Dead Space 3 Catch-All

He doesn't look very necromorphy to me.

Oh. Unless it's that crawling skull monster that tears off Isaac's head and then grafts itself onto his body. Maybe they decided to let them do that to other survivors. I can dig it.

Co-op. Eh. It's just not scary for me. We're getting into that "player agency altering the story" stuff from the endless film vs. game argument. More players means more agency means less opportunity for game immersion. (Another word overused in the context of game experience. I had a better phrase but I can't remember it now.)

I hope to be surprised but right now I'm non-plussed. Especially because instead of Ellie it's another hapless engineer guy. If I'm going to co-op I would appreciate the chance to do it with a character who can make up for Sheva Alomar in RE5.

All the same, I'm getting it.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Is that first pic a necromorph with a gun? Looks like an enemy from Doom.

I really hope they don't start equipping necro's with guns. The whole thrill of the first one was that they are completely void of advanced thought and just want to kill.

Technically a "graphic novel short" and not a trailer. I hope so, because it looks terrible.

Ahh...I had heard about that 'motion comic'. Looks like it's similar to the one they put out for Dead Space where it detailed the outbreak on the planet surface just before the Ishimura arrived.

This neogaf post (via reddit) has a bunch of DS3 features. There's some changes in there that might be a bit controversial.

I'm just going to wait for the inevitable preview at E3.

I'm gonna be honest, a lot of the new monsters in the second game were devoid of the sort of clever design from the first game. Each creature in the first can be handled in different manners, and you can even get screwed over aiming incorrectly. About the one monster with the least inspiration was The Slender Man. Otherwise, each creature was designed with how you'd dismember it in mind, and that made for some interesting conflicts.

They sped the scorpion guy up in DS2, making him a son of a bitch to hit, and then the other creatures it seemed dismemberment was an after thought, or they did the same thing as current foes (explosive babies = smaller but easier target than the guys with an explosive for a club-hand).

So if they go more action-oriented in number three, it honestly wouldn't surprise me. And considering the high scores Dead Space 2 got, and a lot of people claiming it was better than the first, well, also not surprising. I think DS2 was a trade-off, where it did some things better and others worse, so it stands on an even scale with the first Dead Space. But if DS3 ends up being more bland or generic, or just missing out on what made the first game great (especially since the creators left after DS1), well, wouldn't surprise me.

ccesarano wrote:

stuff

I think I agree. DS2 was certainly different to DS1, and in some respects that's welcome, but I think you can go too far away from the origin point that it becomes something else with a different identity.

One line I'm thinking along is how the aiming/shooting is a bit clumsy/slow, but that seems to fit the game it is, or at least DS1/2. I can see that the game might be greatly improved by making major changes, such as the fairly predictable trigger points, and that might set off a whole lot of other changes, but my feeling is that you need to distinguish that changed game from the series they're currently doing, like for example the Wii version.

Scratched wrote:

This neogaf post (via reddit) has a bunch of DS3 features. There's some changes in there that might be a bit controversial.

Campaign coop is almost never a bad thing, in my opinion. As long as this Carver felllow isn't some dude-bro reject from Gears of War, I think it could be really cool. What I don't like is the inclusion of cover and universal ammo. Cover-based combat just seems like it'll turn Dead Space into every other shooter out there, and the universal ammo (with more frequent drops, to boot) just seems unnecessary.

Never in all my Dead Space adventures have I thought, "man, this corridor could totally use some waist-high walls".

Thinking about the cover shooter aspect, one of the things I liked was that Isaac wasn't trying to be smart or 'helpful' for me and sticking to every single object he could while I'm trying to navigate the environment. The fact that they feel it's needed makes me wonder about the enemies you'll be facing, as it wouldn't have been too advantageous in DS1/2, and going up against human or human-like opponents with guns doesn't appeal to me in a game like DS.

Nicholaas wrote:
Scratched wrote:

This neogaf post (via reddit) has a bunch of DS3 features. There's some changes in there that might be a bit controversial.

Campaign coop is almost never a bad thing, in my opinion. As long as this Carver felllow isn't some dude-bro reject from Gears of War, I think it could be really cool. What I don't like is the inclusion of cover and universal ammo. Cover-based combat just seems like it'll turn Dead Space into every other shooter out there, and the universal ammo (with more frequent drops, to boot) just seems unnecessary.

