Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Dead Space 3, or How To Fuck Up A Popamole Game

Deleted member 7219

Guest
I'm hearing mixed opinions from Codex bros about the story, which is what I'm really interested in here. I thought the story was good in DS1 and 2. Necromorph shooting can get tedious, but the creepy atmosphere and the psychological trauma of Isaac is why I like the franchise. I don't care about the co-op guy, but apart from that, is this a good sequel to DS 1 and 2 as far as the story goes? I've seen some minor spoilers about some alien city, but what about the markers, the Ishimura and Unitology? Is DS3 loyal to established plotlines?
 

chestburster

Savant
Illiterate
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
711
I'm hearing mixed opinions from Codex bros about the story, which is what I'm really interested in here. I thought the story was good in DS1 and 2. Necromorph shooting can get tedious, but the creepy atmosphere and the psychological trauma of Isaac is why I like the franchise. I don't care about the co-op guy, but apart from that, is this a good sequel to DS 1 and 2 as far as the story goes? I've seen some minor spoilers about some alien city, but what about the markers, the Ishimura and Unitology? Is DS3 loyal to established plotlines?

No.

There are huge plot inconsistensies between DS3 and DS1, almost to the extent that DS3 is a brand-new game story-wise. And on its own term, DS3's background story is OK, as long as you ignore the personal drama of Issac. Issac is shit in DS3.

I really enjoyed DS1's story. It's simple and effective. In DS1 they did a great job with the mute Issac. I still remember his body movement showing his sadness when being told that Nichole was dead all along at the end of DS1. A thousand times better than any "fuck" he would utter in DS3. All the "emotional" story points in DS3 look like something written by a 13-year-old.
 

DeepOcean

Arcane
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
7,395
I'm hearing mixed opinions from Codex bros about the story, which is what I'm really interested in here. I thought the story was good in DS1 and 2. Necromorph shooting can get tedious, but the creepy atmosphere and the psychological trauma of Isaac is why I like the franchise. I don't care about the co-op guy, but apart from that, is this a good sequel to DS 1 and 2 as far as the story goes? I've seen some minor spoilers about some alien city, but what about the markers, the Ishimura and Unitology? Is DS3 loyal to established plotlines?

No.

There are huge plot inconsistensies between DS3 and DS1, almost to the extent that DS3 is a brand-new game story-wise. And on its own term, DS3's background story is OK, as long as you ignore the personal drama of Issac. Issac is shit in DS3.

I really enjoyed DS1's story. It's simple and effective. In DS1 they did a great job with the mute Issac. I still remember his body movement showing his sadness when being told that Nichole was dead all along at the end of DS1. A thousand times better than any "fuck" he would utter in DS3. All the "emotional" story points in DS3 look like something written by a 13-year-old.
Is the story the cliche "Crazy religion that want to destroy humanity because it can" or there is something more to it?
 

chestburster

Savant
Illiterate
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
711
I'm hearing mixed opinions from Codex bros about the story, which is what I'm really interested in here. I thought the story was good in DS1 and 2. Necromorph shooting can get tedious, but the creepy atmosphere and the psychological trauma of Isaac is why I like the franchise. I don't care about the co-op guy, but apart from that, is this a good sequel to DS 1 and 2 as far as the story goes? I've seen some minor spoilers about some alien city, but what about the markers, the Ishimura and Unitology? Is DS3 loyal to established plotlines?

No.

There are huge plot inconsistensies between DS3 and DS1, almost to the extent that DS3 is a brand-new game story-wise. And on its own term, DS3's background story is OK, as long as you ignore the personal drama of Issac. Issac is shit in DS3.

I really enjoyed DS1's story. It's simple and effective. In DS1 they did a great job with the mute Issac. I still remember his body movement showing his sadness when being told that Nichole was dead all along at the end of DS1. A thousand times better than any "fuck" he would utter in DS3. All the "emotional" story points in DS3 look like something written by a 13-year-old.
Is the story the cliche "Crazy religion that want to destroy humanity because it can" or there is something more to it?

The story of Issac in the present is basically the cliche crazy religion stuff and love triangles. It's extremely shitty and should be ignored when playing.

The story of the first failed expedition to Tau Volantis is entirely different and an (IMO) interesting tragic tale. You piece together this story with audio logs and subtle environmental story clues.

And on top of the above two stories, there is another background story involving Lovecraftian elder aliens.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
7,063
Location
Elevator Of Love
Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
And the graphics are top-notch. I think if anyone is into sci-fi horro B-movies (like "Deep Rising"), this game is really enjoyable.

