Can TV Comedies be Scarier Than Horror Shows?

If you don't find this terrifying then there is something wrong with you.

I have been a massive fan of horror movies for a long time now. I can't quite say that this has been true since I was born however. When I was a small child I was too easily scared to really enjoy horror movies, even some action movies were too much for me. One of my biggest fears was the relatively tame movie 'Jurassic Park', a movie I now have a childlike fondness for as an adult.

Despite this I have grown into an aficionado of horror movies, with a collection containing some of the best in mainstream horror, classic horror and awful, awful B-movies. As such I have watched a large amount of horror movies, from found footage to supernatural to serial killer thrillers, I've probably watched at least one film from each sub-genre of horror. As such I have developed, like so many other horror fans, a certain level of resistance to being scared. Being scared by a horror movie is now a pretty rare treat for me, and is something that really makes a movie stand out  too.

Having said all of that, I have been scared by TV shows before, a fair few times. Obviously growing up it was really easy to scare me, hell I couldn't even watch a movie with dinosaurs in it without having nightmares for weeks. But even as I got older and was finding it hard to truly be scared by a horror movie there were moments in my life were I would have trouble sleeping because of a TV show I had caught just before bed. The odd thing about them? They were usually comedy shows.

Some of you might think it is totally ridiculous for me to claim that a comedy show actually managed to scare me, but hear me out on this one. The best example I can find is the British comedy show 'Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps'. Say what you want about the shows actual quality (There is an entire debate to be had there about weather the show is good or now, but that's not why were here) but it is quite easy to see that it is a quite silly simple, comedy series.

It tells the story of 5 friends living in Runcorn, a town in the north of England, and their exploits as they usually spend their lives acting stupid and getting drunk together. It's basically a sitcom about 20 something northerners and what they get up to on a daily basis, usually something to do with alcohol, sex and occasionally an abject fear of sheep.

So why did this show scare me? Well they once did a horror special for Halloween. `It was the end of series 6, and just around the point that the show was starting to wind down, with most of it's principle cast members getting prepared to leave the show. The episode tells the story of the cast breaking into their local pub which has been closed down, despite hearing stories that it is cursed, killing anyone who enters with the thing that they love the most.

Obviously there are comedy shows out there which have Halloween themed specials, but this episode was produced during April of 2006, and sort of came out of no where. Obviously there are plenty of silly moments, like Johnny having his head replaced by a giant Jammie Dodger and Kelly being taken over by evil crisp packets being obvious stand-outs. However there are also some genuinely horrible moments, such as Donna being smashed through a glass ceiling and Louise sawing her own legs off until she bleeds out all over the floor.

Some of you out there might be thinking "Oh, but there are much worse scenes out there in horror movies? Why would this stuff be so bad?". Well I think that the answer to that can separated into 2 headings: 1. No Laugh Track, 2. No preparation.




1.No Laugh Track

This heading is pretty obvious to understand. As many other sitcoms tend to, 2 Pints has a laugh track through-out most of the series. Obviously the main purpose of a laugh track is that it makes the audience more likely to laugh, if they hear the studio audience doing the same thing. This is part of what makes the series funny in the first place (although how funny you find it is certainly just as subjective as it is with all comedy), and also what helps to give it a certain identity.

If you've ever watched an episode of Friends, or hell just a few scenes of the show, without a laugh track, you know that it can make the show come across as awkward and stilted.

So as you can now tell it is a weird and jilting experience to have a laugh track suddenly removed when you're used to hearing one. 

2. No Prep

The other reason that this episode freaked me the fuck out was because I just wasn't prepared to be scared by a show about people who drink to much and don't have two brain cells to rub together between them. When I watched the show it was late and night and I was just getting ready to turn in. I was thinking I could catch something silly before I went upstairs to bed. 

I was obviously expecting it to be an episode about something silly like Johnny being shot by a sniper rifle, or Louise whining. Instead I was presented with a story which featured a woman's friends all dying horribly, then raising from the dead to come and murder her as well. Then just as it ends and you think it was all a dream, her boyfriend turns into a Jammie Dodger headed monster and tries to eat her alive. 

