SenorSausage's forum posts

  • 14 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by SenorSausage (17 posts) -

I can picture it like it was yesterday ( fantastic way to start a story ) It was the summer of 2010 and I'd finally gotten around to playing Dead Space. I'd had a chance to play a sliver of it at a friends house probably a year before and had a pretty good time, but hadn't really thought of it since then. As the download ended I was pumped. It'd been years since I'd consumed any media that had really gotten to me and I was hoping the mixture of space isolation and horrific zombie-eske monsters would satisfy something primal in me. While traversing the USS Ishimura I was enraptured in the presence of it. The lighting, the ever present vents that could at any moment prove to be more than mere decoration, the sheer intensity of striving to survive let alone figure out what the shit fuck was going on. Yet as with other games of the genre as I ventured deeper into the proverbial abyss it faded. Necromorphs no longer inspired the gut reaction of firing wildly while trying to conserve ammo. The Tentacle arms became mere carnival shooting gallery pieces. It faltered in the way that only horror can, by stopping to be the thing it set out to be. Don't get me wrong it was still a fantasitc game I highly reccomend but that's the way with these things. It inspired a feeling similar to pulling the drape back on the mythical Oz and finding only a lonely old man with a megaphone. Then the second game was announced.

As soon as trailers were announced I was eyes right on. You see while Dead Space may have failed to keep that feeling of true horror thought the entire game, I still loved the times when it got to me. It wasn't the scariest thing but it did what it did very well and I wanted more than anything for Dead Space 2 to rekindle those feelings. I even played that not so great XBLA downloadable game just to get some sense of it. And when it hit it hit hard. While not as ' man alone in hell ' as the first game It did some great things that really made me sit there and shudder. I mean you can never recreate the feelings you have when you see something scary for the first time, and in my opinion, they never really tried. It went deeper, less about the monsters out to get you horror and more about the horrifying things a plague of that nature does to a populace. It was as in your face as the jump scares it's criticized for but kept you on the outside. Like the scene with the baby and the mother, all you could so was watch as something graphic and gruesome happened right in front of you. I have to applaud the developers for not just trying to retread the exact same story, even if it used so many elements from the first game.

Which brings me to my point if not so succinctly. You see the best part of most horror stories is the beginning. It's not knowing what's happening that intices you to venture forward, and ultimately it's downfall is that once you find out what it is it loses that mystique. It is, in my opinion, one of the fundamental flaws with horror franchises. You can't make the same game three times and expect them all to be equally as scary as the next., you just can't. Even if the setting changes we've had a chance to get to know the character, see how they react to the atrocities around them and gauge how they affect us. Stepping onto yet another necrmorph infested station/ship doesn't have the same effect as it once did. It's what made the Ishimura section of DS2 so great. They didn't just have you fighting the same enemies on the same ship you did in the first game. For around 20 minutes there was nothing., just the tingling in your neck telling you that at any moment something could be happening. It took me back, if for a brief moment, to the beginning of the first game. Bewildered by the events unfolding and being unable to do nothing about it and with so many questions. Why was the Ishimura back, wasn't it destroyed at the end of the last game? The alien nature of a familiar setting was really unsettling and stood out as one of my favorite sequences of the second game.

When making a sequel to two successful scary games what do you do? You could, of course, try and make it as scary as it ever was and hope that fans of the old games can appreciate what your trying to accomplish, but like with the resident evil and silent hill series's that doesn't seem to work. You see, I would contend that all of the resident evil and silent hill games have been equally scary, in their own way. The problem is that we've done all of it before. We've seen dogs jump through windows, we've been stalked helplessly by nightmarish creatures, we've been betrayed again and again by that bastard Wesker. It's an old hat. Trying to recreate any moment of tension and true horror is ultimately betrayed by the familiarity to the tones set by the previous games.

That's why changing Dead Space 3 in the ways they have makes a lot of sense to me.

You can argue that reducing what was a fantastically simple yet difficult ammo system is 'dumbing the game down' but why? The reason ammo scarcity made sense was you were going into the situation unprepared. Using anything you could get your hands on you fought your way through the hoards and hopefully at the end you had a few rounds in your clip. At this point Clarke has been fighting these things for years. It wouldn't be right to yet again see him reduced to a cobbled together plasma cutter and only a few shots. The inclusion of the bro'ed out space marine is a groan inducer but what must we send Issac into the breach alone? If it's merely to heighten some sense of tension, I'd say that's all been used up. It only makes sense that he'd be taking someone along for the ride, and while I'm bummed it's not the lady from the second game, I'm willing to see what they do with the new character. I mean hell there have only been like eight in the entire series proper, one more wont hurt.

My final point is this. If you really want to see a scary follow up to Dead Space you can't have Isaac Clarke in it. We've experienced his journey and while it certainly hasn't ended, the parts that made it frightening are mostly behind him. He's not a confused and scared little girl left alone in a dark forest, he's killed hundred of monsters and come out alive. I believe the only way you can do a truly scary sequel to Dead Space is to Twilight Zone it. You see the reason Twilight Zone worked the way it did was that the connections between stories were a man in a suit. That's it. Every story was a self contained story, and while a piece of a greater whole, still their own thing. You can't tell me that the man who broke his glasses and the guy who won a bet not to talk for a year ever met or were even in the same plane of existence. The only thing the stories had in common was the weird, the ' there's something not quite right about this ' feeling you got as the stories progressed. The way bring horror back to Dead Space is to take Isaac and maybe even the Necromorphs out of it. Tell a different story, something we can reinvest ourselves in as we explore something unknown.

