Saying “No” to Dead Space 3

 

dead space 3

I’m a big horror and science fiction fan, particularly of the more intelligent strains of those genres, and I love survival horror video games. All of the above means that I should be practically spooning with EA’s Dead Space franchise in my wheelhouse. I thought the first game was decent but not great, too often relying on carnival funhouse shocks and Cannibal Corpse-caliber gore while underplaying the more compelling elements of the narrative. But I loved the second game and called it one of 2011’s best, everything from the action to the horror and SF elements were better managed and there was a great sense of world-building that the first game sorely lacked. And here we are on the eve of a new Dead Space game, and I will not be buying or playing it.

I was irritated enough by Dead Space 2’s crass reliance on transmedia marketing to tell its “complete” story- I shouldn’t have to buy a tie-in novel or something to get the full context of an element in a $60 video game’s story.  I also was disappointed that a poor- and unasked for- multiplayer mode was added to the game, invariably weakening the complete package. But Visceral’s fine work shone through the marketing haze, and I could forgive their transgressions. Looking at what Dead Space 3 offers, the co-op mode has already raised eyebrows since the isolation, aloneness, and quiet are some of the key elements of Dead Space’s atmosphere. But I could have overlooked that. They cram bullshit co-op modes in everything these days, thinking that it’ll keep you from trading your game to Gamestop once you’re done with the 8 hour campaign. It’s nothing new.

But where Dead Space 3 crossed the line for me was in offering a full suite of freemium game-style microtransaction purchases that will enable players to purchase in-game Dead Space Necrobucks or whatever in exchange for your credit card number. These resource packs apparently will enable you to bypass doing things like playing the game to earn materials to upgrade weapons, they’ll increase the rate at which you gain these resources via the in-game collector bots, and of course they’ll skin you up all pretty. All told, there is already some $50 worth of first-day DLC including, of course, a $10 online pass if you dare to buy this marketing scheme of a game secondhand. Oh, and of course Visceral tweeted something or other “teasing” an upcoming DLC story that’s supposed to be “disturbing”. It can’t possibly be more disturbing than watching AAA development fuck itself in the ass like this.

Here’s the rub. It’s been stated that Visceral needs to sell 5 million copies of Dead Space 3. And we know what happens when developers get into bed with corporations and underperform, right?  The best way to take off some of the sales pressure and to increase revenue is to treat the game like a $4.99 microtransaction whore, banking on both casual and hardcore gamers experiencing that undeniable urge for instant gratification that leads them to the “shop” menu. Visceral has defended the microtransactions with the usual “you don’t have to buy them” routine, as well as a bizarre argument to the effect that younger gamers raised on mobile games expect there to be microtransactions.  They’re also arguing that microtransactions make the game more accessible. In other words, more casual gamers can pay their way through any kind of challenge or gameplay. Really, Visceral?

Don’t tell me in the forums, I already know. I don’t have to buy this stuff, it’s all optional. That’s exactly right, but also optional is my support of Visceral, EA, and other entities that support not only this kind of marketing, but also this kind of game development. We are already far down a slippery slope where games are designed around this bullshit “service model” concept, and that means that games have been and are being designed that are literally created to perpetually generate revenue. The thing is, in a freemium or 99 cent game this is what you should expect because that’s the a la carte business model and it makes sense for both the business and the consumer. In a $60 retail game, it is an insult to the consumer. Worse, it’s a sign of desperation.

So I’m saying “no” to Dead Space 3 and I hope that others do so as well. My protest won’t make any difference though, I’m realistic about it. For every person that says no to these hucksters, there’s five people that will buy this microtransaction garbage. For every person that complains about it on internet forums, there’s five people that will buy the DLC chapter. But what if a million people loudly said “no” to Dead Space 3 and its vulgar, exploitative marketing tactics? What if people like you and me said “I will not play this game” and actually meant it, instead of giving in because we’re “fans” or whatever and giving these companies permission to do this again in other games?

It is a personal choice to buy these things or not, but to choose to do so is to contribute toward leading video games as a profitable business into ruination as it alienates customers and cynically milks the willing with ephemeral, nonsensical nickle-and-dime purchases. I love video games, and I think the people and companies that make them should be rewarded with profit when they provide us, the consumers, with a quality product. But they should not be rewarded for putting microtransactions in a game that’s already $60 at retail.  

