Dead Space 3: Awakened is Typical EA BS

Posted by Camoufrage (84 posts) -

llllllllll

#1 Edited by NTM (7321 posts) -

"But I could care less, go ahead and hate me for it."

I do hate you, you said "I could care less". Kidding, but really.

#2 Edited by crusader8463 (14419 posts) -

@ntm said:

"But I could care less, go ahead and hate me for it."

I do hate you, you said "I could care less". Kidding, but really.

So you are really kidding or you are not kidding? I think you just made the same mistake you are ragging on the guy for making.

#4 Posted by NTM (7321 posts) -

@ntm said:

"But I could care less, go ahead and hate me for it."

I do hate you, you said "I could care less". Kidding, but really.

So you are really kidding or you are not kidding? I think you just made the same mistake you are ragging on the guy for making.

I was kidding about hating him, but I was still faulting him because of the error.

#5 Posted by NTM (7321 posts) -

@camoufrage: I should also mention to you, I couldn't care less that you made the mistake, it doesn't bother me personally, I just like to correct people for the errors for their personal use in the future, 'cause I know people do care about these small things, whether that be the person writing it trying to get a point across, or those that do get annoyed by it.

#6 Posted by Raven10 (1763 posts) -

Just because it was announced beforehand I doubt it was ready beforehand. If that was the case why wouldn't they release it Day 1? Hard to say if it was cut and then added back later or was always planned as DLC. If the former then you wouldn't be playing it at all if it weren't for DLC and if the latter then there is nothing to complain about. I haven't played the game yet, but it's not like cliffhanger endings are some new thing. They have been going on for years and every Dead Space game has ended with them. The last game also had post-release DLC that continued the cliffhanger story if you recall. Not saying I wouldn't prefer if it was included in the game, but for whatever reason that wasn't possible or planned. Now you could say that EA should have just pushed the game back if part of the game wasn't ready, but the fact is every game has content cut from it before release. As a developer you try to do as much as you can in the time allotted. Eventually things get cut. In the past the things that got cut were either saved for a sequel or never released at all. Now the team can continue working on them after the fact. It's not great, but in some ways it is better than not being able to play that content at all, again assuming it wasn't planned as DLC from the start.

#8 Posted by Vinny_Says (5700 posts) -


If I could get away with ripping off everyone who bought my products I'd sure as hell do it aswell.

So....which is it? Either take it up the ass (because you would do the same to others) or shut up about it.

#9 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7074 posts) -

@vinny_says said:

@camoufrage said:

If I could get away with ripping off everyone who bought my products I'd sure as hell do it aswell.

So....which is it? Either take it up the ass (because you would do the same to others) or shut up about it.

Yeah this statement kind of destroys the entire argument. It says that, if you were in EAs position, you would do the exact same thing they are. Which...means you approve of their actions. Not to say I don't strongly dislike decisions EA has made with some of my favorite franchises this generation (I really, really do and have decided against buying EA games as a result) but you should probably remove that statement.

#10 Posted by Kazona (3063 posts) -

@raven10 said:

Just because it was announced beforehand I doubt it was ready beforehand. If that was the case why wouldn't they release it Day 1? Hard to say if it was cut and then added back later or was always planned as DLC. If the former then you wouldn't be playing it at all if it weren't for DLC and if the latter then there is nothing to complain about. I haven't played the game yet, but it's not like cliffhanger endings are some new thing. They have been going on for years and every Dead Space game has ended with them. The last game also had post-release DLC that continued the cliffhanger story if you recall. Not saying I wouldn't prefer if it was included in the game, but for whatever reason that wasn't possible or planned. Now you could say that EA should have just pushed the game back if part of the game wasn't ready, but the fact is every game has content cut from it before release. As a developer you try to do as much as you can in the time allotted. Eventually things get cut. In the past the things that got cut were either saved for a sequel or never released at all. Now the team can continue working on them after the fact. It's not great, but in some ways it is better than not being able to play that content at all, again assuming it wasn't planned as DLC from the start.

I would like to add that (from my understanding) production on the main game usually comes to an end several months before its release due to necessary certification, bug testing and whatnot. This means that content for the disc based product is locked in at that point and any ideas for additional content have to either be scrapped or developed as DLC.

Nowadays it would be foolish for a developer to scrap those ideas since they have the option of dlc. So what usually happens is while part of the dev team goes hunting for bugs, another group goes to work on making the DLC.

Now as I said, this can happen several months before the game's release, which is why it is, at times, possible for DLC to be released on day one or shortly after.

Now I'm not saying that it wouldn't leave a bad taste in my mouth if I were told I had to pay extra for a true ending, but in the case of Dead Space what I saw of the ending wasn't really a cliffhanger and you don't need the DLC to get a complete experience.

#11 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4672 posts) -

I played through awakened a few hours ago and I'm pretty sure that there was the original ending. Or at least the final cutscene is.

