BananaCanada
Joined Jul 2005
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings330
BananaCanada's rating
Reviews1
BananaCanada's rating
I am a big Dead Space fan like most of you reading this. I speak from gaming experience and I typically know what makes a game good as I have been playing ever since I was in diapers, in the NES days.
That being said, I am writing this in-depth review for you — the customers — especially the ones thinking of buying this game. I think it's worth the price but I think Visceral and EA went in the wrong direction with storytelling in their new instalment.
When Electronic Arts and Visceral Games released their first two Dead Space games they received rave reviews for their Survival Horror series, it was a commercial success. When the studios announced Dead Space 3 was arriving, fans expected the best.
My play through of Dead Space 3 didn't feel like the classic Survival Horror; ammo and health is more plentiful in casual to hard difficulties, the necromorphs feel easier to dismember and kill in these difficulties, and the story doesn't seem to fit well with the rest of the series. I felt compelled to switch my difficulty from normal to impossible due to the sheer advantages in the prior difficulties, which I did. This would be a tough call for most average casual gamers as the impossible difficulty is pretty hard, even on Co-Op. So the typical causal gamer won't get a "fair" play through until they finished the game once, on any difficulty — I am referring to New Game+.
Secondly, the amount of action scenes compared to the original instalments of the Dead Space series is noticeable, being the atrocious ending, character death and boss scenes/fights, and more. Multiplayer has been removed in place of Co-Op which is a serious back-step in my opinion. Co-Op should have been an addition to the Multiplayer, not the only option — just my opinion. When Dead Space 2 introduced multiplayer to the series it was a great idea, it gave the game replay value, not only that but multiplayer was damn fun. Not that Dead Space 3 does not have replay value, indeed it does, in the form of new game modes, and co-op, which adds an additional 6 hours of gameplay which you would not get from single player.
My verdict: EA and Visceral have developed an excellent game, overall. It just may not be what they are saying it is. Those who are expecting vast changes will be disappointed, again. The introduction of micro-transactions in which time-sensitive players can pay real world money to further advance their character earlier in the game seems somewhat unnecessary, but is understandable as EA is doing this as means to gain additional income to meet their bottom line, just like any other company.
Though the story can be convoluted, Dead Space 3 has a beautiful environment, with an improved combat system, and improved gameplay. Dead Space 3 should not be ignored just because it does not hold up to its predecessors.
That being said, I am writing this in-depth review for you — the customers — especially the ones thinking of buying this game. I think it's worth the price but I think Visceral and EA went in the wrong direction with storytelling in their new instalment.
When Electronic Arts and Visceral Games released their first two Dead Space games they received rave reviews for their Survival Horror series, it was a commercial success. When the studios announced Dead Space 3 was arriving, fans expected the best.
My play through of Dead Space 3 didn't feel like the classic Survival Horror; ammo and health is more plentiful in casual to hard difficulties, the necromorphs feel easier to dismember and kill in these difficulties, and the story doesn't seem to fit well with the rest of the series. I felt compelled to switch my difficulty from normal to impossible due to the sheer advantages in the prior difficulties, which I did. This would be a tough call for most average casual gamers as the impossible difficulty is pretty hard, even on Co-Op. So the typical causal gamer won't get a "fair" play through until they finished the game once, on any difficulty — I am referring to New Game+.
Secondly, the amount of action scenes compared to the original instalments of the Dead Space series is noticeable, being the atrocious ending, character death and boss scenes/fights, and more. Multiplayer has been removed in place of Co-Op which is a serious back-step in my opinion. Co-Op should have been an addition to the Multiplayer, not the only option — just my opinion. When Dead Space 2 introduced multiplayer to the series it was a great idea, it gave the game replay value, not only that but multiplayer was damn fun. Not that Dead Space 3 does not have replay value, indeed it does, in the form of new game modes, and co-op, which adds an additional 6 hours of gameplay which you would not get from single player.
My verdict: EA and Visceral have developed an excellent game, overall. It just may not be what they are saying it is. Those who are expecting vast changes will be disappointed, again. The introduction of micro-transactions in which time-sensitive players can pay real world money to further advance their character earlier in the game seems somewhat unnecessary, but is understandable as EA is doing this as means to gain additional income to meet their bottom line, just like any other company.
Though the story can be convoluted, Dead Space 3 has a beautiful environment, with an improved combat system, and improved gameplay. Dead Space 3 should not be ignored just because it does not hold up to its predecessors.