NTM

@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.

@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.

@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.

Yes, bingo. You seem like the only one who knows what's going on without assuming the worst.

@Hailinel: Yeah, maybe, but that isn't the point. She isn't saying "we're making the entire product less scary." So the point is to not assume and wait for the final product to then judge. There's absolutely nothing here to prove that the game will be any less scary than the previous Dead Space games. Dead Space 2 wasn't scary, but that's also beside the point. I just think you shouldn't be assuming so negatively that this game is going to be what you think it is off of something this person never intended on trying to say, then it's like you're putting words into their mouths, or in this case, text. People keep coming up with the "Oh man, so what she's saying is that this game isn't going to be scary. I'M NOT BUYING IT THEN! I'm so disappointed." And it's not at all what she said. I don't really care if someone has a negative opinion about the game, but when you assume one thing off of another thing someone says that isn't the correct reaction, I kind of do have a problem with it.

@Darkstalker: And that's still the point of the game if you play it on your own.

@CptBedlam: Dead Space 2 was fantastic, and I think DS3 will be good too.

@golguin: Play campaign. They're not referring to the entire Dead Space 3 experience, just co-op. I don't think - opposite of what the OP said - that this'll effect the campaign.

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.

It's kind of weird how there's a lot of stories revolving around this film, first Heath Ledger dies when The Dark Knight comes out, and now this.

@MideonNViscera said:

Too bad Batman wasn't there, eh?

This better not happen when I go see this movie.

Although I feel more for it than this, but this is also what I was thinking.

This is where I say the cliche "can't tell if serious".

@Gladiator_Games said:

Hey there! I've been thinking of breaking my old N64 and SNES games.

What? :O