Writer of Dead Space 1 says 3s Action Focus was a necessary evil

#1 Edited by mrfluke (5093 posts) -

http://kotaku.com/5982875/dead-space-1-writer-says-dead-space-3s-action-focus-was-a-necessary-evil

bascially The writer says how the games action focus was essentially necessary to help broaden the fan base. and cited that the developers always wanted to go bigger in terms of scope since the first game, and how to tell the story they wanted to tell, that this was inevitable.

While admitting that the newer Dead Space games weren't really for him thanks to the action focus, he said that the emphasis was "a necessary evil in order to broaden the fan base."

"I know the developers always wanted to go bigger, in terms of scope. And I've mentioned before that the universe we created was huge, with lots of elements, which simply didn't make it into the first game.

"So to get that story told, to round out the universe, it was inevitable the settings and environments would open out a bit, become a bit more epic in scale."

Without the more epic scale Johnston claims that Dead Space would likely become "pretty dull."

i was one of the guys that loved dead space 2 but thought 1 was boring and not scary. but it seems 3 barely pleases either party though (never played 3, just basing this off the real mixed reaction to the game, this thread however seems to tell a different story :P .)

#2 Posted by Irvandus (2826 posts) -

Necessary evils are still evil.

#3 Posted by mrfluke (5093 posts) -

@Irvandus said:

Necessary evils are still evil.

i see where they are coming from, but i just dont think they pulled it off, as it seems the reaction to this game seems worst than the last 2

#4 Posted by laserbolts (5311 posts) -

Dude you must spend a ton of time on different gaming websites. You post so many outside articles its insane. Not complaining I actually appreciate it since I never check other sites out. Im currently playing through Dead Space 1 again and I dont care about Dead Space 3 because this game will always be amazing.

#5 Edited by familyphotoshoot (653 posts) -

YOU CANNOT MAKE A PRODUCT THAT WILL PLEASE EVERYONE.

IF YOU STRIVE TO CONSISTENTLY MAKE GEESE THAT LAY GOLDEN EGGS YOU WILL FAIL

NOT ONLY THIS, BUT YOUR DESTROY YOUR EXISTING FANBASE IN THE PROCESS.

IT IS AN ENDLESS, DESTRUCTIVE CYCLE EA PERPETUATES IN THE NAME OF THE GREED.

FUCK.

#6 Posted by c0l0nelp0c0rn1 (1803 posts) -

@familyphotoshoot: Well, they are a business.

#7 Posted by MooseyMcMan (10484 posts) -

I still don't get these people that say Dead Space 1 was a horror game. That was still an action game, and the vast majority of it was gunning down necromorphs.

#8 Posted by JTMosh (257 posts) -

Dead Space has always been an action series. Dead Space 3 is fantastic, definitely a worthy entry in the series.

#9 Posted by DaMisterChief (628 posts) -

EA

#10 Posted by Daveyo520 (6652 posts) -

The game looks fine.

#11 Posted by Turtlebird95 (2309 posts) -

Not trying to be a dick but is it really necessary to post threads on every article you find interesting? Not complaining, just curious.

#12 Edited by Levio (1783 posts) -

@familyphotoshoot: Oh, you're an expert on game development and marketing? How many games have you made?

#13 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6386 posts) -

@laserbolts said:

Im currently playing through Dead Space 1 again and I dont care about Dead Space 3 because this game will always be amazing.

You are absolutely correct and I will be doing the same thing shortly.

#14 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

@laserbolts said:

Im currently playing through Dead Space 1 again and I dont care about Dead Space 3 because this game will always be amazing.

You are absolutely correct and I will be doing the same thing shortly.

I can't get myself to replay Dead Space 1 for some reason. 2 is the best one for me.

#15 Posted by ozzdog12 (856 posts) -

@mrfluke said:

http://kotaku.com/5982875/dead-space-1-writer-says-dead-space-3s-action-focus-was-a-necessary-evil

bascially The writer says how the games action focus was essentially necessary to help broaden the fan base. and cited that the developers always wanted to go bigger in terms of scope since the first game, and how to tell the story they wanted to tell, that this was inevitable.