I think that this is the main reason that some comedy shows have more power to scare than horror shows do. I remember a lot of stories of kids being completely unsettled by The Simpsons, and some of their more 'out-there' Treehouse of Horrors episodes. Obviously no one has been deeply scared by these shows, but honestly I would find it hard to remember a movie which has had me as freaked out as that episode of '2 Pints of Lager'. 

The Apocalypse: Our Obsession

So I've recently been getting back into binge watching Netflix after abstaining for quite a long time and found that I could watch Doomsday Preppers (for anyone who doesn't know Doomsday Preppers is a show about people who spend their lives preparing for the 'inevitable' apocalypse) which I promptly did and good times were had by all.

While I was watching this (also writing a short story because yay! apocalypse) I checked my e-mail and received an invitation to sign a petition surrounding a recent court ruling to do with patenting genes.

I was suitably outraged with this as most people should be and it reminded me why I don't like reading news stories about corporate entities anymore. It always makes me feel like these people can't be human, CEO's of big companies seem to feel like they're not accountable to rest of us despite the fact that they are.

Either way this combination of events got my thinking and I came to the conclusion that our modern obssesion with Doomsday and the increase in the number of stories of companies and governments putting money before people are somehow linked.

My theory reads thus:

               As we see more and more stories of this nature our general impression of the world and it's people has a tendency to fall. As this happens we realize, weather consciously or subconsciously, that this sort of behavior cannot continue indefinitely. The influx of large-scale world wide protests and rioting in recent years shows that the general anger of our society directed towards authority increases year on year. Finally as we notice this rising steadily our obsession with media to do with apocalypses also increases as a subconscious attempt to absorb as much information that may be useful in such an event.

...aaaaand breath. Okay so I'm done now, just a random thought I had while sitting awake at 4am because of insomnia being a thing that happens... it has nothing to do with netflix I swear. 

The Devil May Cry but Not as Much as Devil May Cry Fans

I'm a little bit late on this one I feel, but there's something that has been bothering me recently. (Yes folks this is another video game post so if you're not a fan you might want to click away now) 

Last year a reboot to the much loved Devil May Cry franchise was released and it led to an interesting reaction from a lot of people. Most people tended to agree that the gameplay was at least pretty decent and in most places it was thought of as great, but did a lot of these same people like the game? No. Why? Because they changed the main character...okay.

The original protagonist of Devil May Cry was Dante, a half demon, half human devil hunter who was pretty flippant with most of his enemies. Basically Dante was an undeniable bad-ass who has a penchant for showing off, being arrogant and eating junk food (I hasten to point out for the hardened fans that yes Dante was a bit more serious in Devil May Cry 2, that's not really that important to what I'm talking about here because it's the bad ass who you all love so much and as far as I know Devil May Cry 2 was thought of as the worst of the original three games) and as such it's pretty easy to see why the character would be loved in video game circles.

This that pretty basic analysis of the original Dante (and I mean REEEEEALLY basic) I feel I've done enough preamble to begin talking about the new Dante. Firstly the main problem seem to have with new Dante (just gonna call him Dante from here on out. Also when I say main problem this is the one I heard the most and is by no means the only argument people have leveled at the character) is his hair. His old mop was pure white in keeping with his direct family, but now he sports a somewhat shorter hair cut with black hair, leading to a lot of fans calling him (brace yourself for this one)...emo.

For anyone who might have been in a coma for the past decade or so the whole 'emo' thing was style of clothing, music and life outlook that was characterized by darkness and self-deprecation. A decent amount of teenagers went through an 'emo' phase (myself included) usually through high-school where they grew their hair long, dyed it black and started straightening it.

The new Dante does have straight black hair, this is true, but why does this make him emo? He spends most of his time cracking wise and being overconfident, something which is completely at odds with what is classically thought of as 'emo', and I don't think that having any particular haircut should throw up red flags about someones character.

Okay so rant about the hair hate is over, now to actually examine everything else that actually makes the character a character. Firstly the other main argument against him as that he lost his bad ass edge in the latest installment, partially due to the new visual design of his icon red coat over a grotty looking wife beater.

Firstly I want to examine the fact that his personality doesn't seem that different for the most part. As with old Dante he treats many of his enemies very flippantly cracking wise and acting like they're nothing to him. So far it sounds pretty standard and for a while I couldn't really understand the complaint, he was powerful, he was arrogant and he sounded like he didn't give a shit, but then it occurred to me that the problem was that last part.

