and too short. Its like DLC quality at best, not full blown sequel. I was surprised by the reviews on metacritic and just put it down to people being fanboys and casual gamers. Some of the critics were giving it 100%'s on the ps3 version WTF?!. But I am truely amazed at the response here. Honestly, can someone explain it to me, how is this game in ANY way an advancement of the game that was released 2 years ago?? Aside from it being a better PC port.
You sure like throwing around generalizations. Dead Space 1 was a great game. Very little had to change. There aren't nearly as many quicktime events as you make it out to be (hyperbole does help weak cases tho). It isn't too easy. You must be one of those l33t dudes who beats zealot with his eyes closed and one hand in a shard of glass. Baddass dude. Being linear doesn't make a game bad. 8 hours is more than long enough. Action instead of horror? Just because the pacing has changed doesn't change the fact this is a horror game through-and-through.
Basically they took something that was good and polished it up. Throw in some great voice acting and better lighting and you have a solid game. Ofc you are free to have your opinion, but not a single thing you said actually makes this game bad (or is blatantly false).
|
On February 07 2011 07:37 On_Slaught wrote:
You sure like throwing around generalizations. Dead Space 1 was a great game. Very little had to change.
There’s your problem right there, I expect 2 years of work to be more than just an additional campaign in the exact same engine. I remember when this kind of move was hugely criticised by everyone, but nowadays it’s the norm to just churn out more money making sequels. I can't believe your actually advocating this kind of laziness.
Being linear does make the game bad. I play games to be challenged and to have to think, not walk down corridor after corridor of scripted events.
They took something that was good 2 years ago, made some small changes and sold a SHORT new campaign at full price. I can’t understand what could drive you to defend such actions.
|
On February 07 2011 08:44 exKid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2011 07:37 On_Slaught wrote:
You sure like throwing around generalizations. Dead Space 1 was a great game. Very little had to change. There’s your problem right there, I expect 2 years of work to be more than just an additional campaign in the exact same engine. I remember when this kind of move was hugely criticised by everyone, but nowadays it’s the norm to just churn out more money making sequels. I can't believe your actually advocating this kind of laziness. Being linear does make the game bad. I play games to be challenged and to have to think, not walk down corridor after corridor of scripted events. They took something that was good 2 years ago, made some small changes and sold a SHORT new campaign at full price. I can’t understand what could drive you to defend such actions.
Honestly, Dead Space is more of an experience rather than a game. If you want to be challenged mechanically and mentally, this game is not for you. But that doenst make it a shitty game.
The environment, the scary scenes really stuck with me in the first game. When approaching DS2 i had the same mentality, i wanted to play it through for those same feelings of fear and a continuation of the story. With that being said, linearity is not a bad thing in this franchise. A story unfolds, you experience it, this game is not a choice based experience.
|
You just said that DS1 end battle was great? Are you kidding? The ending to DS1 was so disappointing and such a huge failure/joke there is a meme of it.
What happens at the end of Dead Space?
Necromorphs bakes you cookies.
That last boss is SO easy and SO stupid.... such a letdown. Its like that boss should have been first. All you do is kill the yellow circles which is super easy even on hard with bad PC controls.
Strafe to avoid tenctacles. GG. Seriously I cant believe you said the last boss was good.
Yeah I agree but I still found the Dead Space 1 boss a tidbit more challenging than the Dead Space 2 + Show Spoiler +(evil Nicole) boss,since the Tentacle boss is only easy if you figure out the patterns for the boss (e.g hitting the space platform based on where you stand) but the Nicole boss all you do is dodge the mirage Nicole and kill the baby necros (which are basically 1 shot with any gun)
|
On February 07 2011 03:24 Karliath wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2011 03:22 Gnosis wrote:On February 07 2011 02:05 bubO wrote:
So is this game any worth buying? It's worth buying, yes... But I'm not sure the $60 price point is justifiable. If he hasn't played the first game, there's no reason not to try at its not reduced price. If he has played the first game, he should pretty much know what to expect. It's on him to decide then.
