Time to put the Dead Space hate to bed.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Sorry if this comes off a bit ranty, but I just felt as though I should get this message out.
Dead Space is a triple A franchise that is being published by EA. It is an unfortunate inevitability that sequels should try to up the stakes, sacrificing some of that original brooding horror atmosphere. However, I did not like or play Dead Space 1 or 2 due to the supposed "horror", but rather for the cool sci-fi setting, the solid shooting mechanics, and the grandiose set pieces. Even if Dead Space 3 will have lost some of the horror elements, Visceral has shown that they know how to make a great action game.
Furthermore, at any point during the development of DS3, at around the point where they were rewriting the story and puzzles for it to compatible in both SP and co-op, Visceral could have just said "F*** it. AI partner for SP, because that worked so well in RE5." The fact that two campaigns exist shows a certain determination to please the fans of the original series.
I am not trying to madly defend EA or Visceral, especially when it comes to that microtransaction crap, but people have got to learn that Visceral cannot just make Dead Space 1 over and over.
So please, stop the complaining and have, you know, fun with the game when it comes out?

I didn't realize people were complaining about Dead Space. These days people mostly seem to be angry about DmC and My Little Pony, believe it or not.

You must be new here... and this thread can only end well for you.

Anyway.

I'm not really invested in the franchise to begin with, so I don't particularly care what EA does with it. They seem to have convinced Visceral to try their damnedest to kill it themselves, though, what with all of the bad press that's coming out of it. Generally speaking, any time a developer says "EA didn't tell us to do this" it means, "EA said this would be a good idea so we went along with it because we wanted to keep our jobs".

Either that or they're in serious denial about being the next studio EA absorbs into its black, bloated block of dead and decaying developers.

Put dead space to bed? What about Metal Gear Solid or Resident Evil or Mario Anything?

I certainly hope they don't keep making Dead Space 1 over and over again for I didn't find it very good at all. To me, it was always more of an action game than a scary game so I see this as a natural progression versus Resident Evil going horror to action in one giant leap (granted, I did not play DS2 but I've heard it got more actiony and less scary. However, that info could be wrong).

Granted, I'm obviously not invested at all in the series (played about half of DS1 before I got bored and went somewhere else) so I couldn't really care less what happens to it :)

shrekfan246:
Generally speaking, any time a developer says "EA didn't tell us to do this" it means, "EA said this would be a good idea so we went along with it because we wanted to keep our jobs".

It really saddens me that any time a studio says the head didn't decide for them, a large majority of the audience believes they're lying. Of course, we never hear of any praise for good ideas, since it's quite easy to vilify bad decisions on the publisher, as the darling studio can't be the one to make said bad decision, but only responsible for the good decisions. Nope, never.

But hey, what do I know about game development?

Either that or they're in serious denial about being the next studio EA absorbs into its black, bloated mass of dead and decaying developers.

You do realize Visceral was formed by EA out of EA Redwood Shores and was not bought like some others right?

Heck, their office is in the corporate HQ building, one floor above Maxis.

That said, I'm looking forward to Dead Space 3 as I enjoyed the previous 2, horror or not, and really looking forward to playing it in coop.

ThriKreen:

shrekfan246:
Generally speaking, any time a developer says "EA didn't tell us to do this" it means, "EA said this would be a good idea so we went along with it because we wanted to keep our jobs".

It really saddens me that any time a studio says the head didn't decide for them, a large majority of the audience believes they're lying. Of course, we never hear of any praise for good ideas, since it's quite easy to vilify bad decisions on the publisher, as the darling studio can't be the one to make said bad decision, but only responsible for the good decisions. Nope, never.

But hey, what do I know about game development?

Sorry, that was more of a snarky joke at the expense of EA than a serious "I believe this is what happens at the corporate level".

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Visceral made the decision to make a PC port that equals its console counterpart. Dead Space had pretty abysmal mouse control, after all. :D

Jokes aside, I don't believe that EA has as much of a hand in the development of games as people like to accuse them. Visceral wanted to put co-op into the franchise, and they've attempted to do it in a way that doesn't sacrifice the story of the game or atmosphere by sticking you with an AI partner at all times, and I applaud them for that.