It sucks, because I probably would have actually bought Dead Space 3. I want to see what happens to Issac, I want to see what Visceral has cooked up with this whole ice planet business. I was really excited about hearing the game again, the second one had some of the best sound design I’ve ever heard in a game. But not only am I not paying one bloody, red cent for this game, I’m also not going to play it at all. I’ll never know what it’s like to play Dead Space 3. And I’ll get by just fine without it.

44 Responses to “Saying “No” to Dead Space 3”

  1. OnePompousPenguin January 30, 2013 at 4:17 pm #

    This is all very true. I’ve recently been making it a point to never buy a game that has an “online pass” or comes with “free DLC” that is really a part of the game that they just call DLC.

    My problem with micro-transactions in $60 games is when people believe that you can just not buy it and that makes everything ok. Who can say for sure the developer did not make material gathering extra annoying or difficult in order to make those transactions seem more appealing. Also, it completely throws me out of the experience. I was incredibly excited to play Dragon Age when I first got it, but as soon as I hit a quest giver telling me to pay real money to help him, I just had a bitter taste in my mouth, which eventually caused me to quit.

    Mind you, I feel the same way about trophies and achievements breaking immersion and any attempt at making a single-player experience “social”. Both of those things are just something I cannot for the life of me understand the appeal. The last thing I want is to be reminded I am playing a game, or be told how to play a game.

    I am not going to pretend like I was going to play Dead Space 3, but if I were I would be right there with you boycotting it for the inclusion of micro-transactions and for the incredibly dumb comments made for their justification. Honestly, “younger gamers expect there to be micro-transactions”….are you kidding me!? Seriously? No thank you.

    • Michael Barnes January 30, 2013 at 7:37 pm #

      That is exactly right, “just don’t buy it if you don’t like it” is a false argument. As is the opinion that I see sometimes that this kind of material is “extra content”, when in reality it is “parceled content”. And you are right on the money that developers are now making things like resource gathering extra annoying or time consuming so that you can speed it up by giving over your credit card number.

  2. ertimmer January 30, 2013 at 4:51 pm #

    I have a friend whom works for said company whose soul purpose at work is to provide Studios with ideas and plans for DLC. His prime argument for defending the idea of paid for DLC, packs, exp boosters etc. is that people with out a lot of time can still experience the FULL game without spending as many hours as a other gamers. So essentially the exact argument you railed against. Barnes, you really didn’t point out why that’s explicitly a bad thing, i would sincerely like to hear specific examples or thoughts against it. (Micro-transactions are definitely a money grab, but I do not believe it breaks the game for people whom do not use it. )

    For me, it’s a watershed moment; like when Porsche introduce a 4 door sedan. They determined that people couldn’t afford their family car and their Porsche, the car they needed to have vs. wanted to have. I don’t necessarily see micro-transactions as inherently evil, no mater how flawed the logic when implementing said systems into games.

    • Crimson Dragoon January 30, 2013 at 6:41 pm #

      I don’t think its an issue of giving casual players an option of getting through the whole game, as much as it is charging them extra money to do it. It would be like charging $5 to unlock easy mode.

    • Michael Barnes January 30, 2013 at 7:45 pm #

      We used to get free, no extra purchase required, easy modes in games. You didn’t have to pay money to get help. Casual gamers or those that didn’t want to invest a lot of time into a game could just put it on easy and enjoy the parts of the game that they liked best without friction and without losing any content. Many games still do this, free of charge. There is no justifiable reason why a consumer should be charged because they’re afraid of failure or difficulty. As for the time thing, I seriously doubt that DS3 is more than about 10-12 hours long so it’s not like we’re talking Monster Hunter hours or anything like that.

      Microtransactions in the mobile arena break high score games all the time. For example, what’s the point of an endless runner like Temple Run 2 when you can buy (with real money) gems that extend your run after a fail state? Then there’s the issue of games that require you to spend real money if you don’t want a progress bar to take THREE ACTUAL DAYS to fill up on a building you’re constructing. The duration is intended to make me want to spend the money. As is any scheme whereby you get a trickle of in-game currency that you can pay money to accelerate or to recieve in bundles.

      It’s a bad thing because game design is changing to accomodate these moneymaking schemes, and this gets us further away from the old fashioned business value of simply producing a great product that people want to buy in order to turn a profit.