I was under the impression we were discussing Dead Space 2. If the question is, 'Should I buy Dead Space (1)', then I would say absolutely, you should have bought it yesterday. But because we're discussing Dead Space 2, a $60 game with 7 - 8 hours of game play, I'm more hesitant. (I ended up getting Dead Space 2 for 20% off from D2D - That $11 or so was the difference between a purchase and waiting.)
|
Everyone is saying this game is 8 hours long. Sounds like a speed run to me. I was at around 14 hours in when I beat it.
|
I play the game not for the action and stuff, but for the "Shit my pants" experience.
|
On February 07 2011 10:33 H2O Xplicit wrote:Show nested quote +You just said that DS1 end battle was great? Are you kidding? The ending to DS1 was so disappointing and such a huge failure/joke there is a meme of it.
What happens at the end of Dead Space?
Necromorphs bakes you cookies.
That last boss is SO easy and SO stupid.... such a letdown. Its like that boss should have been first. All you do is kill the yellow circles which is super easy even on hard with bad PC controls.
Strafe to avoid tenctacles. GG. Seriously I cant believe you said the last boss was good.
Yeah I agree but I still found the Dead Space 1 boss a tidbit more challenging than the Dead Space 2 (evil Nicole) boss,since the Tentacle boss is only easy if you figure out the patterns for the boss (e.g hitting the space platform based on where you stand) but the Nicole boss all you do is dodge the mirage Nicole and kill the baby necros (which are basically 1 shot with any gun)
Watch your spoilers. There are people here who are still deciding whether to buy the game.
|
On February 07 2011 11:38 Newborn wrote:
Everyone is saying this game is 8 hours long. Sounds like a speed run to me. I was at around 14 hours in when I beat it.
My first run-through I finished at 8:12:40, and that was going my normal pace. I predict I could do a speed-run under 7 hours.
|
I'm not sure if this was mentioned before...but it's pretty funny 
Your Mom Hates Dead Space
Over 200 mom were subject to some of the most disturbing footage in video game history.
http://yourmomhatesdeadspace2.com/
|
Just a question to those who have bought it, how do the environments/levels compare? Honestly, the only reason I enjoyed Deadspace 1 is it was really the only Corridor shooter set in a sci-fi environment that didn't suck since the original AvP and dismemberment was kinda neat. Didn't have much else going for it.
I ask cuz I read a comment on RPS on how the Dead Space 2 environments were a lot worse then the original. Any thoughts on that?
--
Also to those of you saying "Just another corridor shooter", that has me confused.... How many corridor shooters have there actually been since HLF2 on the PC lol? Like, Bioshock, thats it.
|
On February 09 2011 10:05 Half wrote:
Just a question to those who have bought it, how do the environments/levels compare? Honestly, the only reason I enjoyed Deadspace 1 is it was really the only Corridor shooter set in a sci-fi environment that didn't suck since the original AvP and dismemberment was kinda neat. Didn't have much else going for it.
I ask cuz I read a comment on RPS on how the Dead Space 2 environments were a lot worse then the original. Any thoughts on that?
--
Also to those of you saying "Just another corridor shooter", that has me confused.... How many corridor shooters have there actually been since HLF2 on the PC lol? Like, Bioshock, thats it.
By corridor, I'm not quite sure if you mean completely metal tube-like corridors, or just corridors in general.
I think that Dead Space 2 retains a lot of what was in the original game. While it's still set mostly in "corridors," they are no longer as plain as they were before (I don't know if you like that or not). Remember the part in the original game with like red carpet and stuff? Dead Space 2 takes place in a shopping center, kid's hospital, outside an elementary, unitology's church, residence halls etc. So yeah, there's less "metal," though still plenty of it in my opinion, but the corridor structure is still the same. Like the first game, there are also large expansive rooms meant for multiple enemy engagements or what not.