It's too bad ea has killed the dead space franchise though. I wouldn't have minded seeing what they did with the next one thematically.

#12 Edited by Raven10 (1763 posts) -

@raven10: I bet they had the general idea of what it was going to be about before they announced it. They had to have pitched it and been working on it by the time they showed it off, especially considering how fast it came.

Dead Space 2: Severed is about completely different characters and in no way continuing Isaac's story after the conclusion.

I would assume they came up with plans for DLC with the initial product pitch. That doesn't mean they were working on it the whole time or that it could have been included with the core game. Remember that a game spends a couple months getting certified and then another month being produced. Even for a rush job that can be done in six weeks the game has to be ready far in advance of the final release. So say two months plus the month or so since the game was released. Three months is a lot of time. It can be the difference between an early, highly unfinished version of the DLC and the polished, finished product.

At a company like EA DLC plans are part of every pitch. People mistakenly believe that if that DLC weren't sold that content would just end up in the core game. In reality it would likely just not get made. EA would not have delayed the game to get this content in it. They would have just cut it or never planned it in the first place. The only way this content was ever going to be released was as DLC.

#13 Edited by JoeyRavn (4962 posts) -

I was going to post something similar to this, since I've literally just finished this DLC, but I'll focus on what really annoys me. It's not the fact that EA, once again, put some vital piece of story behind a paid wall. It's not the fact that this DLC is $10 and barely hits the 2-hour mark. It's not the fact that it's, once again, too focused on combat (though it does try to put some horror elements in, as trivial as they may be). No, it's not anything like that.

The thing that annoys me the most is how big of a "fuck you" Visceral/EA gave to any kind of logic behind this DLC. Do you remember how Dead Space 3 ends? Isaac is seemingly killed during the final fight against the "necromoon", but, against all odds, he survives. How? Beats me. This DLC begins with him and Carter perfectly fine, waking up from a nap by an alarm clock. They toy with the idea of actually being dead for about half the DLC, but it's very clear from the ending of this DLC that they are, in fact, alive. How? Again, beats me.

This DLC is obviously meant to set up Dead Space 4, but we all know how that's going to turn up...

#14 Edited by MildMolasses (3218 posts) -

@joeyravn: By any chance was Cpl. Dwayne Hicks in that same room having a nap?

#15 Posted by Yummylee (21475 posts) -

Yep, this DLC continues to sound like complete meh to me. To carry it on with two of the most boring characters of the series is so disappointing. They could have used this as an opportunity to weave a little side-story, possibly starring a pair of Unitologists, or maybe fit in the next chapter of whatever the Hell is going on with Lexine. But then the Lexine thread in particular sounds like it's too grand a concept for a DLC pack that once again just reuses a lot of the same environments and stuff. A story set during the 200 year ago era could have been interesting too. Just... anything besides Isaac would have been preferable frankly.

#16 Edited by MildMolasses (3218 posts) -

@yummylee said:

Yep, this DLC continues to sound like complete meh to me. To carry it on with two of the most boring characters of the series is so disappointing. They could have used this as an opportunity to weave a little side-story, possibly starring a pair of Unitologists, or maybe fit in the next chapter of whatever the Hell is going on with Lexine. But then the Lexine thread in particular sounds like it's too grand a concept for a DLC pack that once again just reuses a lot of the same environments and stuff. A story set during the 200 year ago era could have been interesting too. Just... anything besides Isaac would have been preferable frankly.

I think an ideal follow-up would take place far away from the first 3 games, and involve people who have no idea what's going on.What made the original great was that no one knew what was happening, and Isaac was re-purposing mining tools to survive. All that gets thrown out the window when the main character is the "one" and goes on an ass kicking spree. It's the Alien to Aliens problem. Or rip off the Thing outright and have it be an isolated group of scientists somewhere. Just make the protagonist vulnerable somehow, instead of charging around shotgun blasting necromorphs with explosive acid shells

#17 Edited by Canteu (2821 posts) -

Protip: Don't buy games new at full price.

#18 Edited by Yummylee (21475 posts) -
@mildmolasses said:

@yummylee said:

Yep, this DLC continues to sound like complete meh to me. To carry it on with two of the most boring characters of the series is so disappointing. They could have used this as an opportunity to weave a little side-story, possibly starring a pair of Unitologists, or maybe fit in the next chapter of whatever the Hell is going on with Lexine. But then the Lexine thread in particular sounds like it's too grand a concept for a DLC pack that once again just reuses a lot of the same environments and stuff. A story set during the 200 year ago era could have been interesting too. Just... anything besides Isaac would have been preferable frankly.