While admitting that the newer Dead Space games weren't really for him thanks to the action focus, he said that the emphasis was "a necessary evil in order to broaden the fan base."

"I know the developers always wanted to go bigger, in terms of scope. And I've mentioned before that the universe we created was huge, with lots of elements, which simply didn't make it into the first game.

"So to get that story told, to round out the universe, it was inevitable the settings and environments would open out a bit, become a bit more epic in scale."

Without the more epic scale Johnston claims that Dead Space would likely become "pretty dull."

i was one of the guys that loved dead space 2 but thought 1 was boring and not scary. but it seems 3 barely pleases either party though (never played 3, just basing this off the reaction to the game.)

FALSE, I'm on Chapt 17 in Dead Space 3 and I love it, I loved 1 and 2 as well.

#16 Posted by TheUnsavedHero (1255 posts) -

@mrfluke said:

(never played 3, just basing this off the reaction to the game.)

I usually never go off a community reaction when it comes to games. Everyone has different opinions on what makes a good game. It didn't stop me from getting Dead Space 3 and so far, roughly playing through half of the game, I'm still enjoying it. It's basically an updated version of gameplay of Dead Space 2. I will say that certain parts of the story are a bit cheesy, but other than that, it's been good. If your looking for a horror experience, this probably won't be for you.

#17 Posted by Mirado (990 posts) -

I don't understand how the writer can praise the environments and settings for their ability to keep things from being "dull", when that's exactly what I would describe most of this game as.

Lotsa ice and metal corridors, without much variation like in two or tension like in one. Alas. Not for me, it seems.

#18 Posted by mrfluke (5093 posts) -

@laserbolts said:

Dude you must spend a ton of time on different gaming websites. You post so many outside articles its insane. Not complaining I actually appreciate it since I never check other sites out.

lol no worries, i appreciate you giving me a bit of your time to check these threads i post! :D

long story short of why im so prolific on the forums now., i do some contract work for a big search engine company, so im plopped down in front of my laptop a lot, and i have a bit of time in between "assignments" so i figure what the staff dont cover on the main site ill post about it in the forums as a way of being proactive and creating more general gaming discussion for the community.

Response has been pretty positive, and the threads do draw a decent crowd based off the public data that we see ( doesnt really bother me how much views a thread gets. i do consider 50+ views to be a decent crowd, but i wont deny though, its fucking awesome when some of my threads spike higher than the stories the staff post :P) and i got the greenlight from the mod overlords to do this stuff with the catch that i write a little something to go along with a link or video (fair enough)

the plan is to post stuff preferably during more in the nighttime as its the easiest to see what the staff posted and what they didnt post and its when the forums are i think the most active. but im not opposed to posting during the day when im able though, cause there are times where there is a drought of news content on the site.

#19 Posted by mrfluke (5093 posts) -

@MooseyMcMan: im with ya, personally didnt find dead space 1 to be scary.

@Turtlebird95: dont worry you're like the 4th person that has asked :P , its just something i do as super spare time in between "assignments" (contractor for a search engine company),im essentially being more proactive . and bringing news that i think these guys here would like that doesnt get covered on GB and help generate more talk in the forums, response has been postive, and the threads do draw a decent crowd, some even got higher views than the stuff the staff posts which i dont deny is awesome :P (decent crowd to me = 50+ views, again this is super part time, so im pretty humble about the views)

@TheUnsavedHero: @ozzdog12: @JTMosh: i should clarrify my stance, im basing it off the mixed reaction to the game, with what ive read it leans more to people hating the game, this thread tells a opposite story :P

#20 Posted by Turtlebird95 (2309 posts) -
@mrfluke: Ah, I see. With all these next gen rumors flying around a lot of these obscure articles are getting buried, so good on you for sharing them.
#21 Posted by TheUnsavedHero (1255 posts) -

@mrfluke: Ha, good to hear. Also, with the amount of news that you find, you should have a side job as a freelancer for Giant Bomb.

