Time to put the Dead Space hate to bed.

PiotrTheAdequate

New member
Feb 2, 2013
10
0
0
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?
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,312
1,464
118
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.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
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.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
14,149
1,140
118
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 :)
 

ThriKreen

New member
May 26, 2006
803
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
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.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
ThriKreen said:
shrekfan246 said:
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.
 

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
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.
 

SnakeCL

New member
Apr 8, 2008
100
0
0
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.
 
Jun 11, 2009
443
0
0
PiotrTheAdequate said:
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?
Holy shit you're new.

Also, your post is based on a number of misconceptions. I'll try to clear them up as best I can.

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.
That's good for you, but that doesn't change the fact that the DS series has consistently been billed as horror. The first one was kind of horror, but the second and from the looks of it, the third, are decidedly action-focused. Honestly, this isn't a bad thing in and of itself, since DS is actually quite unique in the way it handles action. Taken solely as action, they're actually pretty good.

There are two things, though. First, the industry has enough action titles as it is. No matter how good DS might be mechanically, you could argue that the industry just doesn't need another action title/series.

Second, and this is the big one, EA have never, and I mean never stopped billing DS as survival horror despite the fact that anyone looking at 2 and 3 could tell you they're action-focused. Resident Evil had a similar problem: it started out as a pretty good survival horror game, but it tried to make the shift to action horror while keeping the trappings of survival horror - tank controls, no movement while shooting, limited ammunition and resources, etc.

The difference is that while RE's problems are mechanical, DS's are thematic. Yahtzee did a good job of mentioning them in the Zero Punctuation review of DS2, so I won't belabour them, but jump scares and things screaming at you is not survival horror.

The fact that [co-op campaigns] exist shows a certain determination to please the fans of the original series.
This might be anecdotal, but I don't think anyone of import looked at DS1/2 and thought "Man, this sure is a good horror game, but you know what's missing? My friends!"

but people have got to learn that Visceral cannot just make Dead Space 1 over and over.
So making DS2 over and over is somehow better?

So please, stop the complaining and have, you know, fun with the game when it comes out?
You know, I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but this kind of apologist rhetoric really irks me.

DS3 is a representation of a number of major flaws in the industry: it is a homogenized action title that took out what the previous entries did uniquely; it is a $60 game that encourages microtransactions; it has unnecessary (and if not tacked-on mechanically, then thematically) multiplayer; DS2 had the illustrious "Your Mom Hates This Game" marketing campaign; EA published it; there are probably a few I'm forgetting.

Point being, the fact that people put a lot of effort into something does not under any circumstances excuse it from criticism - if it has flaws or does bad things, that's just how things are. Asking people to give it special treatment because you really like it or because it's just a game (a vibe I'm getting from your post; I may be wrong) is inexcusable. It's childish. It's the sort of thing that the industry and its consumers both need to outgrow.

Sorry if that got a bit rant-y, but I feel strongly about these things.
 

Rawne1980

New member
Jul 29, 2011
4,144
0
0
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.
 

bananafishtoday

New member
Nov 30, 2012
312
0
0
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.
 

ShinyCharizard

New member
Oct 24, 2012
2,034
0
0
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.
 

PiotrTheAdequate

New member
Feb 2, 2013
10
0
0
Professor Lupin Madblood said:
PiotrTheAdequate said:
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?
Holy shit you're new.

Also, your post is based on a number of misconceptions. I'll try to clear them up as best I can.

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.
That's good for you, but that doesn't change the fact that the DS series has consistently been billed as horror. The first one was kind of horror, but the second and from the looks of it, the third, are decidedly action-focused. Honestly, this isn't a bad thing in and of itself, since DS is actually quite unique in the way it handles action. Taken solely as action, they're actually pretty good.

There are two things, though. First, the industry has enough action titles as it is. No matter how good DS might be mechanically, you could argue that the industry just doesn't need another action title/series.

Second, and this is the big one, EA have never, and I mean never stopped billing DS as survival horror despite the fact that anyone looking at 2 and 3 could tell you they're action-focused. Resident Evil had a similar problem: it started out as a pretty good survival horror game, but it tried to make the shift to action horror while keeping the trappings of survival horror - tank controls, no movement while shooting, limited ammunition and resources, etc.

