With the fall of survival horror standbys like Resident Evil and Silent Hill seen this generation, Dead Space remained as one of the few success stories that consistently delivered the scares. However, when Dead Space 3 appeared to be a bit action-heavy, fans became worried that EA was dumbing down a beloved franchise. After playing through the recently released demo, though, Gamers Association editor Luke Frazier is here to let us know why this new direction isn't automatically a bad thing.
If EA and Motive Studio plan on remaking all the main Dead Space entries, they have to change a lot of what made Dead Space 3 so divisive.
Simple, do not bother with a Dead Space 3 remake. Rather have a new entry for Dead Space.
Yeah I agree. Make a dead space 3, but have an original story/setting. They’ve proven they can do the game justice, and I think they could evolve 2 in a good direction, keeping a similar tone. I’d love s Dead Space 2 and 3 though. The remake was fantastic. Top tier remake, up there with RE2.
Remaking 3 would need to be a reworked and somewhat changed remake as 3 was flawed in most peoples eyes and the worst entry.
WTMG's Kyle Nicol:
"Was Dead Space 3 really that bad?
Well, it’s a complicated question. Dead Space 3 is undeniably the weakest of the trilogy. It’s a game that deviates so far from the original formula, that it throws a lot of what made Dead Space special in the first place out of the window. Although, where it does make up for it is one of the best cooperative shooters on the market, even after all this time. Do I recommend playing this game ten years later? Hell yes. But make sure your expectations are in the right place. It has a lot of problems that bring it down."
With the upcoming Dead Space Remake, we replay and rank the original three games.
Dead Space
Dead Space 2
The Callisto Protocol
...
...uhm...
...
...Lost Planet 3?
They need to seriously continue this ip with a new entry. Even if it's just another movie I don't care I love everything about this game.
Having only played Dead Space 2, and having been following updates on DS3, I feel a serious sympathy for longtime fans of the series. What drew me into the franchise in the first place were reviews noting its incredibly subtle and expertly crafted 'atmosphere', which was undeniably creepy to the bone. What drew me into it was actually a curiosity of the survival horror genre. I did not buy it to play an action game - there are hundreds of those.
This franchise catered to a genre that seemed lacking this generation, and it was considered fresh because it stayed true to that genre where other franchises strayed.
Their wish to cater to people that don't normally feel attracted to horror doesn't seem to me a proper evolution of a franchise that actually reinvigorated the genre.
And you know what? I'm not a big horror genre fan because it scares me like crazy. So I do tend to avoid it. However, I was glad to know that when I was curious and wanted to delve into it just once, there was a franchise that mastered it beautifully. So is what I hear of the original Dead Space, and what I experienced in Dead Space 2.
Hearing this sort of opinion piece. in my mind. is disconcerning. That is not a 'cry', but rather a legitimate concern for the apparent movement to woo the casual crowd. It will not benefit, in my opinion, to prove your franchise to be that fickle.
I'll hold my final judgement for the final copy, and certainly comment again...
I think this person is in for a rude awakening if they wind up playing the full game.
After viewing (singleplayer) gameplay from the first 5 or so chapters of the game, the only new changes seem to be that the majority of the game is set on a planet rather than in space, and there is one chapter where you fight a few gun toting enemies, otherwise it seems nearly identical to Dead Space 2 in terms of how much action and scares there are. Although Dead Space 2 wasn't quite as creepy as its predecessor, in my opinion it was still a great game, and I think most of us will manage to enjoy Dead Space 3 as well so long as we don't go into it in a state of rage over the completely optional microtransactions, DLC weapon and suit packs, and with the preconceived notion that "the ending is going to suck because this is EA."
I think it is worth noting that it has been said by the developers that the amount of ammo and health packs in the demo was increased for the demo and they should not be so plentiful in the full game. Also, from watching videos on youtube uploaded by lucky people of whom I am jealous already have the game in their possession, without spoiling anything I will just say that a good piece of what you did in the demo is actually different in the full game.
Lol. So this guy's argument is that, because he gets scared easily, he thinks the more action-oriented approach and dumbing down of survival-horror aspects in Dead Space 3 (and pretty much every other game daring to call itself survival horror nowadays) is a good thing?
Thank god there's still games like Amnesia and Slender.
my negatives are
- more action less horror
- 11 dlc on release
and EA
I love horror, I love getting the crap scared out of me, its how I was raised. Its what attracted me to DS and DS 2, I actually got a kick out of the commercials "Your mom hates this (DS2) game"<something like that.
The first 2 games focused on nothing but horror.
So yeah, when I hear co-op, endless customization (like we don't have enough of that),micro transactions, day one DLC and more action oriented sequences....I have but one thing to say. WHY EA...why couldn't you leave our Dead Space alone.
But all is not lost, I'll hold my final judgement for when I play it...just not sure when.
Just have to remind myself to go into it with an open mind.