#22 Posted by mrfluke (5093 posts) -

@TheUnsavedHero: Appreciate the kind words sir, that's quite humbling for you to say :)

#23 Posted by jakob187 (21642 posts) -

Dead Space is honestly one of the few franchises within EA's stable that has all the potential for being this absolutely amazing thing. The games have all shown forward progression, which is something that we all continually ask for out of games. The guy in the article is right: Dead Space is a big universe with a lot of deep lore in it, something that people always seem to shove to the side as some multimedia marketing blitz crap. However, the animated movies, novels, and comics are all pretty damn good. Because of all this, I always knew that the games would HAVE to get bigger in scope, and it's fine with me because there is a great amount of lore for an original sci-fi series here.

I haven't played Dead Space 3 yet, but I will once I can pick up the PC version. I imagine that I'll feel a bit more indifferent about it than the first two just based on all the gameplay videos I've been watching (I'm fine with story beats being spoiled, as I love the fiction of Dead Space). However, I also thoroughly love weapon crafting systems, especially ones that allow me to break down weapons and create completely new ones (hence why I love the shit out of Vagrant Story and Dark Cloud 2 so much). Therefore, I might find something deeper in this game. I don't know.

However, it is a bit disheartening to see people having a lesser opinion of the game so far. I'm curious if it's because they are refusing to look past the scope of the first game and see it for the bigger universe that it is or if it's really just a relatively large departure from the previous entries in the series.

#24 Posted by Teran (877 posts) -

It sounds to me like Dead Space 3's harshest critics really just wanted Dead Space 1 (which is apparently why they are all posting here about playing DS1 again). Of course if DS3 were released and was just like DS1 but in a slightly different location those same critics would probably be denouncing DS3 for not being different enough.

Personally I feel that DS3 is the best game of the series however I don't play alone which is a major factor in why I like the game.

#25 Posted by niamahai (1405 posts) -

I'll wait for the sales number to confirm whether EA made the right chouce.

#26 Posted by Superfriend (1527 posts) -

@mrfluke said:

i was one of the guys that loved dead space 2 but thought 1 was boring and not scary. but it seems 3 barely pleases either party though (never played 3, just basing this off the real mixed reaction to the game, this thread however seems to tell a different story :P .)

*Fartnoise*

I´m sorry but the atmosphere in DS1 beats Dead Space 2 by miles. As for the scare-factor.. that one depends on the person playing I guess- but I remember slightly panicking in Dead Space 1, whereas the second game felt like a cakewalk for the most part. The Raptor-creatures were definitely challenging, but not scary at all.

In short: All you people who thought the more action focused Dead Space 2 was a huge improvement: You people are part of the problem and have no right to complain about the "different focus" of the third game. You helped shape it.

#27 Posted by I_smell (3925 posts) -

Are you seriously just making a thread for every talk at Dice?

#28 Edited by Snail (8580 posts) -

"So to get that story told, to round out the universe, it was inevitable the settings and environments would open out a bit, become a bit more epic in scale."

According to Brad's review though, there are basically two different environments in this game, which feels a lot more reduced in "scope" when you compare it to Dead Space 2 for example. I haven't played either of those games to be honest, but this quote doesn't quite resonate with my impression of the games - which is based on what I've seen and read about them.

#29 Posted by Tru3_Blu3 (3187 posts) -

Dead Space 1 was an evenly paced action horror game with a nonlinear asthetic to its level design. Lots of back tracking and adventure, just the way it's supposed to be.

Now Dead Space 2 and 3 made the franchise linear corridor shooters. Yup, way to go retards.

#30 Posted by gamefreak9 (2344 posts) -

I don't care about any of that shit. If your making an action game your competing with the action games... and Dead Space is no match for good action games so its lost most of its value to me.

#31 Posted by OfficeGamer (1087 posts) -

@I_smell said:

Are you seriously just making a thread for every talk at Dice?

Yes he is and we are grateful for it.

#32 Edited by Brodehouse (9591 posts) -

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Dead Space 1 was an evenly paced action horror game with a nonlinear asthetic to its level design. Lots of back tracking and adventure, just the way it's supposed to be.

