Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynk Former
@ igy: I've never seen Dead Space has a horror franchise considering it was based off of Resident Evil 4. I've always seen it as a tense action shooter that had you thinking about item use and conservation for the most part and what vantage points, tactics and weapons you can use in your environment to give you an upper-hand.
|
I suppose that's one way to look at this game series. Personally, when I see predominantly dark areas with huge bloodstains all over, strange noises, flickering lights, corpses whose demise can only be speculated on based off old text and audio logs and, of course, undead monsters trying to kill you, I associate it with a horror atmosphere. Whether or not it manages to freak me out is a different matter.
Also, I just have to ask - what in the seven hells is an action shooter!? When did this term become the norm for regular shooters and "shooter" the norm for cover-based shooters!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynk Former
Originality: There's a lot that's original about the game, but people don't tend to want originality, they want the first game reworked over and over which is why most people tend to be disappointed by Dead Space 2 and 3. I almost feel as if fans seem to want developers to cut out the story entirely and just have a game that randomises the original haunted house in infinite combinations so they can just play through that over and over.
|
I don't really remember questioning this game's originality, but I do agree with what you said. People sometimes claim to want originality in games and game sequels, but when something original is attempted, they bash it for ruining a beloved series. I'd say it simply proves most "gamers" have no idea what they really want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynk Former
Now for the spoiler stuff...
Unitologists: Danick leads a sect of the Unitologists, The Circle, that gained power. His belief is that the Markers created by the government were twisted by them in some way and tainted. He was a believer in the source of the Markers but he didn't represent the whole unified view the Unitologists held. They were the radical fanatics, which is pretty out there considering what Unitologists are like normally...
In Dead Space, it was the first time Unitologists had encountered a Marker since the birth of the religion at the discovery for the Black Marker on Earth. In Dead Space 2 it was a different group of Unitologists, not the Circle, who wanted to capture Isaac.
|
I'll grant you that, but I don't remember it being mentioned anywhere in the game that this is a particular sect of Unitology. Is this something from some tie-in comic book, or novel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynk Former
As for the ending...
Mass Effect 3, Assassin's Creed III, Dead Space 3, all where the main character (seemingly) dies. The difference I see between these three games is that I was actually satisfied with the way it was done with Dead Space since, unlike the other two games, Isaac has suffered greatly in so many ways and is a broken man trying to do what little he can with the fragments he has left. While the main characters of ME3 and AC3 fell from their pedestals, Isaac rose up to do what needed to be done which made his death or supposed death to be... not a bad thing.
|
Definitely agree with you on that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynk Former
As for the post-credits transmission... I'm willing for more Dead Space, and Visceral has pointed out that the end of Dead Space 3 isn't THE END.
|
Well...
Since Isaac is apparently alive (I still don't understand how), I'm thinking it might be interesting to explore a story of Isaac, now all alone trying to survive and get off the hostile ice planet. It might be a good opportunity to re-explore Isaac's mental state with appearances from characters like Carver, Ellie and perhaps even Nicole - not terribly original, I know, but imagine if, for example, Carver appears throughout the whole of DS4 and in the end it turns out Isaac has been imagining him and the real Carver died at the end of DS3. The tricky part would be directing the story so the player never suspects certain characters to be hallucinations until they are meant to be revealed as such.
By the way, is anyone else baffled by this apparent obsession with trilogies in the video game industry? I especially tend to get in a "head-desking" mood when I hear things like "it will conclude this story arc/this trilogy, but not the series". Well, if it's not the end of the series, why divide it into trilogies in the first place? Why not do what, for example, Resident Evil, or Splinter Cell does and make each sequel a mostly self-contained story? That way the game series could be milked to infinity and beyond with zero complaints from the consumers. If you're making a trilogy, have the balls to actually finish the series with the third part, otherwise it's not really a trilogy, is it?