It harks back to the whole 'emo' point. As much as old Dante was a bad ass who treated his enemies like crap he actually cared about stuff, he is often sited as taking demon-hunting jobs for people without accepting payment because he knows the client is poor (occasionally leading to him being taken advantage of by people when they send him bills for damages he caused while on his free missions) meaning it's clear to tell that he cares about people and the world around him.

Modern Dante however? Well he acts like he doesn't give a crap about himself or the world around him, this is easily seen in the opening by the fact that he clearly drinks heavily, enjoys mindless/meaningless sex and doesn't seem to care about his appearance or surroundings. So this sounds a lot like an emo character, someone who cares little for themselves or the world around them and dresses in dark colors (you know, to match their SOOOOOUL)

So why do I still disagree with the whole 'emo' thing? Surely what I just said totally backs up the point that he's an emo character right? Well it might just do that, if it persisted beyond the first few missions. Examining Dante's life and what we know about it from the story it's easy to see why he wouldn't care for much in his life. He has never known his parents, he has lived alone and entirely for himself for most of his life because he has never had a family and this would almost certainly lead someone into a self-destructive spiral of alcohol, drugs and meaningless sex.

However, when Dante is presented with the chance to learn about his past and his family he jumps at the chance (Like seriously for someone who didn't care about much as soon as it was claimed Virgil was his brother he went along waaaay too easily) and from that point on he actually starts to have emotional depth and cares about the people he meets along the way. Yes it's true that the female character is almost certainly there just to be a token love interest but it's not her that I'm looking at here, the fact is that token or not she is the person that Dante starts to care about and wants to protect.

From that point on in the game he still acts arrogant, he still makes wise ass remarks to his enemies and still manages to kick a whole heaping helping of ass, but it is shown that now he has started on the path he is willing to go out of his way to help people. Even if the character tries to pretend he doesn't care or that he's only helping because there's something in it for him, by the end of the story (something I have no plan to ruin for you) it is clear that he does have morals, and does want to help and protect people.

As I've said many times before this is all my own opinion and there are probably a lot of people out there who will disagree with me about the reboot and the characters created therein but for the most point I think I've conveyed the reasons that I find the new character of Dante just as good as the old one and why I feel that the older fans are attempting to cling a little too hard to an older version of Dante who wouldn't have fit into the game that Ninja Theory where trying to make.


Post Post Rambling Follows:

I feel like I should really talk about a few things that I didn't really mention previously because I know that not all people who will be interested in the rest of the post will want to hear this.

I am mainly talking about the mop/wig joke. 

During the first level of DmC a mop head blows towards Dante and it lands on his head as he looks into a mirror that happens to be in front of him. With a cocky grin he quips "not in a million year" and promptly turns towards his giant enemy to shoot him in the face a little. 

A lot of people where annoyed by this joke, perhaps because they felt like the new developers were poking fun or taking the piss out of the old Dante and the old Devil May Cry series as a whole. Personally I don't think this is true, if anything it's a sly nod to the fact that Ninja Theory realized some people were going to hate the new design and where trying to show that they have a sense of humor about it. Also come on the jokes funny, seriously.

One more thing: (If you read that in the voice of Jackie Chan's Uncle from the animated series we are best friends now. Just saying) 

Okay so I need to mention that I feel bad for Ninja Theory. Their first major game was 'Enslaved: Odyssey to the West' which I personally would rate in my top 10 life experiences. Not my top 10 video games, but it was genuinely a game that when I was done with it I sat there and thought about it for at least half an hour. For anyone who doesn't play video games that doesn't happen very often and I feel like that is a major shame. 

Not only did that game bomb so they had to take reboot work, but now they've made a genuinely great gameplay based video game they've had huge backlash from butthurt Dante fans who hate the new look. -_- Seriously hoping that they catch a break soon. 

Why the New Doctor Who was Awesome if You're an Old Doctor Who Fan

(INB4 grammar complaints: I know that I didn't capitalize the name of the doctor despite the fact that since it's his name technically it's a proper noun and should be capitalized. Well this is my blog and I can do what I want so ner-ner-na-ner-ner) 


So for anyone who isn't a Doctor Who fan you may not know that the newest series of the show started recently...okay scratch that even if you don't give two craps about Doctor Who you probably know that it started recently because both the media and the internet have a tendency to go on about it somewhat.