Now Dead Space 2 and 3 made the franchise linear corridor shooters. Yup, way to go retards.

Dead Space 1 is a linear corridor shooter that makes you backtrack through the same linear corridor you traveled through in the first place. There is absolutely no non-linearity to Dead Space's design, in fact, 3 is the first entry in the series to hint at that.

@Superfriend said:

@mrfluke said:

i was one of the guys that loved dead space 2 but thought 1 was boring and not scary. but it seems 3 barely pleases either party though (never played 3, just basing this off the real mixed reaction to the game, this thread however seems to tell a different story :P .)

*Fartnoise*

I´m sorry but the atmosphere in DS1 beats Dead Space 2 by miles. As for the scare-factor.. that one depends on the person playing I guess- but I remember slightly panicking in Dead Space 1, whereas the second game felt like a cakewalk for the most part. The Raptor-creatures were definitely challenging, but not scary at all.

In short: All you people who thought the more action focused Dead Space 2 was a huge improvement: You people are part of the problem and have no right to complain about the "different focus" of the third game. You helped shape it.

There is no 'more action focus' in Dead Space 2. You fight the same amount of necromorphs, with the same weapons, in largely similar surroundings. The difference is not that "they increased Isaac's run speed by 15%!" it's that you've done it before. Dead Space 1 ceased to be frightening after 3 hours; why? Because you saw all of its tricks. The only time when Dead Space gets a scare in after the first few hours is the introduction of the Twitcher; an enemy who behaves differently than the others. You're stressed out the first time you kill a necromorph because you don't know what it can do or how powerful it is. You're not stressed out the 401st time, at the beginning of Dead Space 2. You're definitely not stressed out the 801st time at the start of Dead Space 3.

The same with "the environment isn't as moody!" no, it's exactly as moody as the military industrial corridors in Dead Space 1, the difference is you've grown accustomed to them. Just like no one is frightened by foggy seaside towns or strangely decorated mansions; we've been there, we know what to expect. I suspect a lot of people will be disappointed with the sequel to Amnesia; ho hum, got to block the door, hide in the cabinet, monster is a cut up body, vision is going all swirly, bla bla bla.

#33 Posted by Humanity (8815 posts) -

Everything said is basically true. The fact that this is a third game in a series that concentrates on doing pretty much 1 thing over and over again is the biggest downfall. Dead Space 2 was no more action packed in gameplay than the first title - it just had a lot more bombastic set pieces in which you hardly interacted apart from shooting a tentacle or mashing a button. I'd say it was slightly more atmospheric throughout than the first game as you had Nicole popping up once in a while acting creepy and being way too clingy.

There is some serious series fatigue happening in Dead Space 3. Fans of the original should be happy as the first half of the game is strongly reminiscent of Dead Space 1. You travel through dimly lit, abandoned ships, not much unlike the Ishimura.

A lot of critics seem to be coming down on the game pretty hard. I've yet to feel it got REALLY bad. Especially critique about the story - as if the previous games had some sort of amazing plot penned by Franz Kafka himself. Both previous games centered around the notion of "we gotta get the fudge outta here" and this game works around "we gotta get to this one place" along with some small side stuff about Ellie.

#34 Posted by falling_fast (2189 posts) -

whoever this imaginary "average gamer" is, I bet I'd hate him. he has shit taste in games.

#35 Posted by Atlas (2430 posts) -

I was pretty disinterested in the third game all the way through its development, based on all the things I'd heard about the direction of the series. I loved Dead Space 1, and I really liked the sequel, but that alone isn't enough when it sounds like they've gone against a lot of what made those first two games so intense, engrossing, and fun. So now that it's out, and especially hearing Brad talk about it on the podcast, I feel exactly the same level of disappointment and disinterest that I felt before it came out. I'm sure that I'll buy it and play it at some point, but I guess I can take solace in the fact that I'm sending a very small message to EA by buying the game six months after release and for a much smaller price.

#36 Posted by seannao (223 posts) -

Challenge Everything by .. .. Trying to be everything..

