Seibei4211
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Seibei4211
MemberGetting removed? Did they show up to start with? I haven't seen any so far.
MemberI never saw that photo to begin with. I was wondering why that post was spaced weird.
MemberI don't think they'd do that. It'd be annoying to have two drastically different and conflicting endings like that. In fact, I'm thinking there's not going to be a single difference at all. The ending really should stay the same, because that would be a significant difference and the co-op/singleplayer stories shouldn't be significantly different like that. I wonder if Carver is being prepped to be Isaac's replacement. I kinda hope not, unless he somehow turns out to be a cool character. I'd rather be Ellie or um…I guess she's the only other significant character still alive. What would it look like for a female to wear Isaac-type armor anyway? I only ever see them in normal clothes with RIGs.
Memberscotty243 said:
And when did I say the 2nd quotation? Hm…
It's literally the 6th post in this thread.
Yes, the demo focused on human-type enemies and there was a lot of action, but it is just a demo. They could've had a demo where you barely fight anything, but then you wouldn't get much of a chance to use the new weapons. I'm going to guess that there are many enemy types in the game and there are certain weapons that work best on certain enemy types because they encourage switching guns out for the right scenarios. The enemies in the demo were susceptible to assault rifle-type weapons and I bet there are plenty of parts in the game where a cutting weapon is better.
I'm sure the singleplayer campaign is the full experience. The co-op campaign is practically DLC in terms of importance to the main story. It's just extra dialogue between Isaac and Carver and those Carver missions. It's only important if you really care about Carver's character, but nobody does. The other option was to ignore the fact that you have a co-op partner and not add anything special at all. I would be fine with that, but I think it's cool that they put something in there. It's like the equivalent of reading text logs and crap in any game: relevant, possibly interesting, but not necessary. What's it really matter though? Do you really think you are going to like either version of this story? You seem to be dead set on hating this game no matter what.
I think Carver's hilarious. He's some cliche dumbfuck who doesn't know what he's going on about. He's a total noob at this whole necromorph thing, but he acts like hot shite. He's bad in my favorite kind of way. Also, all of his suits look so much cooler than Isaac's. Nobody thinks Carver is cool.
Memberscotty243 said:
Where was the horror in Dead Space? I'm talking about any of the games in the series, I seriously would like to know. Not one part had me scared in any of the Dead Space games. … To me, Dead Space never was, and never will, be a frightening game to play.
scotty243 said:
The original Dead Space is really different from 2 and the upcoming 3. It focused more on environment and scares in a way rather than BIG set pieces and some scary moments.
Nobody said anything about HDMI or home theater systems, and I doubt anyone was going to make that argument.
This isn't a game built for co-op. It's a single player game and they implemented co-op into it. A lot of games don't have split-screen because you need to be able to run two versions of the same game using one PS3, and a lot of games these days are too complex or graphically intensive to do that well. Uncharted didn't have split-screen, for example. By the way, nobody here has been “raving” about the co-op. The most we've done is say that it's not tacked on.
I thought the Dead Space 2 story was incredibly cliche and not particularly memorable. I don't need to go into why I think that because the point is that it's not a fact that the story was any good in that. Dead Space's story has always been stuck at average for me.
Dismemberment's still there, it's just not a prioritized novelty like it was in previous games. Dead Space 1 was about dismemberment, so that was the focus. Dead Space 2 was about impalement, so there was a lot of focus on that. You could still dismember, but there was a big emphasis on impaling (Javelin Gun, lots of poles on the ground). Dead Space 3 is focusing on weapon combos. There are a lot of ways to kill enemies now, but dismembering and impalement is still a choice. If they never introduced new ways to kill enemies, people would be complaining about the gameplay being “just dismembering guys again”.
I don't know why you don't see the reason they have universal ammo. The main thing is that there would be way too many ammo types. There are more kinds of guns in this one and there are so many ways to fire them all. You can't just have force gun, plasma cutter, line gun, etc. ammo anymore because you can mix and match primary and secondary fires from all sorts of new and old guns. It'd be a pain in the ass to manage all of that. They wanted the weapon crafting to be accessible to players and they're trying to encourage players to try different combinations and switch guns often. If you keep gathering certain types of ammo, you're not gonna want to do that. You can't just use the “best gun in the game” because it uses up ammo much faster than weaker guns. Making the ammo universal like that means you'll actually consider using stronger weapons sometimes, since you're not wasting rare ammo anymore. And carrying around ammo for guns you barely use won't clog up inventory space anymore.
