Dead Space games were too scary, which is why DS3 has co-op (EA)

  • 138 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Edited by FateOfNever (1826 posts) -

@Brendan said:

@FateOfNever said:

@NTM: So you have absolutely nothing to say to counter my points? Never mind that I already covered your rebuttal in my post by stating that concessions already had to be made to the game to make it something that is both playable as single player and co-op while offering the same story and experience. And that my point was about why people would be skeptical of being told that "we added co-op to sell more copies and for there to be a not-scary optional way to play the game."

But I guess that's what I get for trying to hold a discussion with someone that resorts to insulting people in their very first post in a topic.

All of your points were assumptions and none could hold water under light scrutiny. What's you first one...the game will either still be too scary or it will have to be changed, and because coop simply won't change anything? There is no middle ground? Just not possible for you to imagine in your brain, that playing the same experience with your friend will make something less scary? No, it simply won't, and that's a fact, therefore the points by the EA marketing spokesperson must be wrong, because you know.

Yeah, talking to you would be a real discussion, I bet.

So you pick one thing to go after and ignore the rest? By golly. Let's see how a discussion would work anyway.

You say that I believe in only two possible outcomes for how the horror factor works. And yes, I did only give two possible options because those are the two most likely outcomes. It is possible it will be less scary, but still scary enough. But what's 'scary enough'? And does it offer drastically enough of a difference between just watching someone else play the game? And what if you're playing the game with someone who is equally terrified of playing a horror game to the point of being completely unable to play it alone? I think there are too many variables to simply say that "adding co-op will fix all horror problems for all people interested in a scary game but that don't actually like being scared by scary games." Adding co-op won't magically make everyone that was too scared by the game, but still somewhat interested in the game, be totally ok with the level of horror in the game alone if you leave the horror level completely untouched. Not because it won't make it not scary enough for them or it will remain to scary, but because some segment of those people will simply have already moved on and just accepted that it's not a series for them. I even said it's entirely possible that they can pull it off later on and that it's possible that the horror level of the game will remain intact while the co-op works for the people that want a less scary experience. But if you're completely incapable of seeing why people are worried about news like this, especially after the already rocky reception to the E3 trailer/demo, then you're not trying very hard to see why people are concerned.

#52 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

Hey guys, apparently everyone likes our game because it's so scary...but market research shows us that the game is actually scary, and I don't like being scared. Therefore, we are going to make the game less scary...you know...because I said so.

#53 Posted by SockemJetpack (408 posts) -

Seems to be the aim of the big publishers is to try and appeal to a broader audience with sequels since they already have a loyal following from the first game. They know these people that helped make their game successful will buy whatever else they put out regardless of how homogenized and safe they make it. The only solution is to not reward this type of behavior.

It would be interesting to see just how much this new game would sell if the majority of the people who played the first two don't buy this one. I couldn't blame them. It's clearly not the same series anymore.

#54 Edited by believer258 (11775 posts) -
We were hearing feedback that they love the thriller game, but it was pretty scary, and the obvious next step was that they wanted to play with someone. So we introduced co-op into the game

I'm dumbfounded in the face of such stupidity. They might as well just come out and say "We want a broader audience and more money"; right now, that sentence is just one huge contradiction.

Note that I'm still not calling the game anything close to "bad" until it comes out, but things still don't really look all that great.

#55 Posted by Vashyron (199 posts) -

I never really found the Dead Space series to be THAT scary. I mean, sure, the first half hour - hour is scary cause you don't really have an idea of what's going on or what you are going to be dealing with per se, but after awhile, it stopped being scary because you knew that you are going to be facing Necromorphs again and that they are going to be coming from the vents and you know how to kill them. So, I started preparing myself for that. The game would catch me with jump scares from time to time, and I would indeed jump as intended, but that was never "scary." I jumped at it, then dismembered and stomped the fuck out of the offending creature and moved on.

That said, I do find the series unsettling. Around the time you first encounter Infestors, I came up with a strategy of stomping (thus dismembering) the corpses of anything I saw and it quickly carried into Dead Space 2 when I finally got around to playing it (Steam Summer Sale). It is that that unsettles me...and the notion of children and babies being turned into annoying monsters is also unpleasant. But it is this idea that this alien virus doesn't give a shit, it has no morality and the monsters that spawn it only want to cause death so more monsters can be made and, in order to survive, I had to also not give a fuck about the dead and tear them to shreds so that was, potentially, one less monster I'd have to face in a bad situation. Also, sometimes goodies would pop out and that was always nice.