      The fact that there are consultants that work to propose monetization schemes pretty much says it all.

      • ertimmer January 31, 2013 at 1:51 pm #

        Excellent point Barnes, Thank you for responding! I’ve got some ammo the next time i have beers with my buddy.

        “It’s a bad thing because game design is changing to accomodate these moneymaking schemes, and this gets us further away from the old fashioned business value of simply producing a great product that people want to buy in order to turn a profit.”

  3. Dorkmaster Flek January 30, 2013 at 6:21 pm #

    Having just come from Brandon’s Q1 Game Check article comments, I couldn’t resist.

    You know what game won’t nickel and dime you with microtransactions after paying $60 for it? Dark Souls II. :)

    • fring January 30, 2013 at 7:31 pm #

      Somewhat ironically, I would totally pay money to make the Souls games sufficiently easy for me to actually bother to play them.

    • Michael Barnes January 30, 2013 at 7:49 pm #

      Well, I hope not. The problem is that gamers are being wilfully conditioned to accept them as part of the package and it could happen that by the time Dark Souls II, they’re in everything.

      This upcoming console generation is going to be marked by this kind of shit. I think everyone kind of knows this, but how many of us are really going to say no when it comes to pass?

  4. Brandon January 30, 2013 at 7:19 pm #

    Say no to Dead Space 3 but say yes to “necrobucks” because that sounds awesome. Also, say no to undersized graphics that screw up my goddamn title bar.

    Necronickels!

    • Michael Barnes January 30, 2013 at 7:47 pm #

      Yeah, I wrote that and I thought “maybe I would buy some of those Necrobucks, that sounds pretty neat”.

      One day I will succeed at bringing the title bar to its knees.

      • Runed January 31, 2013 at 9:26 pm #

        Decaydollars!

        Necredits!

        Dead Ducketts!

  5. Helios January 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm #

    I mentally replaced all references to Dead Space 3 & Visceral Games with Mass Effect 3 & Bioware … amazingly accurate review !

    In all seriousness, this is EA and Day 1 DLC is a cash grab for most developers that are not Activision & selling Call of Duty. The “pay to win” DLC is nothing new (Dragon Age 2, Kingdoms of Amalur, Battlefield 3, even Dead Space 1/2), but it’s beyond reproach. Can’t wait to see what’s going to be available for SimCity 6 at launch (dedicated city servers for rent ?)

    With that in mind, I believe “resource” gathering mechanic will be a real hold up in the game, enticing the player/customer to “buy” their way to progress or wait unreasonable amounts of time to use the in-game only resources collected from the bots. Tuned to aggravation, buy to relieve … (sounds like a pharmaceutical slogan).

    • Michael Barnes January 31, 2013 at 12:59 pm #

      That’s what I mean by designing “aggravation” into the game (great way to put it)…if in a regular TBS game you can build a building instaneously but in one with microtransactions it takes fifteen minutes for a “progress bar” to fill, you should feel like a victim.

  6. Ferawyn January 30, 2013 at 9:13 pm #

    I worry how this will affect support for modding as well. If you can mod resource collection up, or crafting requirements down, then the microtransaction model falls down. I doubt Dead Space would allow mods anyway, but I’d hate to see the next Dragon Age or Elder Scrolls game lock out mods in favour of monetisation because of corporate greed. Post day one DLC should be enough.

    • Michael Barnes January 31, 2013 at 1:05 pm #

      Oh, I’m sure some of these monetization consultants are thinking up ways to make a buck off mods.

      • ertimmer January 31, 2013 at 1:56 pm #

        They are, i know this, because the Neroconsultant says so.

      • Runed January 31, 2013 at 9:30 pm #

        Steam is basically developing the model via Workshop (and the hundreds of Steam stores idea they’re working on). All it’s going to take is for EA (and Ubi, albeit likely to a much lesser extent) to wait for Valve to figure out the model and software and architecture, ape it, and give modders a cut of the sales price.

        Even if they only take a 20% cut, that’s a TON of money for something they basically didn’t have to do anything on.

  7. Comrade Beep January 31, 2013 at 12:30 am #

    Barnes, I’m completely in agreement with you about Dead Space, and Electronic Arts in general, but I think your wrong about the broader industry trends.