You just did an entire paragraph rebutting something that no one said. Nobody said Carver was a badass.
MemberThe stealth's pretty tacked on, and this is the simplest combat system I've ever seen in a Platinum Games game. It's just light and heavy attacks, but they don't really combine into any useful combos. I don't care if there's a block button (Bayonetta doesn't have one), but there has to at least be a dodge roll with invincibility frames that you can do mid-combo.
MemberOh wow, that basically details all three modes. I'm surprised that hasn't spread around more. I never thought I'd see the day that I wished a difficulty could be more like Dead Space 2's Hard Core mode. Beat 19 chapters without dying once? In a game filled to the brim with insta-death moments? Pure Survivalist sounds fun. And Classic mode. I really hoped Hard Core would be slightly easier than it was in DS2, but whatever. Actually wait, I bet you could just make manual back-up saves with PS+. Maybe.
MemberI wish Visceral would let us know what those three difficulties are all about though. I'm equally curious about all three.
MemberThe weapon crafting is such that if you don't like the new gun types they have, you can just recreate Dead Space 2 weapons. In the demo, I could recreate Contact Beams, Detonators, Force Guns, Plasma Cutters, Rivet Guns, and Flamethrowers. I like that you can just easily switch upgrades around and dismantle guns to reuse the parts. I like the new RIG upgrade system. Crafting items and stuff is a little more interesting than simply buying the stuff from a store. I think it's funny how in this game, the ammo became unified and the currency got categorized.
If you don't like the cover system, don't use it. You don't need to use the cover system or roll around or whatever, but it's there for people who wanna use it. Same goes with the microtransactions. That 100% does not affect my experience with the game itself. EA will always be lame. I didn't even notice that was in the game until someone else pointed it out and showed a picture. If you didn't like the snow, then whatever. The whole game isn't gonna be out in the snow. Most of it probably won't be. At least they tried to throw in something different. Maybe there was 5 chapters of metal corridors before that and you welcome the change of scenery.
As for the co-op, I haven't tried it yet. Resistance 3 had tacked on co-op. It worked just fine for me. I'd rather have poorly implemented co-op through the campaign than a lame horde mode or small, worse co-op campaign. I don't care if it makes sense or if they acknowledge the second person. Dead Rising 2 has two Chuck Greenes and I couldn't have cared less. The fact that they at least tried to integrate it into the story is commendable, since they really didn't need to.
MemberWhat if I told you that Dead Space 1 had a crappy demo? A crappy demo that's full of action and focuses on the gunplay instead of survival horror. Was that indicative of the full game or were they just trying to show off the dismemberment aspect of the game? Dead Space 2 had a demo that showed off Isaac's mental flashes, impalement, setpieces, and new enemies. It also had quite a bit of heated action in it. Dead Space 3's demo is doing what the previous demos did. It's got the new stuff in it because you already know what the old stuff's like. I'm guessing they wanted to show off the snowy environment, the cover system, weapon crafting, new enemies, new Kinesis systems, and all the other new stuff. The trailer at the end of the demo looked like it had quite a bit of dark, metal, classic Dead Space corridors. Also, this game's supposed to be twice the length of either of the other games, so I'm guessing it's not all gonna be like the demo. I didn't particularly like the demo, but at least I got a chance to get used to the new systems in play.
MemberI don't look at this as a Metal Gear game. It's just a Platinum Games game to me. If you're not into Platinum Games, then there's no reason to be into this. This really doesn't look like it was made for Metal Gear fans anyway. Metal Gear seems like it's more about story than gameplay and Platinum's the opposite.
That video is awesome, by the way. I hadn't actually looked at any unedited gameplay footage before. I also didn't know that's what Raiden sounded like. I thought he'd be less gruff.
MemberThe video is real gameplay, but it's old gameplay from that old interview. I think it was made for the purpose of that interview, which might explain why there's absolutely no sound or voices other than that boring music. So someone must've taken that footage, slapped that music on it, put the little splash pages on the ends, and now people think that's a legit trailer. I don't think Activision would release a standalone trailer that was that bad. They at least usually try to sell you the game in the trailer. It doesn't sound like Activision to not try and sell you crap.