Perhaps that is more of a commentary about me, but hey.

#56 Posted by NTM (7320 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

@NTM said:

@FateOfNever said:

@NTM said:

Oh, at first I was going to say "Are you fucking kidding me? Boooo!" now that I read it though, it changes nothing. It's basically saying, OK, you can play it on your own and it'll be like the originals (like you sitting in your room on your own watching a scary movie), or you can bring in a friend or sibling and experience it that way (by making it less scary in a way, but still entertaining). It changes absolutely nothing I think.

That's just going off what they say, and not my opinion of what I believe the actual finished product will be. I think if you take this negatively you're being kind of dumb. You have to correlate it with either experiencing a horror film with a friend, or not, and that's what they're trying to say. They're not saying "Alright, so people got scared from the earlier Dead Space games, we need to tone that down for the whole experience so people don't have a heart attack."

Also, people that keep saying "This is ruining the game" are ignorant. It ruins nothing. If you want to be scared, play the campaign, if you want to enjoy it with a friend although potentially making it slightly less scary, play it on co-op. This thread is bringing about negative opinions that are unnecessary since it seems to me the comments aren't correctly associated with what they were saying.

The thing is though, it's a game, not a movie. If you watch a movie in a dark room and it's scary, it's still scary, because you're just watching events unfold. It doesn't matter if you're alone or with someone else, it will still be scary. The difference is that if you have someone there with you, if you get scared, you can cling to them, or they can make fun of you for being scared, thus lessening your fear while you can still let yourself be drawn back in to the horror of the movie as much as you want to.

In a game you have to actively take part in it. You have to be the one that does everything. Either the level of horror will still be too high for people despite playing with someone else, or they won't be scared at all due to having to deal with the pressure of having to play it with someone else (i.e. "Hurry up already, I don't care that you're scared, we've sat here for fucking ten minutes doing nothing because you don't want to move on." or "Well, I have nothing to be scared of because the other person just blows through it all doing almost all the work and is talking the whole time and now I'm not scared at all and... this isn't very interesting.") And if the game isn't scary once you're playing co-op, then all you're left with is an action game, which means there needs to be considerably more action in the game to make up for the fact that if you're playing co-op you're no longer playing a real horror game.

If someone likes the setting of the game but is too afraid to play the game alone, all they would really need to do is call up a friend, ask their friend to come over while they play this horror game. Or if they have gamer friends go "hey, I'm interested in this game but I'm too scared to play it, could you play it while I watch?"

This is a decision that was made based on the idea that if people can play the game co-op, they won't be scared, and thus will play a game they wouldn't otherwise play. What that means is that it's a decision that was made not for the sake of the game. Not to make the game better, not to make it scarier, not to make it inherently more enjoyable, but to try and sell the game to people that wouldn't normally buy it, not to tell a better story. It was a decision that was made solely to try and sell more copies of the game and that seems like a perfectly valid reason for people to dislike the decision. When game decisions begin to be made not because it makes the game inherently better but to try and sell copies of the game to people that wouldn't have bought it before, marketing is the one that's calling the shots, not developers or designers, but marketers, and that's not typically a good thing. Concessions still have to be made to the single player campaign to make it playable as either single player or co-op. They will try to say to the very end that "nothing was compromised by this decision" except for the fact that, you know, the entire game had to be designed with that in mind, which, not that they *can't* pull it off and keep the solo just as scary as previous games, but the odds drop when you take that into consideration. And perhaps one of the biggest problems is that they made this decision to sell more copies of a game that is the third game in a series. Why? Are the people that were too terrified to play through 1 and 2 really going to buy 3 even though they've missed out on the ENTIRE story to this point?

This is all I have to add, and how I view all of this stays.

@churrific said:

I thought having a second dude was optional, and that they were trying to keep the single-person experience (including the scariness) intact. I'm fine with a less scary co-op if the single player is unchanged. Honestly, couldn't hurt having the extra option.