Either that or they're in serious denial about being the next studio EA absorbs into its black, bloated mass of dead and decaying developers.

You do realize Visceral was formed by EA out of EA Redwood Shores and was not bought like some others right?

Heck, their office is in the corporate HQ building, one floor above Maxis.

Maxis is kind of a husk of their former self.

Not having been bought doesn't preclude the studio from being shut down or put on the back-burner.

That said, I'm looking forward to Dead Space 3 as I enjoyed the previous 2, horror or not, and really looking forward to playing it in coop.

I'm glad to see somebody being positive for once. If I had a greater interest in the franchise and/or a friend to play co-op with, I'd probably be looking forward to it too.

I wasn't very interested in the first place, and the demo didn't really convince me otherwise. It's kind of like if gears and halo had a baby and it sucked.

So uh, not understanding where the "horror" is absent in the Dead Space 3 demo. My girlfriend couldn't even watch me play the demo, and she's a Resident Evil veteran.

Your post doesn't move me ..... i'll continue to hate Dead Space 3 spankyou very muchly.

Then again I hated Dead Space 1 and 2 as well so it's nothing new.

One of the main reason's that people got upset about the action-y changes is because they came on the heels of EA's "It must sell 5m copies" line. Whether it's a fair assessment or not, the perception is that these changes were forced into the game by marketing rather than organically made by the devs. That is, they're not because the devs are trying to advance the series but because the publishers are trying to make it more like too many others.

But... that isn't the only reason anymore. With the addition of something like $50 of Day One DLC and a F2P microtransaction model in a game that isn't F2P and the aforementioned changes, the game has become something of a symbol. Regardless of whether it's a good game or not, Dead Space 3 represents the worst excesses of the AAA industry right now.

The microtransactions in this game are just absurd. It's like a bad parody of a free-to-play game that cost 60 bucks up front. And I just know that the option to pay is just going to be thrown in your face over and over again, likely every time you open the crafting menu. I think EA are terribly misjudging their audience with this.

Professor Lupin Madblood:

I do admit, the marketing around DS 2 and 3, especially the aforementioned mum thing and the fact that apparently Kinect support comes with the reaction to react to curse words being thrown at the screen (I mean, what the hell?) does annoy the hell out of me, as well as the whole microtransactions thing. It is in fact somewhat insulting that EA believes that those are the reasons as to why Dead Space fans are Dead Space fans. I can appreciate your viewpoints, and I fully understand where you're coming from. Turns out that I just always saw the Dead Space series as something that is not what it is advertised to be. I never even saw the original as "survival horror", just a sci-fi shooter where you have to manage inventory space SOMETIMES. When I mentioned the co-op thing though, I was more going for that Visceral basically had to include co-op due to EA breathing down it's neck, but didn't cop out by forcing SP players to have a constant AI companion. Sorry if that got lost.

Dead Space, a survival horror series which is deemed by EA as too scary and on top of that is the first game to put f2p micro transactions and grinding into a $60 game in such a blatant way.

It's kinda hard even for white knighters to argue against other than saying I don't give a fuck.

And totally different from DMC since that game isn't the thin wedge of $60 games going down the drain like DS3 could very well be.

PiotrTheAdequate:

Professor Lupin Madblood:

I do admit, the marketing around DS 2 and 3, especially the aforementioned mum thing and the fact that apparently Kinect support comes with the reaction to react to curse words being thrown at the screen (I mean, what the hell?) does annoy the hell out of me, as well as the whole microtransactions thing. It is in fact somewhat insulting that EA believes that those are the reasons as to why Dead Space fans are Dead Space fans. I can appreciate your viewpoints, and I fully understand where you're coming from. Turns out that I just always saw the Dead Space series as something that is not what it is advertised to be. I never even saw the original as "survival horror", just a sci-fi shooter where you have to manage inventory space SOMETIMES. When I mentioned the co-op thing though, I was more going for that Visceral basically had to include co-op due to EA breathing down it's neck, but didn't cop out by forcing SP players to have a constant AI companion. Sorry if that got lost.

