Zombie Action-Galaxy 3

Game: Dead Space 3

Systems: Xbox 360, PS3, PC

Release: January 2013

Issac Clark and company are back for another space zombie adventure. Unfortunately fans of the first two games may be disappointed with the latest installment. The franchise has shifted heavily towards the action genre. Gone are the horror soaked atmospheres and schizophrenic hallucinations of old. Instead players are given shootouts, explosions, and the worst story of the series.

Dead Space 3 is not a bad game. The mechanics are solid. The new weapon building system is intriguing, and co-op is always fun in my book. Sound and graphics are top notch. Yet looking past all the polish fans will notice something is missing. The core that defined this franchise has been replaced with something foreign.

Starting with the story. The Dead Space universe consists of two major organizations Earth Gov and the crazed religious cult Unitologists. In the latest game the Unitologists have taken over releasing Markers (the items that creates the Necromorphs aka space zombies) all across the galaxy. Earth Gov is pretty much non-existent, and Markers are now more common then 7-Eleven's.

Unlike the last few games there is no mystery. No back and forth between government officials and cult members. The story moves from one explosion to the next while pushing a terrible love triangle peppered with a dash of bromance.

Ellie makes a return, and Issac's dead wife seems to be finally gone. Ellie and Issac have a romantic past, but she is currently seeing a solider named Norton. Of course Norton and Issac are butt hurt that Ellie has slept with more then one dude. The whole situation is like a bad soap opera.

The other characters are only around to spit out tech jargon, and provide Issac with additional tasks. Laughter spewed forth whenever one of them inevitably died because Issac acted like he cared so deeply for each of them. With the exception of Ellie, Issac just meet the entire cast. Hard to believe he'd be all choked up after all the shit he's been through. The bad acting doesn't help either. I felt like I was watching the South Park episode "Lice Capades".

Carver (another solider who is the second playable character in co-op) is probably my favorite , but even he has the most random lines. Towards the end of the game he asks Issac, "Does this make up for all the bad that I've done?" Uh, I guess? Who cares. There's more space zombies to shoot.

The co-op is actually really fun, but again it doesn't feel like Dead Space. Going around with your buddy makes you feel less vulnerable. You go from Ripley to a pair of Rambo's. Your inventory is saved/used for all modes i.e. it's the same no matter who's game your in. This makes it easy to collect a lot of supplies, which also hinders the whole survival horror aspect.

Additionally, the third game lacks any real mental struggles. The random schizophrenic hallucinations seen in the other tittles helped with the pacing and kept things interesting. Issac was going bat shit crazy in the past, but this time around he seems like a depressed loser. A glorified Mr. Fix-it who's out to save the universe because his ex-girlfriend asked him to.

If you can get past the terrible story, and don't care for the franchises survival horror aspect, then Dead Space 3 maybe right for you. Crafting weapons is pretty rad. One of my favorites is the rivet sub-machine gun connected to a device that hovers spinning buzz saws in front of you. The action segments are not as memorable as the other games, but they are fun. Co-op is also a neat addition to the franchise. All in all Dead Space 3 has a lot to offer despite its short comings, and continues to be one of my favorite series from Electronic Arts.

Attack of the Clones!!!

I started writing a review for Homefront, but then fell into a rant. Enjoy. 

Homefront has everything that a solid FPS should have. Dynamic characters, solid gameplay, and well done cinematography. Despite having all this I will inevitably don the score of Gamefly--rent, play, move on. Why? Because I'm bored. 

Yes bored. 

I am tired of the tedious clones and other crap that graces the current console generation. 

There are a plethora of great shooter franchises to pick from, and I seldom find the new comers (Bulletstorm, Homefront, Borderlands) worth the full price of admission. The genre is overloaded with gimmicky copy cats. They add one or two neat ideas that often fail to hold interest over the coarse of the game. Bullet-time in FEAR. The leash in Bulletstorm. The nano suite in Crysis. All were fun at first, but didn't add enough to the basic formula. Shoot, run, shoot, find cover, reload/heal, repeat. The best I can hope for is a decent story that encourages me to finish the game. 

I find myself buying sequel after sequel. I have five Halo's, three Call of Duty's, two Left 4 Dead's, and one Bioshock. Each of the sequels offered something new, and often have the multiplayer community to warrant the purchase. Still I doubt Halo 4 and MW3 will offer anything substantially different. Yet I, and millions of others, will probably buy the next sequel because it's better then the clones. 

Hack n' slash games fair no better. God of War and Ninja Gaiden were games that broke barriers. The sequels were fantastic additions to each of the franchises, but it was more of the same. A few new comers pop up hear and there. Bayonetta was decent, and so was Heavenly Sword. I also enjoyed Force Unleashed and Afro Samurai. None had the same impact as the first God of War. None were as challenging as Ninja Gaiden. 