Here's the thing, though: he's totally right in that they are inherently designing the game around the co-op experience for no reason other than to sell more copies. Note that someone from EA stated around a month ago that Dead Space 3 needs to sell around five million units for them to keep investing in the franchise. This is pretty clearly a move to try and bring it to that level of sales. And really, considering how different even Dead Space 2 felt from 1 (in spite still being a great game), what possible reason is there to have faith in them not to fuck it up and turn it into an action fest?

I really don't think they're going to "fuck it up". OK, my point is, as I've already stated a few times before, and my thoughts on anything else aren't present, is that what the person says is what it is, and it's not to be assumed otherwise or have negative reaction until the final product is released. It's like me going to my first week of school and at the end of that first week my parents ask "So how was your first week of school?" and I reply "It's was OK." Then they all of a sudden jump to the conclusion that I'm not doing very well. I guess that's an alright analogy.

#57 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11587 posts) -

But... Dead Space isn't scary. It's just like BLARGGGGG NECROMORPHS and then you cut their legs off.

#58 Posted by NTM (7320 posts) -

@stryker1121: To me, it doesn't really matter in the end, 'cause I think it'll be great quality all of the same, but again, I'm speaking relative to what this person said, not in general, so what is to be said about the game in general is not the concern to me.

#59 Posted by EXTomar (4635 posts) -

It is fine if they want to add co-op. What isn't so great is their lame marketing attempts to justify it. If they want to add it and believe they can do it at a stellar quality then say so instead of concocting some strange reason to sound like they are catering to fans. It is fine to actually do something fans may not like.

#60 Posted by JeanLuc (3577 posts) -

Oh god dammit! Once again, feedback and marketing research ruin something I love. I won't completely give up hope but I'm feeling pretty down on this whole thing.

#61 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@EXTomar said:

...wait what? This is like saying "There are so many exciting scenes in our game...so we added co-op so you can talk about it with your friend".

no... not quite. I think she actually makes her point quite well. I just agree wtih you that it's a really crappy point.

She says specifically that she would go to horror movies with her boyfriend but that she doesn't like horror movies herself. Which obviously means she wasn't into deadspace 1 and 2, but she could be into it if she got to play with someone else.

It's the problem of constantly trying to "fix" EVERYTHING that people complain about in a game, evne if that complaint is why the fan actually LIKE the game in the first place.

#62 Posted by churrific (477 posts) -

@NTM: I thought they were saying all along that they were keeping the spirit of the single-player? Just seems like a poorly written article in that they didn't make an obvious mention of this. If you read between the lines of that quote the op bolded, that's kind of what she says, but we know no one's going to do that.

#63 Posted by NTM (7320 posts) -

@FateOfNever: I was telling the truth, it wasn't meant to harm people. I have nothing to say to you because what you're saying is none of my concern on this specific topic. I wasn't talking about the game in general as I had stated, and at this point, it's all just opinions. You're looking at everything. I'm just saying that what is to be said about this, you have to look at it and assume otherwise 'cause people are assuming what is said as negative. It shouldn't be.

This is what it comes down to, you can't tell what the final product will be, so all of your opinions and concerns should be thrown out here, it's about what this person said, and they said (in a nutshell) "We're making the game so if you play co-op, it'll be less scary, but if you want to play the game how it was originally, which is scary, play it on your own." That's all that matters here. Opinions on this being more action oriented or not isn't at all in my mind when we're talking about this, nor is the rest of your "rebuttal". So like I said, my statement still stands.

I'm not going to argue over opinions, 'cause that's not going to go anywhere. Just wait until the game comes out and then complain if it's not as you wanted.

#64 Posted by NTM (7320 posts) -

@churrific: It just seems to me people choose not to understand. So, yes.

#65 Posted by FateOfNever (1826 posts) -

@NTM: It sounds like you're of the mind set that there should be no discussion on this topic. She made a statement and that statement should be held within a bubble until the game comes out. That makes sense. I don't entirely get why you'd post on a topic about it if that's your stance on the matter, but I at least get it. I don't think people engaging in a discussion about how that may or may not hurt the game that the statement is about is stupid, or bad or anything though. It sounds more like that's just not your thing, conjecture, that is. Which is cool. So as long as I understand it right, and that you're not really interested in talking about anything other than the statement that she made in a bubble, that's fine. I don't think you should get on other people's cases for wanting to talk about how it may or may not affect a game, or the development of a game, that they're interested, but other than that, I get it.

#66 Posted by Jaytow (693 posts) -

there is a 0% chance that i will buy this game.

