Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The thing about Downfall was, that it had a few weird contunity issues.
The Marker was somewhere else and much bigger. And it didn't repell in the Necromorphs in the game.
If you want to make a movie tie-in to your awesome new videogame at least get it right.

That did bug me, yea, though keeping them away would've made it way too easy. But I was just referring to the end cutscene in the game and the scene in the film where the shuttle with the infected colonist and her husband lands on the Ishimura. The husband falls victim to the same scene. The only difference between him and Isaac is that Isaac survives, obviously. So basically I was just waiting for some ugly to jump out of a dark corner during that part, and was pretty unsuprised when it did.

That's really Deadspace's problem. The 'scary' stuff is just thrown at you in waves in a poor attempt to freak you out, and anything that could have been scary was already used in the animated film, thus the player saw it comng once they popped the game in.

There's a novel coming out in July, detailing the rise of the church of Unitology.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99959-Dead-Space-Martyr-Novel-Coming-This-Summer

I thought Dead Space 1 was pretty good, but the problem was that it fell into the same trap as RE 4 & 5: it's too nice on the players, devolving into shoot them up, and tries to hard to frighten the audience with gore and surprise rather than scare them with suspense and mind screw

I don't know if any of you have played it, but Metro 2033 has a few good mind screw moments (including enemies that literaly mind-rape you to death). Its always kinda freaky when you're going down some dark abandoned tunnel, and then SUDDENLY GHOSTS, and all you can do is either try to go around them or wait and hope they go away by themselves.

Corvus wrote:I don't know if any of you have played it, but Metro 2033 has a few good mind screw moments (including enemies that literaly mind-rape you to death). Its always kinda freaky when you're going down some dark abandoned tunnel, and then SUDDENLY GHOSTS, and all you can do is either try to go around them or wait and hope they go away by themselves.

'Some people call them Necromorphs. I call them bitches.'

Luke_Prowler wrote:I thought Dead Space 1 was pretty good, but the problem was that it fell into the same trap as RE 4 & 5: it's too nice on the players, devolving into shoot them up, and tries to hard to frighten the audience with gore and surprise rather than scare them with suspense and mind screw

Precisely my point. Word for word, that's exactly what's wrong with it. Hopefully EA will make more of an effort with DS2.

In the meantime, you win an Internet Cookie for doing it right.



Enjoy!

Corvus wrote:I don't know if any of you have played it, but Metro 2033 has a few good mind screw moments (including enemies that literaly mind-rape you to death). Its always kinda freaky when you're going down some dark abandoned tunnel, and then SUDDENLY GHOSTS, and all you can do is either try to go around them or wait and hope they go away by themselves.

Metro 2033 was both good and bad. On one side, it was -waaay- to Linear. If you play it more than once, there's no suspense. Everything will be pretty much the same on every single playthrough. It's fear element is really destroyed by relying too heavily on scripted rails.

But that one, single playthrough was done very well. A lot of times, you'll be wandering through a pitch-black area and you'll hear things skittering around and growling in the dark. It doesn't automatically mean you're going to be attacked, but it definately makes you want to get the feth out of the location in question. The way that the game also puts emphasis on trying to avoid enemies rather than take them head on does far more justice to the term "survival horror". The only thing that's really stopping this game from being really great is, again, it's overly-linear gameplay. Once you beat it, that's really 'it' for this game. You can pretty much shelf it and move on. Hopefully if we see another "Metro" game, we won't see the linear side come with it. In the meantime, this is the sort of game that EA could take a few hints from.

metallifan wrote:
The way that the game also puts emphasis on trying to avoid enemies rather than take them head on does far more justice to the term "survival horror".

I think metallifan just summed up exactly the kind of game Dead Space 2 should be.

well the author who wrote Metro 2033 (it was a Russian novel) is working on a sequel, Metro 2034, which may very well prompt a videogame sequel. Also in the works is a Metro 2033 movie, because the book is insanely popular. I think it would be cool to see a Metro 2033 RPG with heavy survival horror elements. Almost like a less rediculous and more scary and more Russian Fallout 3. That would definitely reduce the linearity.

Corvus wrote:well the author who wrote Metro 2033 (it was a Russian novel) is working on a sequel, Metro 2034

Damn I hope so. Cut out the linear element and you've got, IMHO, a title set up to win multiple GotY awards.

Corvus wrote:Almost like a less rediculous and more scary and more Russian Fallout 3.

So nothing like Fallout 3 at all. I like that idea

well remember, the Half-Life games are linear as hell and those were/are phenominal and had half the reviewers gaking their pants with raptuous glee. Sometimes its not so much about gameplay as it is about telling an awesome/unique story through an incredibly atmospheric and detailed setting/plot

I prefer "Were". I found HL and it's expansions to be pretty great for their day in graphics, story, gameplay, etc...