    Microtransactions / DLC is still very much a business model that’s in flux, and for every stupid fucking decision EA makes there are 3 or 4 other developers and publishers doing microtransactions/DLC right. Specifically I’d point out the king of selling virtual doo-dads, Valve Software who’s business model is a good 5 – 10 years ahead of anyone else. Also Bethesda Software’s DLC model for The Elder Scrolls, and the Fallout series is a pretty solid example of DLC done right. Gearbox Software has traditionally done pretty well at it too, although their latest offering for Borderlands 2 are questionable (no level cap increase?).

    Add in a healthy dose of Turbine Games free to play model for the Lord of the Rings Online, and CCP’s downright fascinating virtual economy for Eve Online and you start to see a broader, and frankly more optimistic view of the future of the industry. The only downside that I see in this whole thing is that the inevitable implosion of Electronic Arts will probably seriously harm, or completely destroy more than a few very good franchises. Then again, we’re already awash in fucking sequels, so maybe that’s not such a bad thing either.

    On a related note, I really enjoyed reading your article. Even when I don’t agree with you I certainly respect and admire your writing. My favorite line from your article was “It can’t possibly be more disturbing than watching AAA development fuck itself in the ass like this.”. God, I love that. You can’t get shit like that on Kotaku. Keep it up.

    • drmcscott January 31, 2013 at 11:02 am #

      Remember expansion packs. Deep pleasurable expansion packs.

      I think we should take your example given and called your Elder Scrolls style extra content as “Expansion DLC”.

      We should call EA/Square-Enix/Evil-Sods extra content “Monetisation DLC” or “profitable aimless easily cut DLC” or even “Pocket Money DLC” ya know, for the kids.

      Soon the only people paying for this shit will be kids… and kids grow up. Short-term publisher tossers. By then (deep breath) they’d try to lock their games to the television with DRM that checks your DNA that future televisions will avoid with a handy pirate download rendering the whole thing as pointless as it is now.

      • Michael Barnes January 31, 2013 at 1:23 pm #

        You raise an interesting point here about kids, and it ties into what this Visceral clown said about mobile gamers expecting microtransactions…last night, I was thinking about how I wonder how many microtransaction purchases are from kids under 18 using parents’ money. This lead me to realize something pretty chilling.

        This is the last generation of gamers that will remember when you bought a game at retail and it was the FULL GAME with no add-ons or extra purchases. That is a concept that is going to vanish over the next five to ten years. Kids won’t remember a time when you didn’t have to pay .99 cents for a Call of Duty 8 “ammo pack” of five clips. They won’t remember what it was like to finish a level of a game and NOT get a pop-up screen asking if you want to continue the game by forking over $4.99 for the next one.

        But I don’t think it’s a short term thing at all. The long term strategy for companies like EA, then, is to enculturate the concept of microtransactions and serial monetization because eventually, the gamers that were around before will either be gone, moved on, or done with games. It’s all part of making microtransactions like in DS3 the rule, not the exception. All of this bullshit about “service models” and garbage like the Battlefield Premium thing (something like 3 million suckers bought into that one) is part of it.

        Kids- and even adults- are getting to the point where they don’t realize that it is time to say “no”, even if that means turning the console off or not buying anymore games.

        And it falls on journalists, bloggers, and other writers to quit covering things like Dead Space 3. Take a stand. Don’t write a bitchy editorial about DS3′s microtransactions and then review the game with the press copy they sent you.

        Say “no”.

        • drmcscott January 31, 2013 at 7:20 pm #

          Bloody hell… your right. Short term strategy for us older humans. The long con for the kids of tomorrow.
          They have no idea do they.
          We’ll.. its our job to make a bloody racket.

        • Helios January 31, 2013 at 11:38 pm #

          “And it falls on journalists, bloggers, and other writers to quit covering things like Dead Space 3. Take a stand. Don’t write a bitchy editorial about DS3?s microtransactions and then review the game with the press copy they sent you.

          Say “no”.” – Hear, hear

          I’m still believe the gaming industry will follow the tv/cable industry history wise. We’re in that VHS/Blockbuster/Cable TV/Pay Per View era (late 80′s early 90′s) of the gaming timeline. Subscription services are coming, Valve is just another beta away from it (like everything else), Sony’s PSN Plus is testing the waters right now too (with surprising success) & I’m not going to be shocked when Apple/Google jumps in too.