#67 Posted by buft (3315 posts) -

I like Coop, so for me its all about the added experience of having a friend to play with, they showed video if the differences between multilpayer and singleplayer so there is still something there for single player only people, you dont have an AI runnign round with you at all times looking for fist bumps, im optimistic

#68 Posted by NTM (7320 posts) -

@FateOfNever said:

@NTM: It sounds like you're of the mind set that there should be no discussion on this topic. She made a statement and that statement should be held within a bubble until the game comes out. That makes sense. I don't entirely get why you'd post on a topic about it if that's your stance on the matter, but I at least get it. I don't think people engaging in a discussion about how that may or may not hurt the game that the statement is about is stupid, or bad or anything though. It sounds more like that's just not your thing, conjecture, that is. Which is cool. So as long as I understand it right, and that you're not really interested in talking about anything other than the statement that she made in a bubble, that's fine. I don't think you should get on other people's cases for wanting to talk about how it may or may not affect a game, or the development of a game, that they're interested, but other than that, I get it.

People keep saying "well I'm not buying it than." or "wow, they're ruining this game." and it's because of what is being said here, and for what? They shouldn't already have made up their mind about it, and so I certainly don't think they should say such things here. So yes, I think it is all unnecessary to discuss, especially to a negative degree. I don't mind positive or negative talk about the game, I just don't see the point on such a topic. It's almost kind of nonsense. I posted on here because what I said I believe is true. I have plenty of conjecture, I just find it pointless here. You don't just jump to conclusions because one thing is said, and then you assume "well heck, then all of it is most likely going to be ruined!" when that's not at all what that person was saying. What she said was obvious and it should be seen as so.

#69 Posted by DeanoXD (608 posts) -

If they know they will sell less copies if they make game to much of a horror game why wouldn't they make changes, as long as the game is good in the end whats the harm? Anyone can make a super scary game but if it isn't fun to play why would anyone buy it outside of the minority that wants that kind of experience.

#70 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@DeanoXD said:

If they know they will sell less copies if they make game to much of a horror game why wouldn't they make changes, as long as the game is good in the end whats the harm? Anyone can make a super scary game but if it isn't fun to play why would anyone buy it outside of the minority that wants that kind of experience.

Because of the laws of cpportunity cost.

If there's only one scary game on the market, and the people who make it are making it less scary, that means there are no scary games on the market. It's reasonably for people to be upset. In fact, this is the root of ALL videogame debates and arguments. People feel threatened that there will be less of what they like accessible to them.

#71 Posted by Phatmac (5724 posts) -

I'll sit back and watch ya'll be surprised by what Visceral Games delivers. I'm not ready to judge a game that I haven't played yet. :P

#72 Edited by FateOfNever (1826 posts) -

@NTM: Ok. I agree with you about the "I won't buy it because of this!" That, I completely agree is silly. I think this is a fine enough place to talk about what effects the game having been designed from the ground up around a marketing decision though. But the jump to conclusions people that are dead set on the game being garbage because of the released statement.. unless you have a serious "I refuse to buy games that have fundamental decisions about the game being made by marketing" stance (at which point they probably don't play very many video games at all) then they're just being silly. Personally I hope the game still pans out well and the horror aspect of the game is left completely untouched despite the reason for their decision to add co-op. I also understand, however, why hearing that co-op was added strictly to try and sell more copies of the game to people that don't like horror games worries people. Even if there isn't any hard evidence of it resulting in bad things for games, there's at least definitely a stigma around it (such as the ME and DA series having major decisions made with them to try and appeal to people that didn't play the first ones and how some people feel that turned out.) But yeah, I agree that no one should be jumping to such extreme conclusions as refusing to buy the game when a) barely any concrete info is out there for it and b) the game isn't even out yet. I do think there's enough stuff out there for people to be skeptical, and that this doesn't help alleviate those fears though.

edit: for clarification - I think this is as good a place as any for discussion about the effect that co-op being added due to marketing because otherwise to talk about it someone needs to open another topic and then either link this topic or the exact same info in this topic and then add "ok, now talk about why this is good or bad for the game." which seems like a lot of extra effort when people could just talk about it the place where they saw it first.