Either way the new series has now begun and the general consensus of the new doctor is practically non-existent. Half of the fans love him and half of the fans hate him, but examining it from my personal, somewhat interesting point of view has lead me to the conclusion that the new doctor at least is absolutely amazing. 

Firstly I think I should explain why my own perspective on the series is a little odd. Partially it is due to the fact that my introduction to the doctor who series began not in 2005 with the release of the rebooted franchise but back when I was a young kid during conversations with my mother. Although she's not what you would call an avid fan of the old series she has seen every single episode of the Tom Baker series and a lot of the Sylvester McCoy series, and as such would often talk about it to me when I caught the name of the show in TV times while it was being re-run.

The conversation we had led me to seek out and watch a few episodes of the original series, finding nothing of particular interest to my then sugar fueled brain I promptly lost interest and forgot all about it. Fast forward to 2005 and the release of the new series being advertised in a gaming magazine led me to begin watching the show and attempting to watch through some of the older episodes.

With my newly matured (or at least less hyper) brain I really got into the series and once Eccleson was finished with his series I promptly sank a ridiculous amount of time into watching the original series. (for anyone interested I didn't watch tenant because at the time I was seeing how amazing some of the old doctors where and really if you've seen them you can understand why Tenant could not really compare) 

With this new found interest in the series I managed to watch a lot of the old episode and read a lot of the books that had been released since the series cancellation, dipping in and out of the newer series when I caught it on TV. Eventually I decided to just bite the bullet and watch the new series as well, as this was just as Matt Smith was taking over the role I had a lot of back tracking to do in regard to the newer series, but in the end I was all caught up and could really get stuck into the series again.

So there is my perspective on Doctor Who explained, albeit in a bit of an obtuse manor, but either way it done now so I'm hoping that it will go someway to explain why I feel the way I do about the new doctor.

So to begin my explanation I will examine one of the early scenes in the episode. Somewhere near the start the character Vastra is talking to Clara and has some interesting things to say about the doctor and his regenerations. A few key things that popped up during the conversation now follow:

"You thought he was young?"

"He looked like your dashing young gentleman friend, your lover even"

"You might as well flirt with a mountain range"

"He looked young, who do you think that was for?"

"me?"

"Everyone. I wore a veil as he wore a face, for the same reason"

"What reason?"

"For the oldest reason there is. To be accepted" 

  

 (For anyone who cannot tell green is Vastra and red is Clara)

(Before this goes any further I find it necessary to defend the following with the qualifier that it is all of course my own opinion and I am not trying to say that the messages I got from the conversation are the messages intended to be imparted, it is simply how I interpreted what I saw)

So, why exactly have I brought up this conversation ? Well firstly because it become infinity more interesting if you imagine that they are talking about the show instead of the person, and if you imagine that Vastra is addressing the new wave of fans instead of Clara. 

The first sentence could easily refer to the fact that most new fans either didn't know about the older series or didn't care, which is practically criminal. I'm not going to pretend that if you haven't seen the old series you shouldn't watch the new series, the new series was made specifically for new fans and will always be a separate entity. What I am saying is that to ignore the fact that there was 30 years of back story and character is only going to do a disservice to a character you're supposed to be a huge fan of. 

The next sentence primarily seems to refer to the modern trend for younger and more physically attractive doctors. In the old series the doctors character was almost always played by older men who could give off the air of someone who was very old and very wise, in the newer series they just about manage to sound like a high school nerd hoped up on sugar. Again I am not saying that the newer method for casting doctors is at all wrong and it might be perfect for the new load of fans that are interested in the show these days, just saying that it is hugely different to the way the doctor always used to be. 

The third sentence can pretty much be seen as pointing the finger at the almost rock star style adoration and sexual attraction that a lot of fans have towards the newer doctors. For the most parts his companions seem to have an attraction to the doctor, much like his fans, something that was never really a part of the older series. The doctors character was never supposed to be eye candy he was supposed to be your grandad, the wise old man who kept you safe and always seems to be saving the day. The idea of any of his companions being an object of attraction for the doctor was practically unthinkable, after all he was old enough to be their grandfather's, grandfather's grandfather. 