          The next console generation will have a huge fall out from this micro-transactions attached to full price premium games. Like the current generation went from virtually no DLC to day 1 nickle & dime’n, the next gen will feature it heavily at first, but drop it within 5 years to support HBO/Cinemax/Netflix business models. It’s just too risky long term & fickle vs the proven “sign’em up” cable/cell phone/tax model. But I agree with you Barnes & drmcscott, it’s going to be a hell till 2017-ish for those old enough to remember arcades (history repeating like movie theaters, broadcast tv, home vhs/dvd & now on-demand).

          Will see a sneak peak Feb 20th when Sony spills some beans on the PS4. I’m guessing big PSN Plus news (think 1-2 year contracts with discounts on the console itself like cell phones, truck loads of free AAA games & updates/dlc) and PS Vita integration akin WiiU & table controller.

    • Michael Barnes January 31, 2013 at 1:14 pm #

      Thanks for your compliments Beep, I love reasonable disagreement!

      You have a very good point here, distinguishing “good” monetization from “bad”. That is definitely something that ought to be looked at. I think there is a very clear difference between “designed to aggravate” (thanks Helios) games that seek to generate revenue by aggravating the player into capitulating too alleviate restrictions and things like the Bethesda expansions and the EVE economy (which is really kind of amazing). There have been DLC and microtransactions that I’ve felt were more respectful of the consumer and reasonably applied. For example, I thought it was totally reasonable in Guardians of Middle-Earth to buy the core game for $15 and then the “full” game with everything that will be made available for it for another $15. You can totally play the full game at the entry level price, but for those that want to invest more time and money into an even more expansive experience there’s the options for it.

      The more I think about it, the more I wonder how much the big corps moving toward this has to do with these monetization consultants convincing stakeholders and decision makers that this is the way to go…these microtransactions, aggravating desigh, etc…

      • Mark E January 31, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

        Most every public company eventually ends up in a ‘profit first, service second’ position eventually.

        I was mad when they announced this, and your article really drove home what was bugging me about the whole thing.

        I too am saying ‘no’ to Dead Space 3. It isn’t much, and I can’t promise not to waver when it hits bargin bins. But I am not paying money to pay more money, especially when it is so easy to add in these bs time sinks like ‘waiting for salvage robots’. Not how I game. Never has been. Never goddamn will be.

        • Michael Barnes January 31, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

          But you can buy different personalities for the salvage bots. Doesn’t that sound RAD?

          • Runed January 31, 2013 at 9:34 pm #

            The last ten words of your post sound pretty rad. Yes.

      • Comrade Beep February 2, 2013 at 1:47 am #

        It’s a trend that’s definitely being driven by the bean counters. Audience growth in the console market slown quite a bit, and AAA title budgets are every rising. Any jackass with an MBA will tell you that if you can’t attract more customers, you’ve got to squeeze more money out of your existing ones.

        The problem with this theory is that it only works in a market with no other viable competitors. The resurgence of PC gaming and rise of tablet /mobile gaming, not to even mention that self-funded development and crowd-funded development models is no coincidence. Customers are tired of getting shit on, and they’re actively seeking alternatives.

        I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, the executives at these big name publishers are out of their fucking minds. They thing they’re selling oxygen instead of video games, and it’s that arrogance that’s going to bring them down.

  8. Caralon January 31, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

    I don’t understand the rage at microtransactions – and telling us that saying “you don’t have to buy them is a false argument” is itself ridiculous. You don’t. You don’t have to buy any DLC, ever.

    You say you like survival horror games, but won’t play this one because there’s some piece of its design that you don’t like. In what way is that a reasonable reaction?

    You have no information on how the system will even function beyond a press release – you’ve prejudged the game as being unfinished and exploitative without ANY actual evidence that the game isn’t fun to play without investing any extra money. You’ve decided before the game is even available that it must not be fun to play without spending more money on DLC. That’s not fair to your readers. What if the game’s actually fun right out of the box?

    DLC might not be your favorite thing, and it’s fair to criticize the models that are used. But it’s not interesting or useful to criticize something before you actually know how the systems are going to function. And it’s also not interesting to read a screed against DLC that doesn’t contain more information about the financial situation of the game. Were Dead Space 1 and 2 financially succesful? How much money did it cost to make Dead Space 3? Can AAA games even be financially successful without at least some attempt at DLC? How could the DLC model be altered to make you happy, since a reasonable person’s got to admit it won’t go away? Those are much more interesting questions to speak to.

