I can remember back in 2008 hearing that EA was trying to bring new things to the table and was planning on releasing two new IP’s: Mirror’s Edge and Dead Space. Both of these games caught my eye and I was eager to get my hands on them. Dead Space was more intriguing to me though, and I decided to be the first one out of my group of Xbox Live friends to pick it up. Needless to say, the majority of them had the game by Christmas. Dead Space was a revival for me; I hadn’t played such a good horror game since Resident Evil 4. On multiple occasions I would turn off all the lights in the room and make it completely black except for the TV screen. If there was one thing that Dead Space had, it was atmosphere. I was jumping to no end playing that game, shooting my gun madly by reflex every time a Necromorph would jump out of an air duct. Now Dead Space 2 has arrived and the critics are raving, but I’ve got a reservation or two about this sequel.
I’ve read a couple of reviews and came across one of my biggest fears summed up in a paragraph:
“But as I began to delve into the second chapter of this space odyssey, I realized that I wasn’t really scared at all; if anything, I was walking around the space station like I owned the place, stomping Necromorphs the way a seasoned exterminator steps on any roaches who happen to scurry underfoot. But rather than be disappointed by the lack of scares, I accepted it as a logical evolution of the storyline, and really, so should you.” – Tae K. Kim, Gamepro
I’m not sold. I loved that Dead Space was actually able to scare me. I was legitimately frightened at some points. And to hear that the second edition doesn’t bring the scares kind of disappointed me. I can see what Kim is getting at here, but I don’t think it’s realistic to say that after one long trip on the U.S.S. Ishimura that Issac was completely devoid of all fear for the Necromorphs.
Another thing I worried about was the multiplayer. I like to think of my games as either a multiplayer game or a single player game. Call of Duty is a multiplayer game, Fallout: New Vegas, on the other hand, is a single player game. And that’s how I view the Dead Space franchise. It’s all about the story and I get frightened whenever developers try to shove on multiplayer. It usually flat out sucks and it takes development time away from the campaign. As cool as it sounds to play Humans vs. Necromorphs, team deathmatch style, I’m not buying it. Just look at what happened to Bioshock 2.
The last reason I was really worried is because when Dead Space first came out it was a relatively low-brow release and was not subject to…lets say pressure to draw in a bigger crowd. Nowadays this franchise is expansive, spreading out to the Wii and PS3 along with the iPhone. I don’t mean to sound like one of those “it was cool before it was mainstream” kind of people, but it happens a lot. I’m sure it’s a great game, but I feel it just won’t live up to the original.
Who knows, I may be wrong.
P.S. Another reason why I’m nervous is because sequels usually suck in comparison to their predecessors. Just saying.
Nintendo has recently announced that the 3DS will be hitting North America on March 27th. The release date came coupled with it’s launch price. $250. Just like that, Nintendo fanboys wet themselves in unison and know exactly how much to spend, on what, and when.
The Japanese game-maker is boasting the portable system’s console-level capabilities and it’s obvious three-dimensional features. The big N has also placed a heavy emphasis the 3D experience being glass-less. It looks to be a solid piece of tech, but is it enough of an incentive for early adopters? It’s a first day purchase for hardcore Nintendo loyalists, but will it sway Joe Schmo consumer to lay down 250 clams?
While the games themselves range from $39.99 – $49.99 (ouch), the 3DS does have a solid launch lineup to back it up. Capcom comes out swinging with Super Street Fighter 4 and EA Games is showing some love with a 3D Madden title as well as the Sims 3. This is only to name a few, but are these titles enough for consumers to dig deep into their pockets? Especially when the DS, DS Lite, DSi, and the DSi XL (-_-‘) are already on store shelves with PLENTY of games?
This isn’t the first time Nintendo has had two portable devices on the market at the same time. When the original DS was released in 2004 (wow has it been that long already?) the Game Boy Advance was still in it’s prime and selling quite well.
Will lightning strike twice for Nintendo? Or will it be dead on arrival? The gaming world will have it’s stereoscopic eyes set on the 3DS when it releases on March 27th. The 3DS Lite will be coming out the day after… har… c’mon laugh… you know it’s funny…
My roommates were watching Fox News earlier, and I might as well preface this post with a little disclaimer: I am politically moderate, so this isn’t a bash against any political ideology. Anyway, they were watching Fox News today and conservative pundits went along and absolutely smashed this show called Skins. It’s an adaptation of a British teen drama about a bunch of kids and their adventures including sex, drugs and the like.
These pundits went on, and on, and on some more about how this was going to corrupt society, and that this was more than just a show…
…just shut up. Quit the hyperbole.
Ever since I’ve been in college, I’ve been fascinated by this theory: does violent media affect peoples’ aggressiveness, or does it temper it? It’s an interesting question, but when you have people crying foul about a show that has homegrown controversy just because people don’t agree with it…that’s going to happen, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to change people.
My one roommate actually put it best. Good parents will tell these children not to do what they see on TV, and that it’s not real. This is why this is fiction, and the divide between reality and the fictional world is there.