This last section is perhaps the most telling, this is to be directed at both the newer fans and at the returners who stuck with the show from the old series. Firstly it points out that the younger doctor was supposed to be for the younger fans, the newer fans responded positively to a younger, physically attractive doctor, so the show makers gave them what they want. 

The conversation also explains why this was done. The last sentence I copied above is aimed at the older fans, it is an attempt to explain to them that has they decided to not change the doctor, both the character and the physicality of him, then the series might not even be here for you to enjoy at all. Had they stuck rigidly to the old format then the show would possibly have dipped heavily in popularity and would have almost certainly been taken off the air again. I mean hell if that had happened it's possible they would have given up on trying to resurrect the show at all and we wouldn't have gotten any of the newer doctor who stuff we now have. 

So what does all of that mean overall? Well from the way the first episode seems to have been put together it seems to me that the shows creators are attempting to gently reintroduce elements of the older Doctor Who to the new series so that the older fans will have something of the old doctor back but the newer fans won't be turned off by an overload of heavy changes. 

A lot of people do not like the writing style of Steven Moffat, and honestly in places I can understand why, but whatever you think of how he writes the character it is apparent that he is at least trying to recapture the spirit that made the doctor such a hit in the first place. 

As for the new series I cannot say that is definitely going to be amazing, I mean even this episode had moments that seemed pulled right out of Moffat's darkest regions, but what I can say is that if they keep the new doctor the way he is I wouldn't be surprised to see a resurgence of older whovians returning to the series, and I don't see how that could be a bad thing.

Rugrats Feminist?

Okay so recently I was poking around buzzfeed as one is prone to doing when one is bored (aint I posh?) and noticed a post called '14 Forgotten Feminist Cartoons from the 90s' and saw that the thumbnail for the post was a picture of Charlotte Pickles from Rugrats.

Intrigued by this I clicked on it and read through the list, most of which was pretty agreeable, but in the number 1 spot was the aforementioned Charlotte Pickles. This puzzled me a little because she is not exactly a great character from the show, and if we're honest she is possibly the worst one of the bunch to have chosen for the number 1 spot on that list.

I can see why someone might choose her if I'm honest, she has a high profile job at a powerful company and is the main breadwinner for her family ( I know that her husband has a job as well but it's clear that she's the one who makes the most money if you watch the show) so at first glance she seems like a great pick; however if you closely examine what she's like it seems a little less tenable to keep her there.

Firstly because she totally ignored her child, seriously most of the time she's too busy on her phone to even listen to what her little girl is saying. Now I'm not saying that she should have a shitty job or no job at all so she can stay home and look after her child, that sort of attitude hasn't made sense since the 1940s and even then it was bloody stupid, but when she's not at the office she should at least be willing to make some time for her child.

I know that the parents in the rugrats weren't amazing, I mean the amount of time they lose their children in the show is a good enough indicator of that, but for the most part the parents in the show take a genuine interest in their children. Charlotte pickles would rather have her head in the business world than spend any amount of time with her daughter (In her defence Angelica's a little B*tch).

In my opinion Charlotte Pickles should not have been that number 1 spot, if anything it should have been Betty Deville, she ignored gender stereotypes by being the masculine half in her relationship, she doesn't take crap from anyone regardless of gender or station and manages to make time for her children without being a slave too them.

I know that it's never made clear in the show if she has a job or not (at least as far as I know) but having or not having a job doesn't make someone a good feminist character, her outspoken nature and unwillingness to let people walk all over her because she's a women is what makes her a decent feminist character. She defies stereotypes without letting her defiance of those stereotypes turn her into a token 'anti-stereotype' character

I know that Charlotte had her moments as both a feminist and a parent but for the most part she was obnoxious annoying and a downright horrible person, whereas Betty was strong, a great role model and managed to defy the common perception without letting that denial define here. If anyone from that series a good role model for young girls it was Betty.

(UPDATE: I just found out from the rugrats wiki that Betty was indeed the breadwinner for her family as her husband Howard stayed at home and looked after the house and kids, I was pretty confident of this already but it's nice to have it verified) 

The Modern Problem with Names

So there's a subject that I've been thinking about for a few years that I thought might interest a few people so I thought I'd post my mental ramblings here for the world (or more accurately the 50 or so people who read my blog) to see.