Never in all my Dead Space adventures have I thought, "man, this corridor could totally use some waist-high walls". ;)

Scratched wrote:

Thinking about the cover shooter aspect, one of the things I liked was that Isaac wasn't trying to be smart or 'helpful' for me and sticking to every single object he could while I'm trying to navigate the environment. The fact that they feel it's needed makes me wonder about the enemies you'll be facing, as it wouldn't have been too advantageous in DS1/2, and going up against human or human-like opponents with guns doesn't appeal to me in a game like DS.

You guys just made me so, so, so depressed...

ccesarano wrote:

You guys just made me so, so, so depressed...

I hope it turns out well. They may just be experimenting to provide something fresh with each game. And that could be good. How much would we appreciate it if we stuck with the same formula every campaign? It would have very stale already.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

I hope it turns out well. They may just be experimenting to provide something fresh with each game. And that could be good. How much would we appreciate it if we stuck with the same formula every campaign? It would have very stale already.

That's along the lines I'm pondering, there's keeping something fresh, and making something different with a borrowed name. I liked DS1 and DS2, and they're very similar games, I didn't feel like DS2 was 'stale' because they kept it interesting to me with the new story and new environments they took me through.

I understand wanting to keep things fresh, but the way I look at it, Super Mario Bros. and Legend of Zelda don't need to reinvent themselves to remain fresh (as much as some folks think they do). The games are still fun, yet Nintendo is able to switch up certain elements to keep each experience different.

You don't need to reinvent Dead Space to keep it fresh.

ccesarano wrote:

You don't need to reinvent Dead Space to keep it fresh.

That is true. And I hope they haven't changed it too much. At least we had a good run with DS1 and 2.

ZaneRockfist wrote:
ccesarano wrote:

You don't need to reinvent Dead Space to keep it fresh.

That is true. And I hope they haven't changed it too much. At least we had a good run with DS1 and 2.

The thing is, a DS3 that is different doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad game, but I think that's cold comfort for people who buy a game that pretty much self describes itself as the third entry of the main-line of Dead Space games and they get something that's different to the earlier entries in that series.

That, to me, is the big problem when companies just slap an recognised brand name on a new and different game, because they don't have the confidence in that new game to distinguish it, even with a subtitle in some cases.

Well, it's a bit early for doom & gloom for my tastes. Waiting to see footage/official announcements.

Has there been any talk of a release window?

CptGlanton wrote:

Has there been any talk of a release window?

Latest update on the neogaf thread says February 2013.

nel e nel wrote:

Well, it's a bit early for doom & gloom for my tastes. Waiting to see footage/official announcements.

This is the lesson I learned from DS2. Also that these guys know what they're doing. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, no matter how bad it sounds.

I love Visceral and trust them to make good games.

However, I can't say I'm excited about any of the changes mentioned for this game, which wasn't the case with Dead Space 2.

Official trailer:

One thing I'll say regarding Lobster's comments in the other (EA E3 show?) thread about the lack of limb shooting is that it is a very fast cut trailer showing action all the time. I don't think I'll be paying anything close to full price for this one though.

The other thing watching that is I can't help reminding myself of Lost Planet.

Classic...

We moan about the endless sequels non-stop.. but yet in our sequels we want nothing more but the exact same game just more of it. So if I follow correctly..

1. Give us new IP's
2. But when we "like" a new IP, then spoon feed us the exact same game over and over until we are bored.
3. Bitch about #2 or lack of #1

TheGameguru wrote:

Classic...

We moan about the endless sequels non-stop.. but yet in our sequels we want nothing more but the exact same game just more of it. So if I follow correctly..

1. Give us new IP's
2. But when we "like" a new IP, then spoon feed us the exact same game over and over until we are bored.
3. Bitch about #2 or lack of #1

Do you not get why people have concerns? It looks like a totally different game, not one that has evolved and refined from the last iteration.

Isaac does a roadie run and then a roll to dodge an attack - does that not strike you as incongruous from the last two games?

Gameguru talking down to the community as though he were the only one who truly understood the industry? Classic...

SallyNasty wrote:

Gameguru talking down to the community as though he were the only one who truly understood the industry? Classic...

It's not so much the talking down that puzzles me, so much as I wonder what he hoped to achieve with that comment. This is a discussion forum, so we discuss our thoughts about things, not just a collection of games news and cheerleading for everything. If anything people bothering to post criticism of what they see or play can be a good (or not bad) thing for a company as it means they're still at least paying attention instead of walking away.