Knowing that, your position seems understandable, though in a very small minority. I get where you're coming from with it - it's just that your points just don't seem applicable to the issues at large.

TrevHead:
Dead Space, a survival horror series which is deemed by EA as too scary and on top of that is the first game to put f2p micro transactions and grinding into a $60 game in such a blatant way.

It's kinda hard even for white knighters to argue against other than saying I don't give a fuck.

And totally different from DMC since that game isn't the thin wedge of $60 games going down the drain like DS3 could very well be.

What dose a white knight have to do with this? I thought that was a guy protecting a woman even though she doesn't need it or something like that? Or is white knight anyone who will protect something you disagree with? Or are we talking about White Knights in business? Because that make even less sense? Or the KKK rank? Or the chess peace? Point is White Knight has a lot of applications, but none that makes sense in this context.

If I am wrong by all means tell me but I don't think white knight means what you think it means.

SnakeCL:
So uh, not understanding where the "horror" is absent in the Dead Space 3 demo. My girlfriend couldn't even watch me play the demo, and she's a Resident Evil veteran.

Really? Dose she have a weak stomach or something? I just played it like 45 min ago and I barely flinched. Hell I think the Banshee in ME3 scared me more. Well whatever this is one of those things I guess is subjective.

Johnny Novgorod:
I didn't realize people were complaining about Dead Space. These days people mostly seem to be angry about DmC and My Little Pony, believe it or not.

There HAS been a spike in those recently, hasn't there?
Anyway.
I'm a pretty big Dead Space fan and while I'm a little cautious about Dead Space 3, I'm still looking forward to it.
And I have to admit I sympathize with Visceral here. EA's more-or-less twisting their arm saying "sell 5 million copies or your dead." Talk about a rock and a hard place, eh?

Well that is the thing you people do not comprehend, you came for the action and others came for other things that just got butchered.
Obviously you like it when your preference comes to fruition, but imagine how it is for people where the exact opposite happened... not so fun then is it.

So how about we stop pretending this is great for everyone and call it like it is.

Its not that its a sequel that is getting people into a tailspin over it.

Its the Microtransactions in singleplayer, the co-op (becuase it worked in RE5! /sarcasm), the various PR statements form Visceral, the whole 5 million copies or it gets shafted deal...

Some would call Dead Space 3 to be a microcosm of all that is wrong in AAA game development.

I would rather wait until the game gets released before condemning it.

It's just that EA/Visceral appear to be trying to piss people off on purpose with some of their PR.

Ed130:
Its the Microtransactions in singleplayer, the co-op (becuase it worked in RE5! /sarcasm), the various PR statements form Visceral, the whole 5 million copies or it gets shafted deal...

So the microtransactions are optional, like boosters in LoL, to ease and speed up the grindy aspects of the game. Or enable New Game+ mode off the bat with an existing finished game save slot or something, for what seems like retaining extra resources and such for the upgrades and all that.

And playing in coop is optional as well, if you play in single player you don't get an AI partner like in Gears of War, so you retain the solo feel.

I seem to have missed the memo where "optional" means "forced".

Well, it's their right to put monetization into Single Player, and my right to never play the game.
That aside, I only played the first. Got bored about halfway through, dropped it promptly. It's not a horror game, and it's not interesting and fun enough for a proper action game.

ThriKreen:

Ed130:
Its the Microtransactions in singleplayer, the co-op (becuase it worked in RE5! /sarcasm), the various PR statements form Visceral, the whole 5 million copies or it gets shafted deal...

So the microtransactions are optional, like boosters in LoL, to ease and speed up the grindy aspects of the game. Or enable New Game+ mode off the bat with an existing finished game save slot or something, for what seems like retaining extra resources and such for the upgrades and all that.

