So..

>>386397507
DS1: 9/10
DS2: 8/10
DS3: 2/10

There won't be a 4th until they figure out how to insert more microtransations into SP without tanking sales, only a mater of time until the cattle gets used to them though other games.

>>386398043
Good ratings.

>>386398043
fpbp /thread

>>386398043
3 Doesn't deserve such a low rating. The story is alright, the gameplay is fine if you don't use the stupid fucking gun crafting (all I ever made was the plasma cutter, the seeker rifle, and a simple shotgun/assault rifle combo). The levels are good, the space segments are good too.

Overall, it's no where near as good as 2 or 1, but it's still a good 6/10. 1 is the best game still though.

If there were to be a 4, I would want it to be all the best parts of 2 and 1 put together.

>>386397507
I hope so
Here are my ratings

>horror
DS1: 10/10
DS2: 9/10
DS3: 5/10

>gameplay
DS1: 7/10
DS2: 8/10
DS3: 9/10

>>386397507
resident evil 4
resident evil 5
resident evil 6

File: 1742107710.jpg (59KB, 1024x873px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1024x873px

>>386397507
>Does /v/ want a fourth?

Yes.

>>386398269

Some aspects of the story in 3 are fine, it's the characters that are goddamn horrible. The forced bullshit love triangle is not just tired and stupid, it makes no sense for the story and reduces characters to shitty stereotypes.

3 had a bunch of pretty good moments in space and in parts of the ice planet and the gameplay was still fun, but a lack of couch co-op on consoles and some dumb crafting crap held it back.

1 and 2 are damn near perfect to me, 2 being my personal favorite in how it improved the feel of gameplay and expanded on level variety.

>>386398269
>3 Doesn't deserve such a low rating

Yes it does.
From the core design it is a co-op game.
There's zero care put into enemy placement, it's just swarms sent into a room over and over.
That fucking universal ammo, overall shittier balanced guns, enemy design is all inferior. It feels almost like Borderlands on an ice planet.
Level design is fucking disgusting, the just sticked random rooms togehter with zero care for actual functionality.
The sace sections you say? That's like 10% of the game, the rest is the shitty ice planet.
And story is a fucking trainwrech with tons of hollywood cliches and forced drama.
>ending is quite literally a DLC

They even managed to have inferior lighting and textures than the first game.

2/10 is generous as fuck.

bumpo

>>386397507
no
1 was pretty great although it fell too hard on the carrot on a stick plot and they could have been creative with enemies and placement.
2 was also pretty good, but went with too much action.
3 was a straight copy of 2 with a retarded plot and the only interesting bit being the space exploration.

>>386401340
>>386398873
If the name wasn't Dead Space, cou k d you have enjoyed it?

That's to say, if you liked 1 and 2 as much as you did, would 3 have been that bad? 3 isn't a bad game by any means, but I agree it's a subpar Dead Space (even if I enjoyed it as well, especially the crafting)

File: 1498671556861.jpg (16KB, 274x368px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 274x368px

>>386397507

Yes, but only if EA doesn't drop the 'MUH SALES' bullshit on them like they did for 3.

>>386398043

These are pretty good rattings, I would raise 3 no higher than 5 though. It could've been so much better had EA kept its nose out of development and let them do what they wanted like the first two games.

The main cons about 3 is just action outweighed the horror and the 'easy mode' universal ammo.

>Game makes you manage your ammo because each weapon is different

This was done very well in 1 and 2 why the hell would you take it out in 3, it added to the fuckin 'survival' premise.

Some people say Visceral left the dlc ending a cliffhanger on purpose as a 'fuck you' to ea for making them dev a game with faggot changes put in later. With that perspective its kind of understandable because there is almost NO way they would make that many changes in 3 on their own knowing how many people liked 1 and 2.

But anyway I'll get off my soap box now

File: 1392300317787.jpg (30KB, 333x350px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 333x350px

I liked 2 more than 1.

1 tried to convince you that it's a serious survival horror game but the more you played the more you realized that it was actually a case of "I'm not stuck here with you, you're stuck here with me" kind of scenario. After that it was hard to keep any of the flickering lights or screaming monsters seriously.

They basically made the combat too enjoyable for the game's gritty atmosphere to keep up. Which is why I appreciated 2 ramping up the action, making the combat even more fluid (zero G sections in 2 are literally orgasm-worthy), giving Isaac a voice and going more towards kind of an Evil Dead in space. "Fuck you and fuck your marker" is unironically the best moment in the series.

3 is a shame because it had plenty of other problems, lacking in atmosphere and identity being two of them. Instead of towing the line like 2 did or going full horror it just kind of went full retard. Even bigger shame is that they hired Simon Templemann as the VA of the badguy and made him lame as fuck. He should've been the protagonist or something.

>>386397507
its the only horror series i have played because i fucking hate horror. definitely want a 4 if they dont fuck it up like 3.

>>386401908
>would 3 have been that bad?
yes, it would have. 3 was just completely uninspired. the best moments from 3 were practically a copy of a scenario from 2.
I haven't played it since release, so I'm fuzzy on the specifics but even after 2 was a disappointment, and lowering expectations 3 was a much bigger letdown.
the thing that sets 2 apart from 3 is that 2 had scenarios that were build upon the encounter. 3 just seems to throw things in that worked well in the past to fill some type of quota, or at the very least it was the best they could come up with.

>>386397507
First was best. Atmospheric and scary.

Second was easier. I didn't feel scared a single time. Felt like Rambo. Graphics were downgraded, consoled ruined it. I literally only played it for story.

Third was a disaster. Microtransactions up the ass, wepon mods for kuhrayzee kowadoody kids. Series started as a horror game. Degraded into a shooter.

>>386398043
Perfect

>>386402481
>consoled ruined it
you realize it was made with consoles in mind from the start, right?

>>386398043
/Thread

>>386398269
Go to bed, EA, DS3 was a trainwreck

File: 8f3.jpg (28KB, 600x379px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x379px

>figure out right off the bat that you can just use plasma cutter and never have any problems with ammo
it's still a good game though

>>386397507
ds3 is boring and the game is the same fucking corridors repeated 4 times. the co op is unecessary but id be down for a ds4 that does an RE6 to Ds3s RE5

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the series over? Like, it ended pretty conclusively? I thought that in the DLC for DS3 (I didn't play the DLC), the ending had the Earth being absorbed by the Necro-planet or whatever?

>>386402781
This always bothered me. You could get the one gun and Impossible Mode trophies on the same run.

File: 250.png (61KB, 250x157px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 250x157px

Honest question.. was playing on the hardest difficulty in all 3 games the best way to play? Legitimately felt like survival horror at that point to me.
>line gun=easy mode

>>386397507
>Does /v/ want a fourth?
Are we doing a DMC thing where we just skip a number like DMC 2 skipped 2 and went to 3?

>>386403519
There literally wasn't a fourth dead space though. There was some Wii game but it was a spinoff IIRC.

>>386403607
Nevermind, I guess it's not funny if I have to explain it further.