I think an ideal follow-up would take place far away from the first 3 games, and involve people who have no idea what's going on.What made the original great was that no one knew what was happening, and Isaac was re-purposing mining tools to survive. All that gets thrown out the window when the main character is the "one" and goes on an ass kicking spree. It's the Alien to Aliens problem. Or rip off the Thing outright and have it be an isolated group of scientists somewhere. Just make the protagonist vulnerable somehow, instead of charging around shotgun blasting necromorphs with explosive acid shells

You're basically preaching to the choir here. That's exactly why the DS3 prologue was a little refreshing, because you've got this wet-behind-the-ears grunt, while is still a soldier, is also completely ignorant to necromorph threat. He's screaming just at the mere sight of them, and while it does end on a ridiculous set-pieces, the couple of minutes spent before that were great for the very reasons you listed.

I've always disliked what they did to Isaac from DS2 onward anyway, let alone the fact that they decided to make him the 'face' of the series for whatever reason. I'll never forget one of the early lines of dialogue in DS2, where Isaac responds to the tips on how to deal with the necromorphs with, ''Don't worry, I've had a lot of practise''. To go from some guy who's only method of communicating is by screaming in terror/pain, to some guy who's more than willing to make a sly remark about how many of these things he's already killed speaks to how different of a direction the series took from DS2 onward. And then you've got Dead Space 3, where some guy who's had a lot of practise is now another iteration of 'The Shepard'.

I don't think bringing back the same protagonists has to always necessarily be the case, though, that the game will always be unable to live up to how scary its hypothetical predecessor was. It's all about whether they can configure this same character to still manage to feel vulnerable under the circumstances; raise the stakes, introduce new threats and so forth. Jill Valentine was already experienced with how to deal with zombies, but she's still often outmatched in RE3... at least at the time. Naturally the PS1 Resident Evil games aren't particularly scary nowadays. Even still, you also look at a character like Helena Harper in RE6, who had zero experience with B.O.W. stuff before then, and yet was still able to kick as much zombie ass as Leon, because RE6 naturally was barely even trying to be a horror game. It's about still trying to keep your character feeling human; they may have the experience, but that doesn't necessarily mean s/he's going to be the ultimate badass. It's just Isaac is a particularly egregious example of how his character was nothing but detrimental to establishing a more unnerving atmosphere. Well, that and because like RE6, Dead Space 3 clearly wasn't developed with the intention of making a scary game in mind.

It's like how in Alien3 you've got Ripley, who's spent a good chunk of her later life dealing with xenomorphs. So to try and bring the series back to its horror roots, they decided to set her in an environment where's there no firearms. I really didn't care for Alien3 all that much mind you, but it was at the very least effective at switching the role of prey right back around to Ripley again. Obviously that's a more extreme example and that sort of change wouldn't be accepted by the masses with which Dead Space appeals to, but it's one way of looking at how they can still make a Veteran character feel vulnerable by changing the rules. Though I should note that I personally would love the idea of a Dead Space game that slims down on the combat. For as finely tuned as the combat is, it's never really been very high on the list of reasons why I especially enjoyed the first one.

#19 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

Hey, maybe stop supporting business practices you don't approve of, guys. It's not like it's a surprise that EA is still acting like EA here.

#22 Edited by big_jon (5723 posts) -

I am pretty mixed on Dead Space 3, love the first two, like the third but don't love it, if the DLC is in the vain of the first two I will pick it up, but that does not mean I will get whatever is next out of Dead Space if it is another misstep.

But really I like the universe enough to want more from it in terms of DLC, so who are you to judge me for playing, or buying what I want to play or buy?

I am displeased with how EA has been handling its franchises though, that will affect my future purchasing decisions.

#24 Posted by EXTomar (4641 posts) -

Wanting additional content from a game you like is fine. What is worrisome is they are carving up content that seems essential instead of supplemental. That is not "value add".

#25 Posted by Voxus (332 posts) -

From what I understand, DS3 did pretty well in sales along with the microtransaction stuff. Granted, I didn't buy any of that, like most sane people, but people love a witch hunt.

PS: After Awakening, I'm kind of pumped for another Dead Space game. My dream of fighting the moon is finally coming true!

#27 Posted by adeadspacefan (1 posts) -

i have a couple of things, first off, yes. EA was an asshole for selling "the real ending" in DLC. i would be less pissed if the DLC wasnt announced BEFORE THE GAME CAME OUT. but seriously, calling this DLC comeplete bullshit before it even came out/you played it, is simply unfair. i have played DS3: awakened and it was good. i simply dont understand everybody hating on DS3, it was a good game. it had a few scary moments, and was an overall OK game. not as good as the first two, but try comparing Halo 4 to halo 1, it will never be as good.

#28 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

I didn't play Dead Space 3 yet, but if the original game had a proper ending, how's a narrative continuation such a bad thing? It just adds more story after the ending. For those of us who want more Dead Space.

#29 Edited by ProfessorEss (7309 posts) -

The title would be a little more accurate if you replaced "EA" with "videogame industry".

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.