And playing in coop is optional as well, if you play in single player you don't get an AI partner like in Gears of War, so you retain the solo feel.

I seem to have missed the memo where "optional" means "forced".

If given the option to play a game where more grind is a plus for the publishers because they get paid for "easing" it, or playing a game where developers designed the pacing with the sole variable of player enjoyment in mind, i'll pick the latter every time.
The inclusion of micro transactions in this game most definitely DOES affect the game I get, whether I partake in them or not.

Ed130:
Its not that its a sequel that is getting people into a tailspin over it.

Its the Microtransactions in singleplayer, the co-op (becuase it worked in RE5! /sarcasm), the various PR statements form Visceral, the whole 5 million copies or it gets shafted deal...

Some would call Dead Space 3 to be a microcosm of all that is wrong in AAA game development.

I would rather wait until the game gets released before condemning it.

It's just that EA/Visceral appear to be trying to piss people off on purpose with some of their PR.

Actually many people did enjoy the co-op of Resident Evil 5. The problem with Dead Space is that its eliminated the bro-friendly split screen option. Now to play it co-op you have to go online (online pass). I've played through RE5 and Gears with a teammate and I like it much better when I have a friend in the room. I like having the person right there.

I'm a couple of hours in. I haven't found any gamebreaking need to buy stuff but haven't gone that far either. They did minimize the harassment to do the microtransactions but its still there and annoying that it exists. There are other stupid parts to the game. You start in a blizzard limping but if you hold down the aim button, you stop limping. What the hell is up with that?

Its okay but it does seem less horrorish and more actiony than the others.

Well fine, I won't hating Dead Space 3 because it is a sequel (I didn't even hate it because of that to begin with).

"The fact that we're allowing you to control the game with a mouse and keyboard"

I hate it because of that. Shit port policy how I like to call it. Lets be proud that we 'allow' our customers to use the most common control peripheral on their platform of choice. Lets also be proud that we had to work the community to allow proper rebinding.

Even if what you say is true, then its still a dick move to call something dead space and then not make a dead space game...

TBH, the single player of DS 1 & 2 I thought were pretty great. Not brilliant, and I wish 2 had explored the survival horror concept more but never mind.

What I objected to in Dead Space 2 was the tacked in multiplayer which was as well balanced as an OAP vs the Terminator, and its entire assistance seemed to be as a way to discredit used copies of the game. Other than that it was a pretty good game.

Whats even worse is this micro transaction system in DS3 and how the game is more geared towards money making and cramming features such as kinect utility with the end goal of selling more than 5 million units. Dead Space 3 might be a great game, but its mired in EA's profit mongering to the point where the game is starting to suffer because of it.

FoolKiller:

Ed130:
Its not that its a sequel that is getting people into a tailspin over it.

Its the Microtransactions in singleplayer, the co-op (becuase it worked in RE5! /sarcasm), the various PR statements form Visceral, the whole 5 million copies or it gets shafted deal...

Some would call Dead Space 3 to be a microcosm of all that is wrong in AAA game development.

I would rather wait until the game gets released before condemning it.

It's just that EA/Visceral appear to be trying to piss people off on purpose with some of their PR.

Actually many people did enjoy the co-op of Resident Evil 5. The problem with Dead Space is that its eliminated the bro-friendly split screen option. Now to play it co-op you have to go online (online pass).

Wait...seriously?

Co-op is built into the game but you have to be online to do it, and no split screen? That is some shitty co-op especially when its a core part of the game.

Personally, I won't be buying Dead Space 3. I played the first two - but wasn't terribly impressed with all the jump scares they kept doing. (Though I have to concede that the school part of Dead Space 2 was well done.) But I digress...

The whole idea of putting micro-transactions in a game - while it is nothing new, I do think it's a pretty sneaky way of ripping people off who have already paid in full up-front. When I pay full price for my game, I demand a good game - and I also don't want to be advertised to - while in venatus. It's a dick move, which not only breaks the mood of the game - but also shoves under your nose the fact that you haven't got the full game which you'd paid for. (Especially with Day 1 DLC.)