Really? I find it somehow lacking in the later parts. The sequel was bad on that part, and the first one is the most polished (that opening sequence!). You should go on normal chestburster, the later parts are tedious as hell due to the numbers of enemies (especially when you want to grab some stash in side quests). And the story is so messed up, like they didn't make the original DS and just tossed something to the player that would motivate him. The best thing about religious nuts is the chief of them is voiced by Kain, the vampire.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
7,063
Location
Elevator Of Love
Divinity: Original Sin 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I know, but to me Templeman will always be Kain, one of the most memorable video game characters due to his excelllent work.

I wish someone resurrected the series :(.
 

Tagaziel

Scholar
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
193
Location
Ass end of Niedersachsen
I'm hearing mixed opinions from Codex bros about the story, which is what I'm really interested in here. I thought the story was good in DS1 and 2. Necromorph shooting can get tedious, but the creepy atmosphere and the psychological trauma of Isaac is why I like the franchise. I don't care about the co-op guy, but apart from that, is this a good sequel to DS 1 and 2 as far as the story goes? I've seen some minor spoilers about some alien city, but what about the markers, the Ishimura and Unitology? Is DS3 loyal to established plotlines?

DS3 is set on Tau Volantis, amidst the wreckage of a failed military expedition from 200 years earlier (before the EarthGov was formed and Sovereign Colonies were the principal interplanetary union). It doesn't have any ties to Unitology or Ishimura, by the virtue of being so damn old, but does a good job of establishing the SC and their Armed Forces, exploring the history of the flotilla, the reasons for the expedition's failure, etc. It also has a fantastic art direction, a welcome change from DS2's "generic action sci-fi." In fact, the setting of Tau Volantis is realized so good that it eclipses the main story of the game, including Mr Retardo (Norton) and Mr Big Retardo (Danik).

It does expand on the Marker role, fills in some blanks by explicitly explaining where the Red Markers come from and why they're in the ass end of the universe, and explains Convergence, but the SCAF remains the high point of the game.

I guess you'll like the side missions, especially the Supply Depot.
 

chestburster

Savant
Illiterate
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
711
And the graphics are top-notch. I think if anyone is into sci-fi horro B-movies (like "Deep Rising"), this game is really enjoyable.

Really? I find it somehow lacking in the later parts. The sequel was bad on that part, and the first one is the most polished (that opening sequence!). You should go on normal chestburster, the later parts are tedious as hell due to the numbers of enemies (especially when you want to grab some stash in side quests). And the story is so messed up, like they didn't make the original DS and just tossed something to the player that would motivate him. The best thing about religious nuts is the chief of them is voiced by Kain, the vampire.

I thought the first section with the space flotilla had great visual. The snow was kinda drab. But the alien temple was great.

The later parts are indeed full of cheap monster closets (spawning four huge necromorphs at once). But among all the easy popamole games, this game is actually kinda challenging if played solo on hard.

Also, like Tagaziel said, Tau Volantis is well designed, with some thought put into how the various facilities are connected and placed, making it feel like a real place, not just some videogame levels strung together. The first game did this incredibly well, with all the backtracking and ship sections making you feel exploring an actual spacecraft. The second game is just videogamey cliche level design.

I also liked the supply depot mission Tagaziel mentioned. For some reason I found those skinny monsters disturbing.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
7,336
But among all the easy popamole games, this game is actually kinda challenging if played solo on hard.

I've wanted to replay DS2 before starting with this one, finishing up on Zealot now. I've found a lot of parts to be really hard, nearly rage inducing actually. I was often left with almost no ammo and medkits, running around scared looking for shit to throw at enemies. First game was pretty easy even on Impossible difficulty for me (even though it had worse controls, funny enough), but the challenge level is definitely upped since DS2. Scary games this series isn't, but at least it can get tense as fuck. Judging from what I read I'll probably enjoy DS3 a lot.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
DS1 was just a rare case of a well-polished popamole game. Nothing more, nothing less. Arguably, I'd say it's a contender for 'best game of the shithouse dumbed down popamole genre'. Yes, that's damning with faint praise, but they took what they could do with an EA game, and made something remotely playable that bent a few expectations - switching the focus away from headshots was original at the time, the return of location-specific damage in a way that really affected gameplay and could be used tactically (taking out the legs to slow a powerful monster down, or taking out the arms to limit its attack) and sometimes HAD to be used tactically (the regenerator). The plot was decent-to-good for a game where plot wasn't really the point, and it was brave enough to break a few rules (allowing you to die quite easily in the tutorial area if you don't gtfo when told - which was also quite a clever warmup to later sections of the game where you had to turn tail and run - not that 'having to run and dodge enemies rather than fight' is original per se, but I don't recall seeing it in a popamole shooter before.

In fact, if the makers of DS1 had immediately broken away from EA and decided to make their own game, I'd have been genuinely excited to see what they could do - they did a good job of bending EA's notoriously strict rules, and they bent them further than many of the 'great developer-studios' that EA has purchased, so without claiming that DS1 was anything but a mediocre dumb-fun game, they more than earnt the chance to show what they could do without EA leaning over their shoulder.

