Support NeoGAF

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Whether you enjoy Dead Space 3 regardless of the changes in the franchise is obviously a subjective thing, but anyone claiming there hasn't been a real shift in focus from the original to its present incarnation either has a terrible memory or lack of analytical insight. You always shot at necromorphs is such a superficial and flimsy response to complaints about the balance of gameplay and story elements it hardly deserves a response. A lot of us "haters" were drawn to the series because of the thoughtful structure and relative restraint of the presentation in the first game.

Although more reasoned arguments could probably be made for the merits of the sequels as something different it doesn't negate the fact that most of the changes, more fluid mechanics aside, are a dumbing down of the original formula in favor of a more status quo approach that borrows from the same old list of features we've gotten from the majority of blockbuster shooters throughout the generation. I don't see a lot of thoughtful intelligent arguments coming from the people taking up the game's defence though. If the current attitude towards criticism is anything to go by they'd swallow anything they're given short of a complete and abject mess. I often hear it posed that disliking the direction the franchise has moved in means you're just a crotchety bastard who will rail unfairly against anything just because. I'd flip that line of attack on its head and propose that maybe some people just don't give the first game due credit for how good it really was, or recognize the easily identifiable design choices that elevated it to cult status in a generation where technically competent shooters are a dime a dozen. But hey, maybe I'm just crazy and resource management, pacing, enemy patterns, persistent interactivity, strategic emphasis, narrative focus, suspense and atmosphere building are all incidental as long as pew pew pew and ZOMG sci fi!

 

[nel e nel]

They may or they may not is irrelevant. A game that advertises itself as SP game has no right of expecting player to play MP to see all of the storylines. Isn't Carver part of the SP game? Yes. Do you know what his background story is about without playing the MP? NO.

I dunno, maybe we were playing two different games, or the impact of Carver's presence was felt differently. Most of the time Carver would just appear out of nowhere as if he had been at my side the entire time, so it felt a bit jarring. There were times when I was playing co-op that the exact dame dialogue prompts would play, but they made less sense in a co-op context.

Since you haven't played the co-op, you wouldn't know, but they don't really go into detail about his background. You pretty much get all of it from his lines in the single player:

Spoiler

he's a soldier, he had a wife and kid, and he had to put them down.

So, no, playing the co-op doesn't reveal much of anything about his background story.

If you want his REAL backstory, you have to read that graphic novel they released the same day the game came out. Now, if you want to talk about having to buy books and comics and mobile games in order to understand what's going on in the game, I can get behind that. But that's a different topic.

They never advertised it as solely single player or co-op. They always said it could be enjoyed both ways, and in my experience playing it extensively the past two weeks, I would say that was a fair statement.

 

[nel e nel]

Whether you enjoy Dead Space 3 regardless of the changes in the franchise is obviously a subjective thing, but anyone claiming there hasn't been a real shift in focus from the original to its present incarnation either has a terrible memory or lack of analytical insight. You always shot at necromorphs is such a superficial and flimsy response to complaints about the balance of gameplay and story elements it hardly deserves a response. A lot of us "haters" were drawn to the series because of the thoughtful structure and relative restraint of the presentation in the first game.

Although more reasoned arguments could probably be made for the merits of the sequels as something different it doesn't negate the fact that most of the changes, more fluid mechanics aside, are a dumbing down of the original formula in favor of a more status quo approach that borrows from the same old list of features we've gotten from the majority of blockbuster shooters throughout the generation. I don't see a lot of thoughtful intelligent arguments coming from the people taking up the game's defence though. If the current attitude towards criticism is anything to go by they'd swallow anything they're given short of a complete and abject mess. I often hear it posed that disliking the direction the franchise has moved in means you're just a crotchety bastard who will rail unfairly against anything just because. I'd flip that line of attack on its head and propose that maybe some people just don't give the first game due credit for how good it really was, or recognize the easily identifiable design choices that elevated it to cult status in a generation where technically competent shooters are a dime a dozen. But hey, maybe I'm just crazy and resource management, pacing, enemy patterns, persistent interactivity, strategic emphasis, narrative focus, suspense and atmosphere building are all incidental as long as pew pew pew and ZOMG sci fi!

I don't think it's fair to be reductive of people you don't agree with. There have been plenty of reasoned arguments by people who have enjoyed the entire series in all the DS3 threads. Look at the OT.

Personally, the more action oriented focus of the sequels - something I'm not disagreeing with - makes sense when taken in context of Isaac's story arc. He's a wanted man; he's blown up a marker research site on a previously prohibited planet, and destroyed Earth's first - and possibly largest - space station colony, which also happened to contain an EarthGov marker research center. Not only that, he wants to destroy the sacred relics of the Unitologists, a vast and powerful religion with fingers in every sector of society. So yeah, he's gonna have a bunch of humans who want his ass dead.

The thoughtful structure and pacing is still there; regardless of the expanded cinematics and voice acting, the core Dead Space experience is still intact. There are still long stretches of Isaac on his own with little to no enemies attacking him, punctuated by 'set-piece' sequences that require him to kill a few enemies while navigating some sort of environmental hazard/puzzle. And while the movement has been sped up just enough to be perceptible, it was always miles ahead of Resident Evil where one couldn't walk and shoot at the same time.