Mind you, I have strong feelings about DLC being used to extort people into paying over the odds for what should have been on disk to start with. While the publishers can be excused for their attitudes toward the pirates, it doesn't give them an excuse to pirate from the second hand buyer with the in the form of their online passes. Punish pirates by all means, but to take it out on the second hand gamer is strethcing it. But advertising extra content for those who paid in full from day 1 is the greediest profiteering and perhaps even extortion I've seen in a long time.

If EA were serious about giving new players extra ammo - just include a cheat mode at the beginning of the game which locks achievements as a price for activation. Everyone's happy, the newbs get their ammo/invunerability et al while everyone else gets their achievements.

Perhaps the folks at EA want Dead Space and it's developer to die, after all, it's in some dire financial straits and is trying to slim down. If Dead Space and Visceral went down the tubes, EA not only gets to retain the rights to Dead Space - but it gets to sack Visceral games. (Remember the "if it's not getting 5 million sales, we're pulling the plug" spiel EA done a while back?)

However, after all that - there's hope. I think EA have bitten off more than they can chew - when they get rid of Visceral Games - public relations won't just hit a new low, they'd go through the floor. Maybe that will be enough to topple the gigantic EA and end it's stranglehold over a lot of games while putting the fear of God into Activision. This should allow smaller studios to flourish in EA's absence.

At the end of the seventh era of gaming, we will be experiencing a new kind of business practice. Whether or not this change will be a good or a bad one, is yet to be seen. But I do know that the way games are being sold now has to change.

The second one was much better than the first. Silent protagonists are boring, I know the reason for them. Especially in the horror genre, but lets be honest. None of the Deadspace games have been good horror games. They're good games, and they have a wonderful atmosphere. But they're about as scary as a chimp with a tambourine. They might make some loud noises, but thats about it.

However, from what I've seen of the third. It looks more like Gears of war than Deadspace. I think the second balanced the action with the suspense perfectly. The game was always interesting but there were a lot of tense moments when you didn't really want to be discovered. The set pieces were great and Clarks reactions to them seemed realistic. You really got a bit of insight into the mind of a man who managed to live through what he did.

This one, just seems like shooty mc shootersons third adventure in the land of the brittle shamblers. And it doesn't have the same atmosphere. They've changed the tight, dark and complex hallways of a spaceship for the vast, blinding starkness of an Arctic wilderness. Which would work fantastically if you weren't armed to the teeth.

I'd much preferred that EA made a 'Thing' game than just rip off its aesthetic for another franchise that's going to seem out of place in it.

SecondPrize:

If given the option to play a game where more grind is a plus for the publishers because they get paid for "easing" it, or playing a game where developers designed the pacing with the sole variable of player enjoyment in mind, i'll pick the latter every time.
The inclusion of micro transactions in this game most definitely DOES affect the game I get, whether I partake in them or not.

Well, it's most likely already is designed for standard play without the boosters, paced out so you're relatively weak in the beginning, have to search around for money, materials, a workbench, then get tons of upgrades by the end to feel like a bad ass. And balanced so you can only upgrade a handful of weapons, not all of them.

You know, much like the difficulty design for Dead Space 1, 2, or any other game out there.

Again, the boosters are like cheats, but in this case it's pay. Or unlocking New Game+ mode with a L30 guy right off the bat. Just because it's available, whether in-game, pay, trainers, whatever, it is optional, and the game is not designed to forced you to.

Or should I bring up games with intentional grindy aspects WITHOUT any sort of boost option? Any RPG: western, Japanese, or MMO? Diablo, Dungeon Defenders are also good examples, as are many Rogue-likes. Disgaea comes to mind for a strategy game. Borderlands. You can still play the game without grinding, but admittedly beating the last boss at L50 instead of L30 does make things easier, if you want to grind for the XP and equipment.

So I still fail to see why people are complaining that it affects your game since it doesn't - YOU are the one letting it affect you, not the game's design.