I personally prefer DS2's environment. I really enjoyed experiencing the "culture" of the community. Though I didn't find the metal corridors of the first game boring, I think that a second game with nothing but long winding metallic corridors would have bored me.
|
Wish there was another game mode for this Dead Space 2 though
Such as saving some helpless citizens and getting credits for saving them like Bioshock (Little Sisters)
It'll definitely give more variety and more things to do
|
On February 09 2011 13:40 H2O Xplicit wrote:
Wish there was another game mode for this Dead Space 2 though
Such as saving some helpless citizens and getting credits for saving them like Bioshock (Little Sisters)
It'll definitely give more variety and more things to do
I haven't found any in DS2 yet, but there were mini games in the first game, like zero-g basketball and target practice. There probably won't be anything involving a group of other survivors though.
|
I started playing Deadspace 2 last night at like 2:00 am with all the lights off. I could only play for about an hour, I figured deadspace induced nightmares would follow if I played any longer.
Epic game.
|
By corridor, I'm not quite sure if you mean completely metal tube-like corridors, or just corridors in general.
I think that Dead Space 2 retains a lot of what was in the original game. While it's still set mostly in "corridors," they are no longer as plain as they were before (I don't know if you like that or not). Remember the part in the original game with like red carpet and stuff? Dead Space 2 takes place in a shopping center, kid's hospital, outside an elementary, unitology's church, residence halls etc. So yeah, there's less "metal," though still plenty of it in my opinion, but the corridor structure is still the same. Like the first game, there are also large expansive rooms meant for multiple enemy engagements or what not.
I personally prefer DS2's environment. I really enjoyed experiencing the "culture" of the community. Though I didn't find the metal corridors of the first game boring, I think that a second game with nothing but long winding metallic corridors would have bored me.
Heh, I meant corridor shooter in the sense of linear shooter with less reliance on cover, not the literal corridors. (ala HLF2 Bioshock etc)
So your opinion was that the environments were more varied/interesting then Deadspace 1?
|
On February 07 2011 08:44 exKid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2011 07:37 On_Slaught wrote:
You sure like throwing around generalizations. Dead Space 1 was a great game. Very little had to change. There’s your problem right there, I expect 2 years of work to be more than just an additional campaign in the exact same engine. I remember when this kind of move was hugely criticised by everyone, but nowadays it’s the norm to just churn out more money making sequels. I can't believe your actually advocating this kind of laziness. Being linear does make the game bad. I play games to be challenged and to have to think, not walk down corridor after corridor of scripted events. They took something that was good 2 years ago, made some small changes and sold a SHORT new campaign at full price. I can’t understand what could drive you to defend such actions.
You obviously don't appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into designing, testing and tweaking a story-based game. I don't even know what 'era' you're referring to. The Doom era? The quake era? Those games had no story whatsoever, so making an 8 hour experience in that kind of game could be done in a couple of weeks. Game stories are getting more involved, and a game like Dead Space tries to hit you psychologically. They don't just write something down on paper on the weekend, walk into work the next day, implement it, collect a fat paycheck and head to barbados for a month. It takes a lot of care, attention to detail and a million iterations to make a story-based game.
Edit: fixed the quote
|
On February 07 2011 08:44 exKid wrote:
There’s your problem right there, I expect 2 years of work to be more than just an additional campaign in the exact same engine. I remember when this kind of move was hugely criticised by everyone, but nowadays it’s the norm to just churn out more money making sequels. I can't believe your actually advocating this kind of laziness.
Being linear does make the game bad. I play games to be challenged and to have to think, not walk down corridor after corridor of scripted events.
They took something that was good 2 years ago, made some small changes and sold a SHORT new campaign at full price. I can’t understand what could drive you to defend such actions.
Are you upset that Starcraft 2 has so many of the same units as the first game? Are you upset they didn't implement cover mechanics like CoH? When SC2 came out a lot of people had exactly the same complaints you're making about DS2. No one seems to get that if they changed the game too much it wouldn't really be a sequel would it? Moreover you'd just alienate your fans from the first game who enjoyed everything the first time through. Would you have been happier if DS2 instituted the shield system from Halo and the cover mechanics from Gears of War?
Additionally, what you're dismissing as "small changes" are actually pretty substantial. The locations are way more varied. There are enough new guns and enemy types to have the game feel fresh to me. They completely redid the way zero G works. Isaac has dialogue and at least an attempt at a personality. And as far as length goes the campaign in DS2 felt just as long as the first game. Not to mention all the areas of the game just look and sound better than the first time around, and the scope of the game just dwarfs the first one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
