Debate over Dead Space 3's contribution to the series continues to swirl, as the original game's scribe Antony Johnston expresses doubts as to the new shooter's direction.
"I haven't seen much of Dead Space 3, perhaps as much as you, but what I have seen made me worry a little that they may be taking it in the wrong direction," Johnston told StickTwiddlers at the Manchester MCM Expo this week. "That being said, I have a lot of faith in the team and I'm sure they won't disappoint the fans."
"I have high hopes for Silent Hill, and I'm encouraged by Amnesia," Johnston observed elsewhere in the interview, discussing survival horror in general. "It has a cult following. Developers and publishers need to come to terms with it never being a mass thing, like books and films, it's a niche. But there's still profit to be had, and they should set expectations accordingly."
Any thoughts on all this? And what would you like us to focus on in the next hands-on?
12 comments so far...
sonicmark on 23 Jul '12 said:
While it may be true that horror games may never become mass mainstream, the creators of horror games don't help matters when they mess with an already winning formula, this goes for Resident Evil and Silent Hill as well, Maybe Dead Space wouldn't have recieved so much hatred if Visceral had implemented action rolls, an icy planet 'n' a co op partner in the first 2 installments, or am I wrong?
msbhvn on 23 Jul '12 said:
Dead Space was great, except for the asteroid mini-game, whoever designed that needs a slap. Dead Space 2 was just as good, but less scares/jumps and the massive space station and radio conversations watered down the sense of unease.
DS3 is looking to be the Resident Evil 5 of Dead Space, they've been listening to all the wrong people ie. people who didn't play the first two games rather than people who did. EA are doing this to all their franchises, changing too much in the hope of getting millions of new customers but just p***ing off the customers they already have instead.
I'd rather play Dead Space 1 again than get DS3 and be disappointed.
rocket rankin on 23 Jul '12 said:
Tired of developers doing this nowadays. Stick to what the fans loved in the first place and expand upon it in any sequels. The 'lets make it have more action and add co-op' things getting old. Has ruined the latest resident evil games for me and now dead space.
sonicmark on 23 Jul '12 said:
I remember that asteroid mini game, that really got on my wick when I was trying for that achievement haha, I wouldn't say DS2 was less scary or jumpy, though it perhaps was leaning ever so slightly towards a bit more action, the scares came in a different element, which was the terrors of Isaac's schizophrenic visions of Nicole, out of all of her illusions/appearances, there was maybe only 1 occassion that didn't scare me, but holy shit when she screams "WHO AM I, ISSAC!?", that really spooks me, oh and lets not forget when she was in the nursery and that lullaby music was playing in the background haha.
bamozzy on 23 Jul '12 said:
I must admit I am getting fed up with game developers deciding that they now want to reach a wider audience and so change the games that made them successful in the first place. GRRRRRRRR
I am nearly 40 years old and want to play more 'Horror Games' and a more scary bigger and better 'Dead Space' not some action based version of it...
steve w on 23 Jul '12 said:
God what was so wrong with re5 it gets on my tits the way that everyone moans things change get over it re6 is going to great dead space 3 will be to.
msbhvn on 23 Jul '12 said:
Asked and answered.
STE MO on 23 Jul '12 said:
Dead space was a near on perfect of a Sci-Fi horror. It scared the pants off of me more times the I can remember, but I did play it at night with head phones on, best way to do it. Dead Space 2 was good in its own way but like so many other EA games at the moment, it's trying to be Gears of War, when it should just stick with what it does best, HORROR.
Dead Space sold well enough to get a sequel, so the hype coming off of that should've enlarged the fan base, second hand users also. But then they start to tinker and sometimes it's just been tinkered too much.
Dead Space 2 was a day one purchase as I loved DS1 but I'll wait to see what the guys say about it in the review, I trust their judgement.
pauloselhombre on 23 Jul '12 said:
Let's just say you have a favourite chocolate bar. Let's also say that the manufacturer of said chocolate bar was so successful that they became one of only a handful of big names creating chocolate based products. Now let's just say that the manufacturer keeps the name and packaging the same but changes the contents to a slab of beef jerky disguised with a very thin layer of chocolate. You might be fine with it, but you have no right to tell people who love chocolate to just shut up and eat their beef.
sonicmark on 24 Jul '12 said:
Yes, things change, but are you familiar with the words "but not for the better"?
Baryonyx on 25 Jul '12 said:
Despite the fact that you're barely literate (and should probably concentrate on your homework rather than computer games), may I suggest you try one of the first Resident Evil games and delight in their taut blend of dark, moody atmosphere and pervasive dread. Or try Resident Evil 4, which proves that spectacle and set pieces can coexist with tension and atmosphere. Then look at RE5 which is essentially still a very good game but largely devoid of the character of the past games, the games that made the series a huge hit in the first place.
Dead Space 3 is currently top of my 'concerned about' list, along with the grumbling synchromesh on the second gear in my Impreza. I fear it has fallen prey to the 'bigger/louder/dumber=better' school of thought that saw MW2 turn into a parody of the first game. The same school of thought that rendered RE5 something of a 'ginger stepchild' in the RE family. I hope that in ten years time, developers will look back on this obsession and consider it folly.
It seems par for the course now that an established, innovative IP is ripe for the picking come second or third installment. Trade off the name, add co-op elements, dumb it down and add some explosions and reap some big, mainstream sales. Critical praise for the series collapses, developers hunt for a new IP to build up or tear down.
One thing I notice online is the reverence given to Survival Horror. It seems passionate gamers still love it. I guess casuals couldn't care less about it because there is no co-op or anything exploding.
Drainwater on 26 Jul '12 said:
I'm a casual gamer now (used to be really in to it) but I still love the "scary" games. My problem now is that I haven't had a game scare me since Silent Hill 2. Oh sure they can surprise you, murder you horribly, shock you with sudden carnage, but no game has truly made me scared since early silent hill. Now it's all scaly/bloody monsters and "jump scares". Ugly and surprising but not scary. The only ones that come close are those with things that tread the line of uncanny valley territory (think zombie nurses from sh, NOT zombies!) but even those don' t really do it.
My point is...I think the horror genre may becoming tapped out both on the gamer end (nothing scares us) and the developer end (can't come up with anything to scare us) and so they have to take it another direction.