As for the game, or more specifically Jamie’s review of the game, I don’t believe he’s mentioned anywhere that Dead Space is bad. You say you disagree at the start of your comment but your comment itself echoes his sentiments, right down to comparing it with early Resident Evil titles.

Jamie’s comment on Gears of War wasn’t necessarily that it did something unique, but rather that it forced players to use the game’s squad and cover mechanics via the level design. Dead Space, on the other hand, doesn’t always do this (and for the record I don’t think that’s a bad thing, necessarily, but if you’re going to have new game-play gimmicks it is fun to be compelled to use them more).

I’m not sure what to make of your remark that game reviewers focus on details too much. Focusing on details isn’t just something reviewers should do as part of their jobs, but something all thinking gamers should do in order to fully appreciate, understand, and (dare I say it) be able to deconstruct a game which deserves such a level of analysis.

That said, there are a wide assortment of reviews and writing styles here on Toronto Thumbs, and I invite you to check a few others out.

Also, as a survival-horror fan, Resident Evil is no longer survival horror and Silent Hill is in a downward spiral. This game is far more comparable to the early Resident Evil titles, which is no small feat.

Actually I said the tentacle was a great moment in the game, one of the more inspired ones, so good that it overshadowed a particular boss-like encounter that wasn’t as creative or surprising.

if you are going to be a reviewer, you should be more educated with gaming

BTW thank-you for your comments. Whether people agree or disagree with my position on certain titles, the most important aspect is that “we” as players devote some thought to these products, which is only strengthened when people participate and make their own positions heard. I hope that more do, and certainly appreciate you taking the time to.

I can think of several reviewers that might make mention of the inspirations Gears of War takes shape from. But where it could have just implemented the duck and cover system seen in a game like Kill.Switch, Gears merged that system with squad mechanics and created environments and enemies that made it impossible not to use it, building the progression of the game around those two key concepts.

Throwing objects at enemies via mental powers, or slowing down enemies to increase player reaction time has, as I said, been done before. And though Dead Space does an excellent job of integrating these elements, the game is not built around them, but merely features them as usable elements. But the game is definitely built around the limb targeting feature, which again is designed aptly and functions phenomenally. However, even on harder difficulty settings, I didn’t find that this made stasis or kinesis consistently necessary. They certainly provide an alternative to quick reflex combat, but in the atmosphere of survival horror it is exactly a sense of impending death and quick reactions that I find the most rewarding. Stasis might provide enough time for the player to circle an alien and attack its back, but it is also possible to take the creature down with a frontal barrage. Even in early Resident Evil titles there were more effective ways to target enemies that were always optional to the player.

I mention that there is enough good about Dead Space to play through. But as a rapid fan of survival horror, I find it bland compared to other offerings, feeling that it has more polish than substance. As a genre fan I am well aware of how few titles get produced and admit to high expectations.

As for narrative, that’s for each player to decide. I’m the kind of player that wants to explore every detail a game offers and am driven mad by people who skip cut-scenes for instance. That’s not a guideline to playing, simply the way I do, which allows me to experience the game in it’s entirety, including game-play, narrative, and overall presentation, and then review how each were implemented and to what degree were successful. Silent Hill for instance has established itself as a game with classic horror elements, where the town of Silent Hill serves not only as its own tragedy, but also as a place where the repressed anxieties and fears of the series’ protagonists confront the player. Dead Space doesn’t seek to pioneer any new ground here, and that’s fine, as long as you don’t expect me to praise unevenly when considering that. Gears of War certainly isn’t a narrative masterpiece, and neither does it need to be, but consider that it entered into a genre and style of game-play where those elements are rarer than the genre Dead Space positions itself within.

Half your review was spent complaining about how the game doesn’t do anything new. I couldn’t disagree more. The stasis and kenesis were meant to be used far in combat more than you did. The game forces you to do so on harder difficulty levels. I found the strategic dismemberment to be a new gameplay element.

I don’t care that it was inspired by movies or other games. That doesn’t make it any worse of a game. No reviewer complained Gears of War was inspired by some PS2 game.

Yes this game is good enough. It was fun. I’d rather developers throw a ton of elements from other games and get a great game as a result rather than try something new and come out with some crappy Wii game/glorified tech demo.

Innovation doesn’t make a game automatically fun. Though I found this game to be both.

BTW, improving upon something that exists already is classified as innovation.