HL2 was, for me... 'decent'. I didn't mind it, but I really didn't find it that great. I donno. Something about the whole story just failed to immerse me. I got bored of it pretty quick and never actually finished it.

I just hope that HL2 Ep3 doesn't feature a see-saw puzzle.

I rather liked the fact that they had tentacles grab you and drag you down the hallways, personally. To me, Deadspace was about the enviroment kinda freaking you out and then the combat being fast, brutal and gory.

oh metallifan, the article in GameInformer stated that Isaac is still affected by the Marker, and that they are trying to work dementia and more hallucinations into the game, just FYI

That should help. A lot.

But they still need to have Dead Space 2 concentrate more on environment and less on throwing hordes of mutated zombie monsters at you. That combat was even there as a major part of the game was the entire problem. It should have been about -avoiding- contact. But like so many disappointing horror games these days, it was about getting into contact with enemies, then shooting off their limbs and stepping on their heads. They tried to make what I call a "Tarantino Horror" (See: 'Hostel'), where it does a better job grossing you out with gore than actually being very scary at all. Dead Space's approach to enemies should be something along the lines of: "If they see you, just RUN. Don't think, just run. Because if you stop, you'll ****ing die."

Just wondering, what are your thoughts on the FEAR franchise?

I have to say, Dead Space was the first game that really "scared" me in quite some time. Sure, there was a lot of shooting involved, but the atmosphere was so creepy.

I agree with Anung. Its more about the atmosphere and sense of dread, and the not knowing when the lights were going to go out and some gakked up freak was going to jump out and charge balls-out for your ass.

However, if they do add some of Metalli's suggested "if it sees you RUN FOR YOUR FETHING LIFE" type enemies (sort of like Scissorman from Clock Tower) then I would love that. And by love it I mean I will gak myself with terror on my first playthrough.

Corvus wrote:However, if they do add some of Metalli's suggested "if it sees you RUN FOR YOUR FETHING LIFE" type enemies (sort of like Scissorman from Clock Tower) then I would love that. And by love it I mean I will gak myself with terror on my first playthrough.

Save for maybe those small annoying goopy-things and those stupid baby things, I think all enemies in the game should be in the category of "OH MY FETHING GOD IT SAW US! RUN! JUST RUN! IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE, JUST ANYWHERE THAT ISN'T HERE!". Even if it's just one enemy or a couple of them. It should pretty much be a case of if it touches you, you're royally Fethed. They could throw in a couple spots where it's actually designed so that (with some difficulty) you get the upper hand and get a chance to kill one of them, but that should really be it for combat. Maybe a few times where you're shooting into a huge crowd of them as they rush a slowly dropping/closing door at the end of some big hallway you ust ran down to get away, but your gun should pretty much do you no real favors.

It's survival horror. You should feel completely helpless while you're playing, and have absolutely no faith in your weapons or ability to defend yourself. Basically it should be a game where you do a lot of running away without any real sense of direction. You're just running off instict whenever stuff hits the fan. I want to be able to count the enemies I've killed by the end of the game on no more than my 20 digits.

if you have a PS2, you should play Clock Tower. Basically only like a small handful of bad guys, but all you can really do about them is mace them and then run the hell away and hide before they murder your ass

No, no, no. Playing a horror game where you're almost totally helpless is slowed. Even Resident Evil 1 wasn't like that, and it's one of the most successful survival horror games ever.

Dead Space does fine with the amount of combat it currently has, and it gets quite scary and challenging considering all but one of your weapons are mining tools and enemies can swarm you easily (it's really hard to bring down a bunch of Slashers and Stingers with the plasma cutter).

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, no, no. Playing a horror game where you're almost totally helpless is slowed. Even Resident Evil 1 wasn't like that, and it's one of the most successful survival horror games ever.

Dead Space does fine with the amount of combat it currently has, and it gets quite scary and challenging considering all but one of your weapons are mining tools and enemies can swarm you easily (it's really hard to bring down a bunch of Slashers and Stingers with the plasma cutter).

I think they should lower the amount of stasis you can use though.... The game became so much less scary when you used that liberally. Just my 2 cents.

Slarg232 wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, no, no. Playing a horror game where you're almost totally helpless is slowed. Even Resident Evil 1 wasn't like that, and it's one of the most successful survival horror games ever.

Dead Space does fine with the amount of combat it currently has, and it gets quite scary and challenging considering all but one of your weapons are mining tools and enemies can swarm you easily (it's really hard to bring down a bunch of Slashers and Stingers with the plasma cutter).

I think they should lower the amount of stasis you can use though.... The game became so much less scary when you used that liberally. Just my 2 cents.

lol you do have a point there. So many times when I played that game I defused OH FETH moments by simply freezing everything in sight and then leisurely hacking them apart.

