Two's company. Why Dead Space 3 will not be the game I want it to be
Posted by Andy at 19:23 on 15 Dec 2012
Here's the offending article in question.
'Two Ways To Play' huh? What was wrong with Option A prey tell? Dead Space was a beautifully crafted thing. Ok, so it wasn't winning any prizes in the originality stakes but its lumbering, silent cypher of a hero, Isaac Clarke Esq., was the perfect man for the Necro-killing job. He's just an engineer, man. Wrong place, wrong time. But, over the course of a finely tuned, bloody brilliant slice of survival horror, he gets his space zombie-bashing shit on! There's a key phrase therein. 'Survival horror'. That only worked as well as it did because you were all on your lonesome. You and the ghost of your missus rattling around on that big ol' Ishimura. You were shit out of luck. The thing is, after a while you start to get all kinds of badass - the right armour, the right tools and you were taking the fight to the undead mutants.
My question is this; 'why?' Why change a formula that clearly worked first time out of the blocks? Yes, Isaac stopped being the strong silent type in the follow-up having contracted a case of the mouth shits but I forgave Visceral for that. Dead Space 3's co-op play is a fairly radical swing away from the desperate horror mechanics of previous instalments. Surely, things get a tad less horrifying when your buddy is standing right next to you looking like something out of Iron Man's pornos and eviscerating a giant monster thingy? I could be wrong, it's been known to happen a few times before. By all means, sound off here if you think Visceral have a case to answer for. That is all.