All I have to say is that there's going to be a ceiling in which consoles have to be both powerful AND cost effective. THAT's the biggest issue; console manufacturers have to build a machine that can be considered powerful and useful with tech that's not considered outdated all the while trying to keep things cost effective. People who buy consoles USUALLY don't want to spend 1000+ dollars on one.
People should wait till it's out to pass judgement. I have faith in Visceral. Although what worries me is not the inclusion of co-op, but the fact that Issac might not be the main character this time around. It seems like this John Carver character might be a prominent figure in the Dead Space series to come...how troublesome.
To be honest, PCs may have started gaming, but if it wasn't for consoles, the gaming industry would be quite a bit less innovative than it already is. The chain that consoles bring devs makes them squeeze every bit of power and technological prowess they have to make anything remarkable or anywhere near "PC-level". In short, being restrained makes devs find alternatives to reaching their goals rather than the "easy" path which is near unlimited development and technolo...
Thought and still don't think it's worth the read. Can't blame them for trying to pick up a few things that will help them sell the game. nevertheless, every game takes cues from other games in the same genre, it's good business. I understand what the hardcore fans are tying to say, but I think it's still will be a good co-op experience...just make sure you have friends. :)
According to leak a while back, it's supposed to be Issac's alter ego bred from his fractured sanity, and let's be honest, after what he's been through, who wouldn't have one?
I wouldn't say that Dead Space was ever pure horror, but more of a thriller, and I believe if done right, they can still produce similar results with a more than one player. An easy way to do this is have a lot more enemies on screen at once, small passage ways, and tougher enemies in general. It can be done, it's just something that takes thinking on the devs part, but I welcome co-op in any form it may come in DS.
Why did this even get approved? The funny thing is Ghost Recon: Future Soldier was in production for over twice the production cycle of Black Ops 2. Not hating, but it's stupid when the author tries to say that its an impersonation when clearly it's not.
Yeah, but back then games weren't capable of story telling like they are now; also, gaming has evolved in more than just pretty gfx and story telling. Gamers nowadays don't consist of 13 year olds, a lot of gamers are over the age of twenty. It's called progress, gaming is no different.
It makes sense though; at least more sense than the current endings. It's not that he/she just dropped and fell asleep, more like when Shepard was struck by the beam, he/she was knocked unconscious allowing Harbinger to more easily indoctrinate Shepard.
Throughout the game Shepard's mind is deteriorating; many conversations, and statements imply that this is the truth; perhaps having him'her knocked unconscious was the final straw.
Also, to those...
It doesn't make sense; when the Normandy crashed onto the planet, we can assume that they're the only species on it. If this is the case, they would have to reproduce amongst each other since they're effectively cut off from the rest of the galaxy...that's a lot of babies. @_@
Some valid points, but about the stargazer. That's obviously many years later when there's some sort of peace and/or resolution on some planet. If you listen to the conversation, it goes something like this:
----
Kid: 'Did that really happen?"
Old Man: 'Well...many of the details were lost to time.'
It can be assumed that whatever happens, the safety of the galaxy is, in some way, assured. However, It seems pretty obvious that...
It's not the game that's flawed; it's the endings. Big difference. I believe the game was amazing, the entire series, but those endings just opened up way too many unanswered questions, and not good ones either. It opened up questions that should've been answered at the end of Shepard's story because they have to do with his/her's decisions.
If we (the fans) shouldn't insist in changing it or voicing our opinions to Bioware (the makers of the game) how are they gonna know what we really feel about it. Some people have invested some serious time into the playing and understanding the game as a whole. The series is just TOO GOOD for it to end that way. I can't think of any analogy at the moment, but it certainly warrants some type of change...closure.
I simply love how most people have a legit reason to be mad at the endings. Honestly, it's been said already by all who posted before me, but the problem isn't what happens to Shepard, rather, it's the lack of closure and understanding. In all regards it FAILED as an actual ending to a SERIES.
These endings would've been somewhat acceptable had ME3 been a standalone title with no plans to be a series, but the fact that so much time and effort is invested to h...
It's people's opinion and different tastes; it's not a fact. So I don't understand why the author would even title it, "Collective Denial". Makes it seem like his point of view is the right one, which is ignorance at its best. Personally, I prefer the way ME2 was handled over ME1, but then again that's my own opinion. I can't seem to see the whole "genius game design" thing for ME1, even though I DO think it is a great game.
Honestly, it's a lot of Japanese game companies; their way of thinking is...off, to say the least; their fans scream one thing and they take another route, and then bitch about why their sales are so low in the west. Personally, I prefer Japanese developed games over western one just because the variety and creativity is something that often overlooked in western games.
Recon was my most used class during the beta, but I find it being the least used now. I only pop out the recon class for a quick counter snipe or when my team needs a quick and close spawn point. I find support and engineer classes better because of their versatility in being able to take out both infantry AND armor.
Some of the shit is over the top tho; like that one kid sounded like he really just jizzed on himself.
QQ I don't understand what you guys mean; I've been through the franchise and I think it's a step in the right direction. The tactical shooter is still there but with more fluidity. Not to mention, these are tidbits of gameplay.
Love how people judge games even before it comes out based on footage. Time and time again, it's been show that they've been baseless judgements and nothing more. Let the game come out and then make your decision....