    I’m sure there will be some push-back against this post if others care to comment, and that’s fine, but I find these repetitive reactiosn against DLC distasteful and uninteresting.

    • Michael Barnes January 31, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

      I appreciate _your_ pushback. Dialogue always valued.

      It’s not a valid thing to just say “you don’t have to buy it” _when games are being designed to accomodate, encourage, and promote_ microtransactions and serial purchases. If Dead Space 3′s resourcebots or whatever trickle resources _by design_ but I can pay money to speed them up, then I am not given a valid option unless I want to sit and wait an amount of time _designed_ to aggravate me into a purchase.

      The option becomes whether to play the game or not, not whether to buy the resource packs or whatever. And that’s fine, that’s a legitimate argument. But there again, when games are designed with marketing microstransactions as part of the design, the choice is taken away from the consumer. “You can have this right now or wait one day of real time” is a bullshit choice.

      Yes, I think it is completely reasonable to speak out against an industry practice and marketing technique even if it means not playing a kind of game that I like. I’m an adult, I don’t have to play video games at all. It’s not a need. There’s always the first four Resident Evil games. :-)

      Of course I’ve not played DS3, I’m going on what has been described by the publisher and moving forward with my opinion based on that as well as my experience with other games that use similar schemes. I think that’s reasonable. I don’t really care if the game is fun to play, there’s lots of games that are fun to play that don’t ask me to pay extra money for anything. There are plenty of developers and publishers that respect the consumer.

      I didn’t decide that the game wasn’t fun without paying on top of the $60 retail. It probably is, until you hit the designed-in brakes that are more than likely there. THe point is here that I don’t care if it’s fun, I’m not supporting this kind of practice, and I’m stating that I won’t spend ANY money on a game of this type. If the next Metal Gear, Dark Souls, or Batman game came out with this kind of thing, the response would be the same. Sad, but standing up for principles is more important than purchasing and enjoying a luxury entertainment product.

      Frankly, I do not give a shit about the financial situation of the game, that’s not my responsibility. If Visceral has overpromised results or EA has overprojected sales, that’s their problem. Not mine. I’m not paying for their budgeting errors or unrealistic expectations. I did mention that it has pretty much been stated that the game needs to move 5 million copies to be a success…if they’re trying to cover their asses with microtransactions, then something has gone wrong on their end.

      To that point, what you state about DLC as a possible _requirement_ at this stage of AAA development is interesting to think about. It backs up with some of us here at NHS have been saying for going on two years now, that AAA can not sustain itself, can not sustain the budgets that developers are seeking for these games, can not sustain unrealistic expecations, and can not sustain the standard one-time purchase $60 retail game.

      If the product itself can not sustain profitability without DLC, then something is wrong with the product or the way it’s marketed.

      Now, how could the DLC model be altered to make me happy…that’s a good question. But it’s an easy one. I think serialized games like Walking Dead are actually good model- pay $10 when you’re ready for the next part, or buy the whole thing when it’s finished. I like that. I like the idea of low-priced “starter set” kinds of games like GoME where you can buy that starter and expand it with an additonal purchase. Games like Dead Space should have an a la carte model, where you can buy single player, co-op, multiplayer, horde mode, or whatever separately or bundled. How many times have you paid for multiplayer development within $60 retail but never touched it?

      It’s not an untenable situation with DLC…it can work. It starts with respecting the customer and delivering a good product.

      • Runed January 31, 2013 at 9:37 pm #

        Whoa. Whoa whoa whoa. Stop right fucking there.

        “I think serialized games like Walking Dead are actually good model- pay $10 when you’re ready”

        It’s FIVE dollars an episode! Don’t give them any fucking ideas!

      • Caralon February 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

        Hey Barnes, I really appreciate your thoughtful response! Class act.

  9. thekillmobile January 31, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    Good post. I wasn’t aware of this new “addition” (aka. subtraction) in the design. Wasn’t particularly waiting for DS3, but decided to remove it from my Gamefly anyway. As little support as that is, it has been removed.