Next up on the chopping block is Bioware. I've thoroughly enjoyed most of their games, but I'm no fool. I can see a pattern that started with Knights of the Old Republic on Xbox. Moral choices, elite secret organizations, wacky friends, love affairs, and deep conversation trees; all while touring world/galaxy. This is in every title since KOTOR, and I doubt Mass Effect 3 will be any different. 

Similar statements can be made about the Fable and Fallout franchises. The first Fable and Fallout 3 were fantastic, but the sequels tended to be more of the same. A young child has something traumatic occur that leads him/her on a life long path to redemption...or revenge! Along the way they have to perform a bunch of tasks to become famous...or infamous! You make allies, gain abilities, and complete quests in the same world over and over again. RPG developers are also notorious for bugs, which is pretty sad considering the lifespan of the current console generation. 

Genres I'm unfamiliar with will only lead to speculation. So here we go!

Open world titles are series of already known mini games spread across a vast area.  New sports games, and fighters, offer roster updates and a few new moves. Racers are the same old tired franchises. JRPG's seem to be stuck in a rut, and RTS games still suck on consoles. Music inspired games is a dead genre beaten by Activision and slightly kicked by EA. Finally, since 2004, the MMORPG genre continues to be equated with World of Warcraft. Everywhere you go it's clones and sequels (or expansion packs and dlc).

I want a new and amazing videogame. I want that same feeling I got playing Splinter Cell, Shadows of the Colossus, or Halo for the first time. I want to play a game over and over again because it's that good. Something that hasn't happened since Batman: Arkham Asylum. 

One day my Gamefly account will be used for something besides sequels and clones. I'll be patient, and save money. I don't have any fantastic ideas after all....just complaints. Perhaps it's just me, or maybe developers need start coming up with better material to earn my money. Either way I'm bored. Time to take up some new hobbies, and catch up on that reading list; in between the drum n' bass events and pool parties.

Nickeled and Dimed

The source of my rant:

EA is attempting to make some extra cash from the used-game market. Customers are required to enter a one time code to access multiplayer content. For those who don't have the code they must pay to play. Why does this bug me? I rent. Specifically I rent from Gamefly. I happen to enjoy their services, and have had no major issues. I was most displeased when I discovered Bulletstorm's MP was not accessible. I pay for Xbox Live (well not lately I've been using up the free passes from old games). I pay for Gamefly, and all the other items necessary to play games. Why do I have to pay for multiplayer in EA tittles? 

I continue to find the overall cost of games rising steadily. Buy new hardware to experience motion controls, 3D, and music like gaming. These new features can sky rocket the price of modern home entertainment system, but they are only the big ticket items. 

DLC content continues to change the landscape of released tittles. Map packs in FPS tittles take precedent in on-line play, and divide the have's from the have-not's. Ranging from $10 to $15 per DLC the cost of a game can go up to $100 fast. For RPG's, story arcs are expanded, and players are encouraged to buy expansion packs. If they don't, then they'll be behind once the next full game is released. These additions can cost up to $40, and this doesn't include any in-game items you choose to buy. All of this must have merchandise does add/enhance the gaming experience, but the price of admission is often not worth it. 

If studios and publishers are so desperate for cash, then why don't they look towards advertising. There is vast amounts of empty space in games that can be utilized for ads. Load screens are the easy example. Do you really need the hints? Especially for long running franchises like Halo and Call of Duty--grenades kill, cover protects, bad guys die from taking damage etc. etc. etc. Throw up a quick 7-11 or McDonald's logo next to the hints, or go all the way with a quick commercial. Load screens are usually fifteen to thirty seconds long, which is plenty of time for a fast word from our sponsors. Tittle updates can replace the commercials if needed. This idea can also be applied to intro and tittle screens. 

Games are already seeing advertisements slip into certain genres. Billboards in racing games are a great reference for expanding ads in other areas. The key is to make the ads noticeable, but not overbearing. Gamers will be hesitant to accept advertisements and it is important not to distract from the entertainment factor. Ads should be in areas that do not inhibit gameplay, or ruin a cinematic moment. This is why I suggest load screens, or other areas that are not in-game.

Will there be backlash? Yes of course there will. People also dislike ads in movies and television, yet they still exist. People will not stop buying games because of advertisement. Just like they won't stop buying games because of the price of DLC or multiplayer. 

Ideally I would love to see two options develop--ads or bills. Gamers can be billed and see no ads like many internet subscriptions. Or they can tolerate advertisements in their games. Both are granted full access to a game, which after-all is what this rant was originally all about.