Slarg232 wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, no, no. Playing a horror game where you're almost totally helpless is slowed. Even Resident Evil 1 wasn't like that, and it's one of the most successful survival horror games ever.

Dead Space does fine with the amount of combat it currently has, and it gets quite scary and challenging considering all but one of your weapons are mining tools and enemies can swarm you easily (it's really hard to bring down a bunch of Slashers and Stingers with the plasma cutter).

I think they should lower the amount of stasis you can use though.... The game became so much less scary when you used that liberally. Just my 2 cents.

Sure, when you're attacked by one enemy at a time. It only keeps enemies off your back for a very short time, and it's useless when you're under attack from multiple directions.

Personally, I'd like to see a power boost to the flamethrower. It didn't do much at all in the first game, and I was much better off using the force gun for groups of enemies.

Its all about the Line Gun. Say bye bye to your legs, freaks

That thing was fething terrible, it didn't even do reliable damage compared to the distilled win that is the ripper.

My usual loadout was the plasma cutter, pulse rifle, force gun and ripper. I never needed the damn line gun because I could saw the legs off groups of enemies with the ripper.

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, no, no. Playing a horror game where you're almost totally helpless is slowed. Even Resident Evil 1 wasn't like that, and it's one of the most successful survival horror games ever.

Dead Space does fine with the amount of combat it currently has, and it gets quite scary and challenging considering all but one of your weapons are mining tools and enemies can swarm you easily (it's really hard to bring down a bunch of Slashers and Stingers with the plasma cutter).

The game never had me scared. Not once. In fact, I used nothing -but- the Pistol all game up until the last boss. Then I switched for my Assault Rifle, and the lowest point my health went to was 50%. I felt pretty cheated out of my cash by the end of it. IMO, Survival Horror games should be seperated into two categories - actual "Survival Horror" where your whole strategy is run in the opposite direction/sneak around enemies and just try not to die, and "Shooter Horror", where your strategy is to blow the nuts off of anything that moves (As in the first title).

metallifan wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, no, no. Playing a horror game where you're almost totally helpless is slowed. Even Resident Evil 1 wasn't like that, and it's one of the most successful survival horror games ever.

Dead Space does fine with the amount of combat it currently has, and it gets quite scary and challenging considering all but one of your weapons are mining tools and enemies can swarm you easily (it's really hard to bring down a bunch of Slashers and Stingers with the plasma cutter).

The game never had me scared. Not once. In fact, I used nothing -but- the Pistol all game up until the last boss. Then I switched for my Assault Rifle, and the lowest point my health went to was 50%. I felt pretty cheated out of my cash by the end of it. IMO, Survival Horror games should be seperated into two categories - actual "Survival Horror" where your whole strategy is run in the opposite direction/sneak around enemies and just try not to die, and "Shooter Horror", where your strategy is to blow the nuts off of anything that moves (As in the first title).

It's no less 'survival horror' than the early Resident Evil games. There are many fights where the best strategy is just to bug out and call it even (especially on the higher difficulties), because you simply can't afford to waste your ammo.

Resident Evil never really appealed to me. It just seemed like a big waste of my time when I tried it. There was never any sense of urgency or fear, and by the time I got around halfway through it, I just couldn't force myself to go on. It was rather poo. I donno, it just never really caught my interest.

Cheese Elemental wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:No, no, no. Playing a horror game where you're almost totally helpless is slowed. Even Resident Evil 1 wasn't like that, and it's one of the most successful survival horror games ever.

Dead Space does fine with the amount of combat it currently has, and it gets quite scary and challenging considering all but one of your weapons are mining tools and enemies can swarm you easily (it's really hard to bring down a bunch of Slashers and Stingers with the plasma cutter).

I think they should lower the amount of stasis you can use though.... The game became so much less scary when you used that liberally. Just my 2 cents.

Sure, when you're attacked by one enemy at a time. It only keeps enemies off your back for a very short time, and it's useless when you're under attack from multiple directions.

Personally, I'd like to see a power boost to the flamethrower. It didn't do much at all in the first game, and I was much better off using the force gun for groups of enemies.

hmm, must have just been me. I could use that thing to slow down like like 3 of them, cut up two, and then worry about the 3 I just froze. I agree that the flamer needs a power boost, that thing was terrible.

Corvus wrote:Its all about the Line Gun. Say bye bye to your legs, freaks

Cheese Elemental wrote:That thing was fething terrible, it didn't even do reliable damage compared to the distilled win that is the ripper.

My usual loadout was the plasma cutter, pulse rifle, force gun and ripper. I never needed the damn line gun because I could saw the legs off groups of enemies with the ripper.

Its all about the Plasma Cutter for all purpose dismemberment, the Pulse Rifle for its high rate of fire and high stopping power, Line gun for corridors/bombing groups of stasised freaks, and the Ripper because, lets face it, its a freakin chainsaw.