  10. liastaob February 1, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

    I loved me some Dead Space 2; and I’m specifically not pre-ordering it because I don’t want all that extra crap (that and I promised I’d never pre-order a $60 game again after ME3, but that’s another story).

    Part of the coolness of Dead Space is making do with the weapons and suits you could find; starting out with a powerful gun or suit just doesn’t fit. I loved how in DS2 you had to struggle just to get to your Engineer suit at the beginning; the moment where he steps out of the store booth the first was amazing.

    I more worried about the Coop mode then anything else, personally.

    That being said, it’s going to be painfully hard waiting the extra few weeks for it to go on sale.

    • Michael Barnes February 1, 2013 at 7:04 pm #

      YES! Part of what was really awesome about DS to begin with is that the weapons weren’t even really weapons to begin with apart from the jank-ass rifle. The “guns” were power tools. And a big part of what made the game thrilling was that you’d have like three shots left on the plasma cutter…and none in sight to top it off. So you’d HAVE to use that pulse rifle. Then you you also had to budget nodes carefully, and there weren’t enough to max out all of the guns on the first playthrough so you had make decisions.

      And oh yeah, that was awesome, getting the suit the first time…

      All of the above- destroyed if you’ve got to wait for “resource gathering” or pay your way through it.

      Damn it Bob, you just made me really sad about all this. I may have to go get a USED copy of DS2 to play through again.

      As for waiting for discount, it’ll probably take about a month for it to hit $45 somewhere. The length of time a game remains at full retail (apart from first party Nintendo offerings) is getting shorter and shorter.

      • Mark E February 1, 2013 at 7:53 pm #

        The ending sequence of DS2 is bottled assholes, but the rest is choice.

        That creepy fucking mausoleum.

        The eye surgery.

        That wicked descent where you’re racing back down through space with necromorphs flying at you.

        Dammit I am making myself depressed.

        • liastaob February 1, 2013 at 8:31 pm #

          I actually didn’t mind the end; I think it’s because I expected it to be weird and not explain anything. The little bit at the end where Isaac and whats-her-face are flying away made me literally laugh out loud with relief, and it was a bit of reward for people who’d finished the first DS.

          DS2 was one of the few modern games I’ve actually played through and thoroughly enjoyed twice.

          I’m hoping they don’t botch this one, but I’m not holding my breath.

        • Autistic Angel February 2, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

          Geez, I played Dead Space 2 through less than six months ago, and none of these signature moments ring a bell. I mostly just remember being in a straightjacket, thinking it was neat that Issac’s facemask illuminated the environment, and realizing that I couldn’t possibly care less about the religious backstory they’ve concocted. Another example of how the mystery was so much better than the reveal, I suppose.

          • liastaob February 4, 2013 at 4:14 pm #

            *shrug* Not every game resonates for every person. I can’t get into the Far Cry games, which most people seem to like. I loved Alan Wake, which many people revile.

          • Autistic Angel February 5, 2013 at 6:28 pm #

            @listabob: Sorry, my previous post was rushed and incomplete. I failed to mention that I enjoyed Dead Space 2 quite a bit…just a bit less than the original because of the Unitology stuff. The narrative tension in the original was just more effective to me because I didn’t know what was going on and didn’t particularly care because my primary goal was simply to get the hell off the ship to crazytown.

            Believe me: I definitely agree that a game like Dead Space works best when there’s a strong story to propel me through all the gore. It’s just that, for all the gameplay improvements they improved for the sequel, the backstory they picked left me wanting.

  11. Runed February 4, 2013 at 10:56 pm #

    I made a funny.

    http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k185/Runikmetal/DS3-Stoked.png

    Okay, so it’s not Larry’s fault, but I still liked it O_o

    • Runed February 4, 2013 at 10:57 pm #

      And if I had any foresight I would have pointed out that his link was to the DS3 coverart

  12. liastaob February 5, 2013 at 3:11 pm #

    I actually wish you would play DS3, Barnes; I’d like to see a review from somebody who loved the 2nd game and who I know will “tell it like it is”.

  13. The_Prodigal_player February 6, 2013 at 11:08 am #

    Mike, for what it’s worth, I stand with you on this, and on every other game that pushes this sort of bullshit on us. I refuse to participate in the wanton debasing of the medium that DLC models tend to promote.

Leave a Reply:

Gravatar Image

You must be logged in to post a comment.