Mass Effect 2 Secrets Revealed
11 hours 25 mins ago
Jeffrey Matulef of thegamereviews.com blogs about the lighter side of the gaming world: death. Read on to find out about the different ways of dying over time with opinions on each. From the classics to the latest titles, each gets a mention.
Since the dawn of time, game players could be categorized as one of two things -- winners or losers. If you perform well, you win a game. If you dont, you lose. Its as simple as that. Lately, however, weve seen a paradigm shift; now we are seeing games you cant lose. Or, more accurately, games that dont have any clear, defined "losing" state. Were used to the tried-and-true "game over" screen, but what if you cant get a game over? Would it still be a game?
News story attached to:
- BioShock [PS3, XBOX360, PC]
- Devil May Cry 4 [PC, XBOX360, PS3]
- Fable II [XBOX360]
- Gears of War [PC, XBOX360]
- Mario Bros. [NES]
- Ninja Gaiden [Xbox]
- Prince of Persia: The Fallen King [DS]
- Viewtiful Joe [PS2, GC]
Additional sources:
- Death is Not the End (gonintendo.com)
Latest comment:
Most recently commented on by on Jan 12, 2009
Most recently commented on by on Jan 12, 2009







Comments
So the challenge is still there for those that want it. Though more options = better IMO
With Survival horror, they could fall back on the 'turn off checkpointing' idea that Bioshock has neh? At least for the higher difficulties anyhow.
In all seriousness there are waaaay to many check points hell harder difficulties should remove certain check points as well as add more enemies and the hardest difficulty would remove all check points in each stage so only the incredibly skilled can beat the game.
I may be being a little harsh it is probably because i have been facing the frustrations of my childhood recently by playing a lot of classic games
This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.