I was raised in more of a conservative household, I would have to say. My parents were never fans of me consuming violent material, but even when I did, I can’t say I was more aggressive. Sure, I’m only one case, and it’s certainly not a sample size to say that this theory is a bunch of crap. But I feel like if parents are just proactive enough, this theory should mean nothing.
The more and more pundits seem to blather on and on about stuff they don’t agree with, the more and more I hate the extreme marketplace of ideas. Some people need to get their facts straight and calm the hell down. Honestly.
I’ll give another example. My grandfather was watching MSNBC frequently while I was staying with them over the summer, and every time they would start a segment of complete bitching, I said “I could dub over this with a baby’s cries, and it would be accurate”.
Peoples’ credibility goes down when they get angry and emotionally motivated, and this seems to happen on cable news networks on BOTH sides. If these ideas were presented to not only me, but to everyone in a rational manner with plenty of time to get the facts out, I think we’d all be in business.
But it’s not. It’s continual crying.
I just wish the pundits would shut up. They’re not doing us any favors nor services. I’m pretty sure the world isn’t going to end tomorrow, and society will still exist tomorrow.
Mass Effect 2 was last year’s gaming blockbuster. Now, it’s finally touching down on Sony’s platform for PS3 gamers to enjoy. However, numerous owners are experiencing difficulty logging into the Cerberus Network and redeeming the DLC that comes with the game. The DLC includes a few extra characters as well as expansion missions that weren’t originally included when it was released last year on the Xbox 360 and PC. It also includes a digital comic that allows players to make decisions from the first Mass Effect title that will impact the events of the second. Unfortunately, since the servers are undergoing maintenance none of those incentives are redeemable at this time. This leaves PS3 owners twiddling their thumbs and waiting some more. Sad face 😦
UPDATE: EA is offering owners experiencing problems with the DLC a $20 credit to the EA Store. That softens the blow a bit eh?
People may recognize Tetris as a highly addictive puzzle game in which the player drops various blocks known as Tetrominoes along a vertical grid. EVERYBODY has played Tetris at one point or another. Creator Alexey Pajitov is the mastermind behind this wonderfully crafted game that dominates all formats of gaming. Whether it’s on home consoles, PC, or mobile devices; EVERYBODY has come into contact with Tetris. The game is undeniably a masterpiece not because it’s a great product, but because it also reflects a small microcosm of… life?
It may sound absurd, but it’s completely true. Late one night I decided to boot up Tetris for at least a round. I could’ve been playing anything else in my collection but no, I gravitated towards Tetris. In the midst of my insomnia-fueled Tetris session I reflected back on my day. That’s when something sort of clicked in my head…
I thought back to how much simpler life was when I was younger. Like everyone else, it all started with baby steps. Early years are all about establishing a foundation for yourself. Finding one’s footing is an integral part of growing up. Sure there’s bound to be some booboos but nothing that can’t be patched up by a little Flintstones bandage.
As we grow a little we begin to build on top of our previous experiences. “Testing the waters” as they say. We learn to be judicious about our actions and really get an idea of what makes the world around us tick.
With age we naturally become bolder and explore other possibilities. It is human nature to challenge and push ourselves outside of our comfort zone. Without the necessity of risk, our life would grow stagnant and dull. It’s all about looking ahead and staying focused.
A beautiful masterpiece. Truly.
The football playoffs have taught us all something.
Expectations, nor pedigree, mean anything in the playoffs. The New York Jets have rolled by two of the hallmark quarterbacks in the NFL in Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. Neither were easy victories for the Jets, but it just goes to show. Rings nor pedigree mean a thing.
Then look at the other end. The Eagles were touted as a “favorite”, so to speak (even though the makeup of their team was flawed from day one) and blammo, gone. Jay Culter doesn’t exactly have the pedigree, but here he is, in the championship game to fight for the right to get to the Super Bowl.
It’s always been something I’ve always wondered about. Do rings automatically give your team an edge in the playoffs? I don’t seem to think so. Last season, the Philadelphia Flyers only had one Stanley Cup championship winner on their team in Chris Pronger. Something tells me it just means nothing.
Honestly, it takes playoff experience to do well in the playoffs–a bunch of kids won’t make a bunch of noise without some seasoning. But the degree of how many championship winners a team has is not something I think makes sense. Look no further than the Pittsburgh Penguins. The team was wonderful during the regular season, but were ousted in the first round of their first foray with Sid the Kid and company. The next two years, they made it to the Finals, with one Cup under their belt.
Does that play favor to Pittsburgh’s playoff success this year? They”ll know what it takes to win, but I doubt it gives them automatic rights to the championship. Pundits love to give teams just free right to the championship just because they won it before.
Not sure if I like that assessment.
What do you out there in the world think? Should expectations be thrust so willy-nilly on teams just because of favoritism? As they say, the teams have to play the game to get the result. Look no further than the Seattle Seahawks and the New Orleans Saints. You tell me how many people bet against the Saints.
They play the game for the reason.