SallyNasty wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

Classic...

We moan about the endless sequels non-stop.. but yet in our sequels we want nothing more but the exact same game just more of it. So if I follow correctly..

1. Give us new IP's
2. But when we "like" a new IP, then spoon feed us the exact same game over and over until we are bored.
3. Bitch about #2 or lack of #1

Do you not get why people have concerns? It looks like a totally different game, not one that has evolved and refined from the last iteration.

Isaac does a roadie run and then a roll to dodge an attack - does that not strike you as incongruous from the last two games?

Gameguru talking down to the community as though he were the only one who truly understood the industry? Classic...

Thank you for exactly and perfectly expressing my point..

Besides its got nothing to do with the my understanding of the industry...why would it since its very basic..it's all about the money.

It pretty much answers every question you may have about "why" things are done.

Maybe I didn't make my point well. I wanted a sequel that was more of the same - I don't want a new IP. I want more dead space action in the dead space universe - not Gears of Dead Space. People who have supported the IP shouldn't bitch when the industry forces an unexpected change? We should just buy whatever they give us and say "well, it is our own damn fault?"

I get why you bitch about gamers - honestly so many times gamers are either huge internet assholes, hiding behind anonymity, or are acting like entitled children - often at the same time.

Why can't both 1. and 2. be true? I do want more IPs - but I want innovation in the new IP. When I like an IP - keep giving me what I like in that IP. I don't want to fight a space marine in Assassin's Creed - I want to sneak and stab in a psuedo-mystical setting. Would I be wrong if the new AC game gave you a sniper rifle and a hovercraft?

Spoiler:

In fairness, that universe leaves a lot of room for weirdness so Ubi could probably pull that off in a way that would fit with the lore.

I would hazard that Nintendo has been so successful with their core franchise by innovating on them constantly and keeping them true to some of the core values..

I think that's a much longer and sustainable model for continuing to offer gamers that love X game for years..

I understand your point...I would be Giddy if someone gave me Deus Ex with better graphics. But at the same time I recognize that over time that model isn't sustainable in fact it's self defeating.

Besides...that clip might not show enough of the game to be reflective of all aspects.

SallyNasty wrote:

not Gears of Dead Space.

I'm with you, Sally. That was my exact though when watching the conference demo yesterday. Gears of War is fine, but there are already 15 other games doing that kind of thing. I don't want roadie run, dodge rolling, and unloading assault rifle rounds into random enemy #126's chest and head. I want slower paced combat, strategic dismemberment, creepy atmosphere, and ammo scarcity.

"More of the same" Dead Space is still pretty damn unique in the gaming world. It's most definitely preferable to the Gears of Dead Space, potty mouth demo they showed on stage yesterday.

I honestly dislike the term "innovation", because it isn't something you can force.

That said, I don't mind changes, as long as they keep in spirit with the franchise. If Resident Evil 4 had a lot more puzzles then I'd have been a lot happier with it (even though it is one of my favorite games of all time). Now Resident Evil is no horror and all action.

Dead Space started out feeling different. It had similar gameplay to Resident Evil 4 and 5, but managed to do something different with the gravity and the limb-severing mechanics. Not to mention they pulled off cool stuff like large tentacles grabbing you and making you feel disoriented. Dead Space 2 improved on a number of things, such as the no-gravity gameplay and offering up more cinematics without forcing them to be quick time events or cut-scenes but remaining interactive. A lot of new and interesting puzzles to get the player's mind bending. The gameplay saw enough improvements while retaining what we all loved (even if some of the new monsters felt like they completely missed the point of the original game's design).

The trailer at EA's press conference? That has taken away everything that makes Dead Space unique with a handful of exceptions. What I saw was turning Dead Space into a clone of what is already out there.

That is incredibly depressing. Five years ago EA started to take a chance on new franchises, with Dead Space pretty much being the only successful one. Now, they're taking their one new franchise that actually sold well and changing it so....they can sell even more? But to who?

It's like the games industry has no clue that there are gamers wanting something other than cover-based shooters, people that will spend money on sh*t that's different. Sure, it may not be Call of Duty numbers, but Jesus.

It still boggles me that, in 2006, Capcom celebrated selling 500,000 copies of Dead Rising in what...one week? They saw the game as a success. Now, if you don't sell over a million in the first week you're a disappointment.