The difference is that while RE's problems are mechanical, DS's are thematic. Yahtzee did a good job of mentioning them in the Zero Punctuation review of DS2, so I won't belabour them, but jump scares and things screaming at you is not survival horror.

The fact that [co-op campaigns] exist shows a certain determination to please the fans of the original series.
This might be anecdotal, but I don't think anyone of import looked at DS1/2 and thought "Man, this sure is a good horror game, but you know what's missing? My friends!"

but people have got to learn that Visceral cannot just make Dead Space 1 over and over.
So making DS2 over and over is somehow better?

So please, stop the complaining and have, you know, fun with the game when it comes out?
You know, I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but this kind of apologist rhetoric really irks me.

DS3 is a representation of a number of major flaws in the industry: it is a homogenized action title that took out what the previous entries did uniquely; it is a $60 game that encourages microtransactions; it has unnecessary (and if not tacked-on mechanically, then thematically) multiplayer; DS2 had the illustrious "Your Mom Hates This Game" marketing campaign; EA published it; there are probably a few I'm forgetting.

Point being, the fact that people put a lot of effort into something does not under any circumstances excuse it from criticism - if it has flaws or does bad things, that's just how things are. Asking people to give it special treatment because you really like it or because it's just a game (a vibe I'm getting from your post; I may be wrong) is inexcusable. It's childish. It's the sort of thing that the industry and its consumers both need to outgrow.

Sorry if that got a bit rant-y, but I feel strongly about these things.
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.
 

TrevHead

New member
Apr 10, 2011
1,458
0
0
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.
 
Jun 11, 2009
443
0
0
PiotrTheAdequate said:
Professor Lupin Madblood said:
PiotrTheAdequate said:
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?
Holy shit you're new.

Also, your post is based on a number of misconceptions. I'll try to clear them up as best I can.

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.
That's good for you, but that doesn't change the fact that the DS series has consistently been billed as horror. The first one was kind of horror, but the second and from the looks of it, the third, are decidedly action-focused. Honestly, this isn't a bad thing in and of itself, since DS is actually quite unique in the way it handles action. Taken solely as action, they're actually pretty good.

There are two things, though. First, the industry has enough action titles as it is. No matter how good DS might be mechanically, you could argue that the industry just doesn't need another action title/series.

Second, and this is the big one, EA have never, and I mean never stopped billing DS as survival horror despite the fact that anyone looking at 2 and 3 could tell you they're action-focused. Resident Evil had a similar problem: it started out as a pretty good survival horror game, but it tried to make the shift to action horror while keeping the trappings of survival horror - tank controls, no movement while shooting, limited ammunition and resources, etc.

The difference is that while RE's problems are mechanical, DS's are thematic. Yahtzee did a good job of mentioning them in the Zero Punctuation review of DS2, so I won't belabour them, but jump scares and things screaming at you is not survival horror.

The fact that [co-op campaigns] exist shows a certain determination to please the fans of the original series.
This might be anecdotal, but I don't think anyone of import looked at DS1/2 and thought "Man, this sure is a good horror game, but you know what's missing? My friends!"

but people have got to learn that Visceral cannot just make Dead Space 1 over and over.
So making DS2 over and over is somehow better?

So please, stop the complaining and have, you know, fun with the game when it comes out?
You know, I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but this kind of apologist rhetoric really irks me.

DS3 is a representation of a number of major flaws in the industry: it is a homogenized action title that took out what the previous entries did uniquely; it is a $60 game that encourages microtransactions; it has unnecessary (and if not tacked-on mechanically, then thematically) multiplayer; DS2 had the illustrious "Your Mom Hates This Game" marketing campaign; EA published it; there are probably a few I'm forgetting.

Point being, the fact that people put a lot of effort into something does not under any circumstances excuse it from criticism - if it has flaws or does bad things, that's just how things are. Asking people to give it special treatment because you really like it or because it's just a game (a vibe I'm getting from your post; I may be wrong) is inexcusable. It's childish. It's the sort of thing that the industry and its consumers both need to outgrow.

Sorry if that got a bit rant-y, but I feel strongly about these things.
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.
 

Eddie the head

New member
Feb 22, 2012
2,327
0
0
TrevHead said:
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 said:
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.
 

Extra-Ordinary

Elite Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,065
0
41
Johnny Novgorod said:
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?
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
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.
 

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,782
0
0
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.