MemberTo be fair, guys, that's a fan trailer of the game using old footage (I dunno how old) of the game that I'm suspecting was never supposed to be released as marketing. I'm pretty sure all of our favorite games have looked like that at some point in development. That's not to say that I think it'll be a good game or that it'll look much better than that, but knowing that that's not current gameplay, I'll wait until I do see a current build before I dismiss it entirely. They're supposed to be releasing a legitimate gameplay trailer soon. Too bad that fan trailer's already colored peoples' opinion of the game.
MemberI've played Just Cause 2. I don't remember my overall game completion percentage, but it's in the high 90's, because 100% is basically impossible. The point is, I've played it. It's still one of my favorite games, which is why I've still got it kicking around. I couldn't possibly make the argument that it's objectively better than Far Cry 3, and I don't think it is. I would say the music, sound effects, gun feel, gun selection, gun customization, graphics, story, voice acting, graphics, and animations are all objectively better in Far Cry 3 than in Just Cause 2. Speaking of weapons, did you just say Just Cause 2 has a better weapon selection? Far Cry 3 has every weapon Just Cause 2 has and more. Then you can customize each weapon. Just Cause 2 has the vehicle selection though. Although 95% of the vehicles in Just Cause 2 control like shit. I think the Cougar and the sports car thing were the only land vehicles that I could stand to drive. It did have jets though, which was awesome. The boats worked fine, too.
About the size of the map in Just Cause 2, it's big, but so what? 7 main missions and 49 faction missions in JC2. 34 main missions and 12 side missions in FC3. Just Cause 2 takes a long time to finish because it has a small number of things to do, then lets you do that same thing dozens or hundreds of times. Most (not all) of the collectibles are just a matter of going over and getting them because they're out in the open. That's what they have to do because there's just so many of them. It's takes a long time to get them, but the process of obtaining them is not exactly interesting. Far Cry 3 has a lot of hidden collectibles, mostly relics, that can actually take some thought to figure out how to get to them. And a lot of the times the process of getting them is actually interesting and different.
JC2 has a lot of racing missions, but since the driving is garbage, I wouldn't call it a good thing. Whenever I saw that I had new racing missions to do, I'd always groan because they sucked. I remember one race that has you going around the entire big island, and it was so long and boring and uneventful. The game had a lot of those faction missions, but they got repetitive after a while, too. The shooting in that game is not too varied or difficult or anything. It's like GTAIV where you're really only shooting guys because there's guys that need killing and guns will do it. The fun doesn't come from the shooting directly. You occasionally have fun moments happen that are indirectly caused by your killing of the enemies. Ragdoll physics and such. You can't really put much strategy into your assaults on bases since there's not a lot of variety in the ways you can kill people. I mean, there's lots of ways to kill in that game, but not effectively. I think later on in the game, it was just a matter of getting a helicopter with guns and mowing down the outposts.
So Just Cause 2 has a big world with lots of filler and simplicity strewn about it. You have to make your own fun, which I did gladly. I can see how someone can make enough of their own fun to like Just Cause 2 more. Like if they literally did not care about gameplay mechanics or story or characters or anything. I have the ability to do that sometimes. That's why I was able to enjoy Dead Island while so many others rightfully did not. I just don't agree with the sentiment that spending a lot of time in a game makes it better. I've spent way more time in much worse games than Far Cry 3. Dead Island, for example.
Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you that Far Cry 3 is the better game. I just don't agree with your reasons for JC2 being the better game. If you had just said you had more fun in Just Cause 2 or you prefer games with more game time, then I wouldn't have a problem. You make it sound like Just Cause 2 is obviously superior by a large margin. I think the length of Just Cause 2 makes up for its various gameplay shortcomings and Far Cry 3's gameplay makes up for its length. And if Far Cry 3's length is its biggest glaring problem, then that's not really that bad. It could've had a lot more problems like Skyrim.
In regards to the “Skyrim with guns” thing, I hate that comparison. Many of the things I've said about Just Cause 2 can be applied to Skyrim, with many more things left unsaid.
MemberThe ending's a lot less bleak. The overall game is a lot easier, too, since there's fewer tallboys and guards and stuff. The last level is especially easy in low chaos. If you're lucky, you might get a bone charm that halves the time it takes to choke someone out. That thing is so great. I didn't get the bone charm that increases mana regeneration speed on my second playthrough though. That thing is also great. Getting bend time 2 also makes things a lot easier.
-
AuthorPosts