ThriKreen:

shrekfan246:
Generally speaking, any time a developer says "EA didn't tell us to do this" it means, "EA said this would be a good idea so we went along with it because we wanted to keep our jobs".

It really saddens me that any time a studio says the head didn't decide for them, a large majority of the audience believes they're lying. Of course, we never hear of any praise for good ideas, since it's quite easy to vilify bad decisions on the publisher, as the darling studio can't be the one to make said bad decision, but only responsible for the good decisions. Nope, never.

So who you want to blame for all this mistrust? The audience? Right now, the audience feels betrayed and exploited.

I havent seen much Dead Space hate at all. That is a franchise that I have seen being universally praised. I have barely played much into the first one, but it seems pretty sweet.

Eh, I made up my mind about Dead Space 3 the moment it was announced, simply put I'll buy it because I like the series and want to see where the story goes. Yeah I don't like some of the ideas flowing around and yes some things like the micro-transactions shop is sickening levels of money grabbing but if I hated every time any business made any sort of idiotic move and decided to boycott them all... hell I'd never get my weekly grocery shopping done for a start!

Besides in the grander scheme of things, whether I buy it or not isn't going to change the game they've made or the fact that they've put those micro-transactions in. The way I see a lot of this is... well look at call of duty, how much hate that gets online each year and yet it still tops charts with each release. Online communities represent only the tiniest sliver of the mass gaming market, most of which (if my time working at GAME is anything to go on) don't give a damn and just buy and play whats popular and what they want to.

I'm not going try and protect and "white knight" these decisions by EA, that's absurd but to deprive myself of more of a franchise I like over some gripes (big ones admittedly) that if I did isn't going to make a lick of difference is equally as absurd

I will buy it (or in this case open it once my pre-order arrives on Friday), play it, enjoy it (hopefully) then move on to the next game.

Having played the demo, my opinion is as follows:

1. Dead Space is being perceived by the public as being a horror title. For reasons unknown, Visceral Games considers it as Action Horror. Either that or they've fallen in the old trap whereby having freaky creature designs supposedly automatically makes your game qualify as "horror".

2. Several small aesthetic touches that were present in the first two games are gone, and I have the rather strong feeling that the dev team went on an Uncharted binge before conceptualizing certain levels. That's not a bad thing, but it does prove that the industry is cannibalizing itself. That always worries me to a degree.

3. The foundation for the micro-transaction system is a flimsy one at best. I'm fairly sure we'll start to see save file editors pop up. Anyone with a formatted USB stick can use a few homebrew program to open up game saves and fiddle around with them. Before long, you'll find hacked saves on CheatHappens where the various counters for the construction materials are all stuck on 999.

If you're on PC? Awesome. Editors and trainers, away!

A game of this nature will be exploited to death by people who want to take the easy and understandable way out without giving an extra dime to EA. If anything, this makes me wonder when the nickel-and-diming will become so egregious and offensive that EA will essentially step in its own dung and be stuck with a massive PR spill-over to deal with. No matter which way you slice it, EA can't hope to win that much sympathy capital with this system.

4. The Co-Op segment comes with a few cute effects in which the guy playing Carver is still being messed up by the raw effects of the Marker. If you're playing Isaac, who's grown more used to the hallucinations, you'll get to see your partner shooting at nothing every so often.

I really don't know what this brings to the table if you can't just snap Carver out of it. Not to mention, having friends over entirely kills the few remaining horror aspects of the game. Try playing "Amnesia: The Dark Descent" alone, and then play it with friends. You'll see.

This really just feels like a trite addition to me. Some sort of grudging admission that they would've added multiplayer elements but ended up realizing his the second game's offering was barely even touched by gamers. Dead Space looked to have a lot of promise back in the first game, but now, this just feels like the clearest case of "design by committee" I could think of.

If there's a Dead Space 4, it'll complete its metamorphosis by using Dubstep and some sort of renamed Prestige system, used in the context of a half-baked, unlock-based multiplayer system.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here