So the issue I've been thinking on is names, more specifically second names or surnames. Your second name shows the lineage of your family, or at least it does if you're a man, if you're a women you're 'supposed' to give up your maiden name when you get married. Apart from being grossly unfair on the 50% or so of the population born with female genitalia this also leaves the issue that family lines with even a single generation of all female children will instantly be broken.

Of course in our modern age not many women still elect to take their husband's name, a few do obviously but it's a lot more commonplace to find a husband and wife with different second names. While this solution is perfect for the husband and wife in a relationship it does somewhat make the second name of the children somewhat more difficult to deal with.

Most families tend to remedy this by double barrelling their child's name e.g. 'Wallace-Smith' or 'Williams-Burrow' which might seem like a fine solution. However the unforeseen problem here is that in a few generations of double barrelling our children's names will take around 4 days to say and will consist of about 50 second names as opposed to the single name that we are used to.

So is there a workable solution? where both sides of the marital divide are represented ? Where we don't end up having to omit 90% of our friend's name for fear of being trapped in a name loop? Well there is a solution that I've thought of that might not make people happy, but is at least a workable solution to he double barrelled problem.

My idea was to take the first half of one name and the second half of the other to form a new name based on the old one. Examples of this would be 'Wallith' (Wallace + Smith) or 'Willrow' (Williams-Burrow) and as you can see it is usually possible to fit the names together without too much difficulty.

Of course some may complain that this doesn't preserve lineage because the names change with every generation of the family, but I always feel like it's more important to preserve the feeling of the current family (i.e. the mother father and children) then it is to preserve the memory of a family history. If you want to keep your bloodline in memory forever then you can use the internet, or try killing a lot of people they'll probably remember your family name then.

Why I hate Dead Space 3

Anyone who knows me will be able to tell you that I am a tad partial to the horror genre no matter which medium it comes in. I have enjoyed horror books for a long time particularly Poe and Lovecraft, and have seen more than my fair share of horror films particularly the hammer horror films.

The third medium I tend to think of when thinking of horror happens to be video games (I am not discounting audio based horror either to be honest. The midwich cuckoos with Bill Nighy is an amazing radio play and terreffied me as a child) I have in my time played through most of what is usually considered 'the classics' of the form, things like the first two silent hill games and the resident evil games, and I have also tried more contemporary survival horror in it's many flavours (for anyone who didn't think pixels could be scary you need to play lone survivor) 

Having said all of this I have also played the three games in the Dead Space series and I thoroughly enjoyed most of them. To elaborate what I mean is that I own and have played extensivly the first two games in the series, and while I am the first to admit that they weren't ever really scary they did have the atmosphere of horror games for the most part and a large part of why I enjoy horror is the atmosphere that surrounds it.

You may have noticed that I left out the most recent game in the trilogy from my list of dead space games that I have played and enjoyed. This is because I recently got the chance to play Dead Space 3 for free (For anyone who doesn't already know this Playstation Plus is awesome) and found myself thoroughly hating almost every single minute of it.

So sit back and strap in as I use this blog to once more vent my frustrated rage on a game I hate...or explain why I think the games bad whichever sounds better.


1. Co-Op features

For anyone who is not familiar with Dead Space it's really been a single player experience up until now. There may have been some multi-player features involved (I actually don't know I own both the first two on XBOX360 and never pay for gold because my desire for online play is so infrequent that it doesn't warrant a £5 a month subscription) but the main campaigns were always reserved for a single player experience only. This is primarily because a feeling of isolation can create a lot of the horror that one usually feels. The feeling like you are totally alone being overwhelmed by a titanic amount of gutteral horrors is a large part of the enjoyable atmosphere that surrounded dead space in particular.

This has totally been ruined in the third game by having the inclusion of Co-Op features. Apparently the developers felt that the games where going to get stale and tired if they didn't do something to change up the style of the gameplay, so here comes the Co-Op (just so everyone knows you cannot do this crap split-screen, it's on-line only folks) 

Other than the destruction of the atmosphere, which admittedly is only  a problem if you play the co op campaign instead of the solo one, is the changes to the gameplay that effect single player even if you don't want them to. The most noticable is the inclusion of elements and missions that you cannot use if you are on your own, this just serves to make you feel like you're missing out on something when you play the game in single player.