#73 Posted by NTM (7320 posts) -

@FateOfNever: It shouldn't do anything, but it seems that it is giving some people more of a reason to hate on it. That's the problem here, and that's all I'm saying. It changes nothing, like I said on my first post.

#74 Posted by Zaccheus (1792 posts) -

If it works it's genius. They are making two games in one. A scary single player game and a fun co-op shooter. Scary games don't sell well enough to warrant the production quality Dead Space offers, that's just how it is. A lot of people are fine with scary movies, but there is a huge audience that find scary games too uncomfortable (I didn't think DS2 was that scary but you would have to pay me a lot of money to play Amnesia).

I have trust in Viceral, but it's still tricky business. We will just have to wait and see. We know so little about this game.

#75 Posted by NTM (7320 posts) -

@FateOfNever: I kind of just meant you shouldn't be doing it in the context of what was said by that person, I have no problem with discussion, just don't say that the game's going to be crap and use what was written in the bubble as proof since truly it changes nothing.

#76 Posted by TEHMAXXORZ (1199 posts) -

Firstly, they're supposed to be scary (as it is a survival horror franchise) and secondly, they're really weren't that scary to begin with anyway.

#77 Posted by FateOfNever (1826 posts) -

@NTM: I wouldn't say that it positively changes nothing because the game isn't out yet, so for all we know it changes nothing, it changes things drastically, or it changes things but to an unnoticeable degree, or maybe it even changes things for the better. But I agree that there shouldn't be any definitive statements about how the game will suck because of why multiplayer was added. I see why people are concerned about it though, but, yes, there really shouldn't be any hard statements about how bad the game will be because of it. And I think part of your original post just made me think that you believe people shouldn't be talking about it at all. So thank you for being willing to elaborate on your point/what you mean/believe.

#78 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

This is part of EA's "Every game that we put out needs a multiplayer-component".

Good night, sweet prince.(Dead Space)

Online
#79 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

I hate third-party market testing.

#80 Posted by krazy_kyle (716 posts) -

People in marketing need shot

#81 Posted by tsiro (214 posts) -
#82 Posted by davidwitten22 (1708 posts) -

I love the Dead Space series, but scary is kind of a strong word for the game... and that's without co-op.

#83 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

I really didn't find Dead Space scary at all. Startling maybe, but not scary. Which is annoying, because this is ostensibly a horror franchise.

Shit be dumb, marketing people continue to depress me.

#84 Posted by NTM (7320 posts) -

@FateOfNever: When I said changes, I meant that what has already been said about the game, before this was even said by her, hasn't changed because of this. Visceral's intentions aren't any different, and shouldn't be seen any different from anyone after reading this. That's what I mean, it didn't change anything. It's all just a reiteration of what was known already. And yes, I can also see why people are concerned, I just don't find this the right place to talk about it. Well, I don't care anymore, so anything here can be said, but still. I'm kind of done talking about this now though, so... Yeah. Thank you for not arguing over all of this in a negative sense.

#85 Posted by living4theday258 (679 posts) -

dead space isn't all that scary..... if you play the first one alone in the dark with a good stereo/headphones, but there's no way 2 was frightening at all

#86 Posted by obscurefan (282 posts) -

Yeah, I can understand their point. I also feel that Uncharted isn't charted enough and Final Fantasy is too fantasy filled,

#87 Posted by yinstarrunner (1185 posts) -

Dead Space was never that scary.  OK, so the first hour or so of the original had me shitting my pants pretty often, but from that point on... really?
 
I'm not buying this game.  At least, not until it's 5 dollars on a steam sale or something.  And it's not because they're adding co-op, although that does seem to shed some light on the mindset of the people behind this thing.
 
No, I'm not buying it because instead of becoming more scary and heightening the tension from the first game, Dead Space 2 decided to move in the opposite direction and make it more about action.   Everything I've seen from the new game suggests that it's moving even further down that path.
 
Saying, "Oh, it's as scary as it's always been" doesn't really work for me in this situation, because it was never really scary in the first place.  I'd prefer them to say, "It's going to be the scariest, most terrifying Dead Space yet" or something similar.  Third person action games are a dime a dozen, while Survival Horror is a genre on life support with good games coming few and far between.  One inherently grabs my interest more than the other.

#88 Posted by addictedtopinescent (3645 posts) -

So you can play it on your own, but if you chose to play it with a friend you now can? This is horseshit

...