#2 Posted by SenorSausage (17 posts) -

@OtakuGamer: It does but if it's the only way you can play that game co-op it's manageable.

#3 Edited by SenorSausage (17 posts) -

As someone who loves invading other peoples games I can see where you are coming from. The combat when fighting another actual dude needs to be pretty lag free to make best use of the combat mechanics and the 10 or so times I have invaded/been invaded it's been pretty choppy. That being said it's something you get used to. You learn the tricks to not get back stabbed and in some cases get some lucky shots in you probably shouldn't. Just remember when you get invaded the only way for early invading players to heal is using humanity items so as long as you're in for the long hall, and maybe have a weapon with bleeding, you can tear up unprepared invaders.

#4 Posted by SenorSausage (17 posts) -

Ridiculous question . As a ' console gamer ' so to speak, I tend to prefer my games on consoles and but asking why people would prefer Skyrim on the PC is stupid. It's pretty common knowledge the PC games have better graphics and can run silky smooth if you have the money. For the most part Bethesda games are PC games first, even with ports/versions for consoles they are made to be played on the PC. Now I'll probably play Skyrim on the console since I have neither a computer worth running it on nor the inclination to play that game mouse and keyboard ( at this point I'm all controller ) But bashing people who want better graphics, modding abilities, console commands and like using a mouse and keyboard?


#5 Posted by SenorSausage (17 posts) -

- Halo 2 was the best in the series

- The best Zelda game is a tie between LttP and Majora's Mask

- The multiplayer is Call of Duty 3 is comparatively better than Cod4's

- Crackdown is both extremely underrated and vastly overrated, too long to explain why

- MK is a more fun fighting game than any iteration of SF4

- The Turok reboot was pretty fucking fun

- They should remake Buck Rodgers : Countdown to Doomsday ( fucking incredible game )

- The Master System was a funner console than the Snes

-There hasn't been a zombie game that ' gets it '

- The Half Life series is both incredibly overrated and a lot of fun

- Bioshock 2's combat puzzles with the enhanced gameplay made it as good as the original

#6 Edited by SenorSausage (17 posts) -

 I don't know if it can be done. The fact is making a superman game is a crazy concept when you really think about. He's a character that has been so focused on being this paragon of good, this indestructible powerhouse, that you can't just make another superhero game. Now that doesn't mean he's invincible or unbeatable. There are plenty of situations and circumstances that could work as a game over thus giving a supes game difficulty, but I really don't think that'd work with an open world format. Which is insanity considering the only way you want to play a game with a super fast super strong character is with freedom to do whatever.

The reason you cant make it open world is that all the random bs that you make, all the robberies and escaped cons have to be some kind of threat to either superman or the world around them, and that doesn't work. It either feels contrived that these dime a dozen thugs can effectively beat the ultimate badass or monotonous when you have to swoop in once again to save a falling dog for the twentieth time or risk the city losing health or however you try and make that system work. On the other hand you can't funnel that kind of superhero experience or you end up with a slightly better Iron Man 2 game which no one wants. It's the choice between flying through rings or not flying at all.

That brings up the underlying problem that game designers come up against. Supes can't just do whatever. There has to be specific structure and enough crazy outs to make a game work. The bottom line is working around really basic stuff. At some point you have to make sure

A.) Superman can die
B.) Superman can stop this with increased resistance/difficulty
C.) Stopping this from happening is fun

and that's tough. There are only so many times that stopping a train from hitting a horse is fun or compelling.

Now once you get away from all of that we still have some options. Considering that Supes is an alien there is certainly precedent for this to be a non earth based adventure, but that again has diminished returns. It'd be hard to convince publishers that anyone will care about saving martian prisoners being held on the evil planet Zardoz or some shit like that. You could also try doing some cross universe stuff but at some point that becomes so convoluted that selling that to a wide audience is doubtful at best. Really the best way to make a game like this is story first. It's not hard to imagine the gameplay. I bet you fly, punch hard, run fast, and get shot to no avial. The real challenge is creating a realistic scenario to base that gameplay in. Once you get the idea in place you can monkey around with wolfmen with kryptonite klaws or some plot to change sun rays in order to weaken superman.

All of that being said, it is not impossible. I think the premise of the new spiderman game, some magical mcguffin splitting the dimensions could have been tweaked to make a compelling but believable superman game. But that ship has passed and all but sank. So who knows, maybe when this newest superman movie comes out the game they'll absolutely make might not be terrible. That'd be something.

#7 Edited by SenorSausage (17 posts) -

I'm not exactly sure how to feel about this. On one hand this is pretty clearly a total, if not legaly actionable, ripoff of SC and that's pretty fucking gross. On the other hand it at least looks like a decent port of SC to touch based systems and that's something I'd be interested in seeing, if for no other reason than novelty. It doesn't look like this would cut into blizzard's gains, as I doubt they had a mobile port of this franchise lined up, but this is still some shady-ass shady business. 

I just can't believe how hard they are going with this. It's not like some of the characters and playstyle have been co-opted. They straight up took a 10+ year old game, drew mustaches on all the units, said, " You know what kind of story people want with their RTS's? Resource wars, 'cause fuck it, that's what they're doin anyway, right? "  and plan on releasing that shit.

#8 Posted by SenorSausage (17 posts) -

The Ricker/ Gerstmann combo is fantastic. 
Sturdy housing for the homeless.

#9 Posted by SenorSausage (17 posts) -
@ch13696:  Amen Brother
  • 14 results
  • 1
  • 2