quinntendopower said:
every combat scenario is the same thing: run into the room, enemies pop out of the vents, run at a ridiculously fast speed to your feet, so you cast stasis while shooting the enemies in your face until they are dead, and repeat for the long trail of enemies that follows behind.
I'm all for leveling criticism but honestly this type of commentary is so frustrating because its pure reductionism. Instead of critiquing the mechanics of the game with some specificity, it's nothing but generalized fluff that could be applied to ANY shooter out there.
"Game x is nothing but a series of rooms where enemy x attacks and I use strategy x to take them out. Rinse and repeat for the long trail of enemies that follow."
Shooters by their very nature are repetitive and each can be boiled down to their very core using that statement. It's how the developer handles and HIDES that repetition through level design, enemy and level variety and the tools are your disposal that sells us on the experience. With a horror title you can add atmosphere and a genuine ability to evoke fear/mood to the equation as well. Personally, I think Dead Space 2 excels at each of these categories.
If you disagree, that's fine but I'm genuinely curious about how you feel the original Dead Space trumps the sequel in terms of presenting better battle encounters and set piece scenarios. I can honestly see how some would prefer the pacing of the original. Especially with the last few chapters being a non-stop gauntlet of enemies, but looking at it from a perspective of providing quality horror atmosphere, combat mechanics, level and enemy variety etc. - it's just no contest IMO, Dead Space 2 is the better game.