Do they throw a larger number of more aggressive enemies at you? Yep, but I was also crafting god-mode weapons at the bench almost from the get-go, and the environments weren't as cramped or linear as the Ishimura or the Sprawl. I'm not an Arthur Gies acolyte, but I do agree with his assessment that the change in enemy AI was probably done to compensate for the powerfulness of the the weapon crafting.

The strategy is still there too. Lots of folks have complained that necros just 'fall apart with a few body shots', but still complain about getting swarmed. Well, I can tell you with assurity that shooting necros in the legs is as important now as it was in the previous games. It's the only way to stun them and prevent them from charging you, thus preventing you from getting swarmed. Do they seem to fall apart easier? A bit, but I'd counter that with the fact that we're dealing mostly with 200 year old bodies that have been emaciated, frozen, and exsanguinated, so they are going to be dry and crusty, not moist and gooey.

What about the psychological elements? The horror, the insanity? Well, most horror is built on Fear Of The Unknown. After 3 console games, an iOS game, an XBLA/PSN game, 2 movies, multiple books and graphic novels, there's not much we don't know about the marker and necromorphs. So what is there to be scared about? Isaac (mostly) broke the psychological hold the markers had on him in DS2, so now he's just a shell of his former self, a man broken by hallucinations and forced involvement in horrific situations. He's not seeing shit anymore, he doesn't want to be involved. He's paid his dues, guy just wants to be left the fuck alone.

Now, if you don't like it, fine, I have no bone to pick with anyone who didn't. But I don't think it's fair to say that no one has given no explanation as to why they like the game.

 

[LostVector]

The shift in tone of Dead Space 3 is obvious from the moment you load the game. Instead of quiet, ambient humming and electronic beeps, you are greeted with a dramatic orchestral score straight out of an action movie. Not a good sign. Also, when those first necromorphs ran at me like Usain Bolt and my stasis slowed them down for about half a second (playing on impossible) I realized this was going to turn into a spray and pray game.

The weapon crafting is interesting, but it really dilutes the tension of being resource constrained and "making do with what you've got".

 

[nel e nel]

The shift in tone of Dead Space 3 is obvious from the moment you load the game. Instead of quiet, ambient humming and electronic beeps, you are greeted with a dramatic orchestral score straight out of an action movie. Not a good sign. Also, when those first necromorphs ran at me like Usain Bolt and my stasis slowed them down for about half a second (playing on impossible) I realized this was going to turn into a spray and pray game.

This isn't a very strong argument seeing as one's stasis isn't even upgraded yet the first time you see necromorphs. You gotta make do with what you got, right?

And the necros charged in the previous games, the main difference is in the delay between when they appear and when they start to charge. I'd argue that the tension shifts from resource management to "holy hell, these guys are tough, can I deal with them?" I was still tense on my playthrough (solo, also on Impossible), but it stemmed from a different source. Not to mention that almost every encounter drained most of my resources, leaving me wondering if I was going to make it to the next bench before I ran out.

I agree that the change in the music definitely changes the tone, but I disagree that it's for the worse. It's actually more varied thematically, and evokes a wider range of emotions. At least for me it did.

 

[Ushae]

Fuck EA, why don't they just get it and allow developers the creative freedom they want. God I really hate these guys, gutting every dev studio they come into contact with.

 

[EMT0]

Fuck EA, why don't they just get it and allow developers the creative freedom they want. God I really hate these guys, gutting every dev studio they come into contact with.

Did you read the first post?

 

[LostVector]

This isn't a very strong argument seeing as one's stasis isn't even upgraded yet the first time you see necromorphs. You gotta make do with what you got, right?

And the necros charged in the previous games, the main difference is in the delay between when they appear and when they start to charge. I'd argue that the tension shifts from resource management to "holy hell, these guys are tough, can I deal with them?" I was still tense on my playthrough (solo, also on Impossible), but it stemmed from a different source. Not to mention that almost every encounter drained most of my resources, leaving me wondering if I was going to make it to the next bench before I ran out.

I agree that the change in the music definitely changes the tone, but I disagree that it's for the worse. It's actually more varied thematically, and evokes a wider range of emotions. At least for me it did.

Not really. Stasis in the first game was a ammo conservation mechanic and effective, but needed to be used intelligently and often because ammo was so scarce on impossible.

In Dead Space 3, the enemies move so quickly that you can't slow one or two down effectively because they still keep coming and even slice or kill you while they are in stasis anyway (which is beyond dumb). Especially in the early parts of the game, this removes much incentive to use stasis to conserve or replace ammo, which is key to a survival horror game, and instead turns the game into a straight shooter.

Yes the tension shifts to "these guys are tough", but that can be said of any shooter and should not be the core mechanic of a game like Dead Space, which is more survival or horror. You don't have time to think or appreciate. The combat for a game like this should be slower paced while maintaining a similar degree of difficulty, and should not rely on straight shooter mechanics.

Horror movies don't have the soundtrack that Dead Space 3 does. Action games do. We'll have to disagree on that one. I think it damages the integrity of the series and strongly points to the overall team choosing to corrupt the original thematic elements for mainstream appeal.