They also waaaaaaay scaled back the power of all your weapons so that it'd be more necessary for you to have two players. In dead space the enemies of the series are already dead and can only be put down permanently by removing most of there limbs, usually you are given engineering tools (your character is an engineer) which are designed for cutting through things meaning that you can slice and dice all you like. In DS3 your weapons don't even make the bad guys flinch half the time.

The lack of power beind the weapons coupled with upgrades that are specifically only useful if you're in Co-Op even if you happen to be playing in single player just make it seem like EA and Visceral the people behind the game didn't give a crap. They slapped together a single player campaign without changing anything and it just makes the game feel like it wasn't designed to be played alone at all.

speaking of guns...

2. Micro-Transactions

If anyone is unaware of the term micro-transactions it basically means that instead of paying full price for something you have the option of buying in really small amounts for lower prices more often, that way the developers get a more steady income stream and those who don't want to pay for the micro-transaction products don't have to. These are usually in free to play games like Farmville or The Tribez so that the devs can support themselves without having to charge for the main game itself.

So why the hell does a full price game need these?

That's right despite being a game that you will have to pay full price for (unless you're me and you've got Playstation Plus) there are still micro-transactions in the game. These come in the form of 'resource packs' which you can use to help build parts to upgrade your weapons or armour, and if you don't pay for them they're usually found lying around on the ground as you play the game. So why would anyone actually pay for the resources?

Well if you remember in single player your guns have been so scaled down in power that if you don't pay for the micro-transactions you're probably going to have a hard time getting through the entire game. I mean I suppose it's arguable that I only think that because I am terrible at the game but I would ask you to remember a few things:

   . I am playing on the easiest difficulty
   . I have been playing games for nearly two decades now

Bearing this in mind shouldn't I be having an easy time of it on this difficulty setting? I mean I could be wrong and the micro-transactions having nothing to do with the scaling down of the weapons but it just smacks a little too much of bullcrap to me.

3. Cliche around every corner 

I know I shouldn't really expect too much from a video game storyline that isn't produced by Bioware but the story of the first two games was at least passable. In the first you're sent to a space ship that's gone quiet to investigate and to see if it can be fixed. I don't remember much about the second games story other than it involved the main character havign his brain probed so that the government can make copies of the evil thing that made people turn into zombie (thanks obamacare. jk) 

In the third game the 'evil' religion of Unitology (careful game devs!) has decided that they want everyone to be evil mindless undead zombies so they try to kill the protagonist because he has a history of destroying the markers. Apart from that not making much sense (1 guy has a history of destroying something meaning he is the ONLY GUY WHO CAN! so much sense) it just comes across as something a blockbuster hollywood film should be doing and not a horror film at that. The game coems across the same as any Sci-Fi action film and even has the cliched characters to match.

The guy who has stolen main characters girlfriend, who is obviously going to be a jerk so that the protagonist can get back together with his girlfriend

The big breasted Ex-Girlfriend of the main character who exists for cheap sex appeal, so she can get back together with the main man and so she can die at some point (Seriously she went from having an almost beleivable human being character design in DS2 to being pointless eye candy with clevage a mile long. For shame Dead Space 3, for shame) 

The nerdy scientist who is just likeable enough that when she dies you feel sort of bad for her

The gruff old man who's seen his fair share of adventure/space travel/engineering etc

The 'oorah' commando block who is clearly there just to be teamed up with the protagonist so they can have a disagreement at the beginning and become friends at the end. (this is made worse by the fact that if you play single player he's not there throughout the game so they've had zero time to have this change in relationship) 

Evil english dude...I shouldn't even have to mention why that's cliched

So there you have, the three main reasons that I am angry at dead space 3. Of course there are many, many MAAAAANY more reasons why this game is terrible and if I were to try and bring them all up on one blog post it would probably be about 5000 pages long and would cause several different types of coma (yes there are types) so I have restrained myself for now in reference to the slagging off of dead space 3.

See you next time I have sheathing to complain about.