#89 Edited by big_jon (5723 posts) -

If it does not influence the single player game it seems fine to me, I know a fair few people who did not play Dead Space because they were too afraid to, despite how amazing it is.

#90 Posted by IBurningStar (2161 posts) -
This is the only way I know how to respond to any of this.
#91 Posted by big_jon (5723 posts) -

@mandude said:

@Darkstalker said:

I never played them but wasn't it the "alone in abandoned space station" kinda the whole point of the game?

You're sadly mistaken. The whole point of the game is evidently money.

Wait?! Video games are made for money?!

#92 Posted by JEC03 (898 posts) -

The only thing scary is that EA is ruining every damn good franchise year by year.

#93 Posted by c0l0nelp0c0rn1 (1807 posts) -

@nintendoeats: There's a certain oppressive atmosphere in Dead Space that plants it in the same spectrum of horror games as System Shock 2 and Half-Life.

Not saying that those games are horror games, but I am saying that there were times that I was afraid to turn the next corner in Half-Life. Not a horror game but a terror game.

Either way, I'm done with the Dead Space franchise. The last parts of Dead Space 2 were totally lame.

#94 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -

@big_jon said:

@mandude said:

@Darkstalker said:

I never played them but wasn't it the "alone in abandoned space station" kinda the whole point of the game?

You're sadly mistaken. The whole point of the game is evidently money.

Wait?! Video games are made for money?!

Your response would be relevant if it read "Wait?! Video games are only made for money?!"

#95 Posted by big_jon (5723 posts) -

@mandude said:

@big_jon said:

@mandude said:

@Darkstalker said:

I never played them but wasn't it the "alone in abandoned space station" kinda the whole point of the game?

You're sadly mistaken. The whole point of the game is evidently money.

Wait?! Video games are made for money?!

Your response would be relevant if it read "Wait?! Video games are only made for money?!"

That's what they're made for, do you think EA is having these games made not sell, that sales is not the primary modiation behind all of their decisions? Well then, you must be slow...

#96 Posted by Jeust (10537 posts) -

Ugh

#97 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -
#98 Posted by adoggz (2060 posts) -
#99 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -

@big_jon said:

@mandude said:

@big_jon said:

@mandude said:

@Darkstalker said:

I never played them but wasn't it the "alone in abandoned space station" kinda the whole point of the game?

You're sadly mistaken. The whole point of the game is evidently money.

Wait?! Video games are made for money?!

Your response would be relevant if it read "Wait?! Video games are only made for money?!"

That's what they're made for, do you think EA is having these games made not sell, that sales is not the primary modiation behind all of their decisions? Well then, you must be slow...

Of course I believe that EA's primary motivation is money. Did you not read the post? You know, the one that said the whole point in the game at this stage was money? Here, I'll post it again in case you missed it.

@mandude said:

The whole point of the game is evidently money.

Now that you've caught up, allow me to explain the underlying point behind that post. While 99% of games are made with money in mind (and indeed, this is the primary reason they see the light of day at all), Dead Space is a horror game with specific elements geared towards appealing to a specific audience, which was no doubt originally conceived by an individual or team who felt they have had an interesting concept to bring across to people in the form of a game. Of course, everyone needs money, and it wouldn't be feasible to spend all that time making something without getting any reward for it. After all, they need to be able to live.

In the case of Dead Space, it was eventually decided by the people backing the game (EA) that it simply wasn't making enough money. So the order was given to strip the elements geared towards the original niche audience and to give it a wider appeal. What's happening here, is that the creative integrity of the original concept is being overshadowed (entirely) by the desire for money. It could even be argued that Dead Space was making enough money as it was. After all, why would they be releasing a mechanically different game in an already established franchise, if it wasn't to capitalise on its already strong fanbase?

#100 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

@tsiro said:

Here's an interesting read for you guys. I'm sure that most of you have already made up your minds to hate the game, but don't all just jump on it because of one headline of one article.

http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/ea-never-called-dead-space-too-scary-but-the-misleading-headlines-are-the-s

Yeah whatever, that is just a piece Kuchera wrote to justify another piece Kuchera wrote. It's a clever method of advertising masked as argument. The game's Singleplayer experience is co-op with AI so there's always going to be a second player no matter what you do and that it its core changes the Dead Space experience because it makes it less scary as you're never really alone anymore.

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.