#37 Posted by bybeach (4725 posts) -

Sooooo, you do that on your (hopfully) last game. I didn't mind it getting a bit actiony. I really liked Dead Space 2. I wondered if they wanted to stretch it out so much, (what it sounds like), they may have included both forms, at perhaps different times. Devs change up mid game. Parts of the middle, and the last third end could be action. The first more stealth. IDK, supposse the story they had to tell did not allow that, perhaps, I haven't played 3.

#38 Posted by big_jon (5709 posts) -

Dead Space 1 and 2 were amazing, 3 was okay, but not nearly as good. I loved the first two so much I S-ranked them, this one? We'll see I guess.

#39 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3754 posts) -

It is interesting to consider how much of the elements we love in a game are due to limitations that the developer had, in regards to time, money, manpower, technology, etc.

#40 Edited by Mrsignerman44 (1100 posts) -

Dead Space 2 was so amazing that it kind of set too much of a precedent for Dead Space 3. With that said however, I thought that DS3 would be terrible and thankfully it's a great game. In my opinion, that's what caused these mixed reactions, well that and all of the DLC. But I would never really rate a game lower because of DLC, I think it's more the publishers fault then anything else.

#41 Posted by Mrsignerman44 (1100 posts) -

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Dead Space 1 was an evenly paced action horror game with a nonlinear asthetic to its level design. Lots of back tracking and adventure, just the way it's supposed to be.

Now Dead Space 2 and 3 made the franchise linear corridor shooters. Yup, way to go retards.

As if Dead Space 1 didn't have it's fair share of linear corridors...

#42 Posted by casper_ (901 posts) -

it seems like a lot of studios end up getting rid of the people who made their games interesting/commercially successful in the first place in the name of chasing after some mythical mainstream audience that doesn't exist. people buy whatever they hear about or is offered to them and generally enjoy it.

#43 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2211 posts) -

Here's the thing though if I want action I've got an entire 360 collection full of them I come to Dead Space for the atmosphere and that i's different from just another action game. I will confess I haven't played DS3 but hearing it be called an action game is not a selling point for me.

#44 Posted by Demoskinos (14563 posts) -
@MooseyMcMan True but there was still limited inventory and scavanging for ammo was still a huge deal too. With Deadspace 3 a lot of the tension is neutered when you dont have to worry nearly as much about inventory and scavanging and instead just blow up anything that moves. It was also a solitary journey opposed to 3's story which was obviously centered around coop.
#45 Posted by MooseyMcMan (10484 posts) -

@Demoskinos: I have yet to play DS3, so I won't comment on that, but I was never anywhere close to running out of ammo in DS1, so I never really felt like I was scavenging. But that may have been because I only ever used two weapons in the game, so I could stock up on ammo for them.

#46 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5137 posts) -

I will take any Dead Space 3 over no Dead Space 3.

#47 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3187 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

Dead Space 1 was an evenly paced action horror game with a nonlinear asthetic to its level design. Lots of back tracking and adventure, just the way it's supposed to be.

Now Dead Space 2 and 3 made the franchise linear corridor shooters. Yup, way to go retards.

Dead Space 1 is a linear corridor shooter that makes you backtrack through the same linear corridor you traveled through in the first place. There is absolutely no non-linearity to Dead Space's design, in fact, 3 is the first entry in the series to hint at that.

Dead Space 1 was a nonlinear corridor shooter. You didn't follow a direct path, you simply had multiple paths that led to a single goal or moment. Sometimes you had to take a single path to permit yourself to other paths from a certain origin, could it be a locked door or something. It's that sort of structure, prominent in games like RE4, that made such games so wonderful and satisfying. It wasn't the act if dismembering space zombies that was awesome, it was the goal of getting from A to B. Everything felt interconnected and placed. The formula was lovely. Backtracking is oddly enjoyable.

#48 Posted by fiberpay (282 posts) -

Of course it was. The people who complain about Dead Space 3 are the same ones who would say "oh its more dead space" if they stuck to the formula of Dead Space 1.

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.