Sadly, the 2nd two games just turned into 'milk the franchise'. The real nail in the coffin for me was that they could come up with great set-pieces like the re-generator level and some of the 'holy shit kill that squid thing before it turns that corpse into a....oh fuck.....' sequences, and did a great job on harder difficulties of keeping the ammo at a point where you really couldn't afford to just blast away without utilising the location-specific damage mechanic, and yet in DS2 and 3 all they did was copy those same ideas with worse implementation. It stank of corporate miliking - don't bother giving the guys the chance to come up with something as fresh and interesting as the regenerator level (if it's even the same guys working on it) - just tell them to use the same thing, except more often and with more obvious solutions so it kills any novelty it every had.

I'm not saying that DS1 was a masterpiece by any standards. It was a decent dumb fun game, that's it. But in terms of developer achievement, it was also something of a triumph against adversity - a game where the developers seemed to sneak in the occasional bit of originality and challenge under EA's noses, in a way that makes you suspect that they were trying to push the boundaries of a popamole game without EA noticing. I've often said that Deus Ex should have become 'the standard' for games in the fps/rpg hybrid market - the mechanics are simpler than any of the Bethesa games, and anyone who can play ME or FO3 should be able to easily pick up the original Deus Ex without difficulty (maybe with a more in-depth tutorial and updated graphics, but the mechanics themselves are no more complex than ME, and considerably less complex than FO3). In a similar way, DS1 should have been the standard for 'games for retards' - and I mean that in the nicest possible way. If you wanted a game with minimal thought and ultra-simple mechanics, but executed and balanced well, with polish and as much creativity as the popamole genre allows, then who shouldn't the game be of the standard of DS1, rather than its sequels or the godawfulness of the CoD clones? Hell, there's certainly times when I want to just switch my brain off and play something ultra simple - if I have insomnia I don't go play JA2, I play CS because I'm in no state for actual thinking, and just want to kill time, so there's a genuine place for games like that. It's a pity that when a game comes along and very marginally increases the standard of that genre - even without making it any more complex - the corporate overlords immediately stomp on anything original or challenging to have come out of it.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
I'm hearing mixed opinions from Codex bros about the story, which is what I'm really interested in here. I thought the story was good in DS1 and 2. Necromorph shooting can get tedious, but the creepy atmosphere and the psychological trauma of Isaac is why I like the franchise. I don't care about the co-op guy, but apart from that, is this a good sequel to DS 1 and 2 as far as the story goes? I've seen some minor spoilers about some alien city, but what about the markers, the Ishimura and Unitology? Is DS3 loyal to established plotlines?

No.

There are huge plot inconsistensies between DS3 and DS1, almost to the extent that DS3 is a brand-new game story-wise. And on its own term, DS3's background story is OK, as long as you ignore the personal drama of Issac. Issac is shit in DS3.

I really enjoyed DS1's story. It's simple and effective. In DS1 they did a great job with the mute Issac. I still remember his body movement showing his sadness when being told that Nichole was dead all along at the end of DS1. A thousand times better than any "fuck" he would utter in DS3. All the "emotional" story points in DS3 look like something written by a 13-year-old.
Is the story the cliche "Crazy religion that want to destroy humanity because it can" or there is something more to it?

Not quite - most of the crew are part of the religion, which is why they're trying to get the marker, but it's clear that none of them really knew what to expect. So rather than the usual cliched 'crazy religion tries to destroy mankind despite it being clear that they're creating hell on earth/space', you get the rather nice story-arcs where quite a few (arguably most) of the 'religious nutters' realise that their religion is a sham, and set about trying to save the place. For the most part, you only interact with them via audio-logs after they're dead, but there's definitely a split between the religious nutters want to destroy (or 'evolve' in their eyes) humanity (who, as would be realistic, happen to be a minority of figures who have worked themselves into influential positions), the majority of religious sect members who are just lay members and try to form resistance groups ala SS2 once they realise their leaders' true aims, and the other crew members who aren't part of the religion at all.

Still 'religious nutters', but not quite as 'herp derp' as it's sometimes done. From memory, despite the religious cult having infiltrated the ship, there's only a handful of members who stay 'religious nutters' once it becomes clear what they've done.
 

chestburster

Savant
Illiterate
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
711
DS1 was just a rare case of a well-polished popamole game. Nothing more, nothing less. Arguably, I'd say it's a contender for 'best game of the shithouse dumbed down popamole genre'.

This.

Dead Space 1 was to this generation what Max Payne 1 was to the last generation:

both games had decent stories that poked fun at genre cliche (DS to sci-fi space horror, MaxPayne to hard boiled noir);
both games had simple-yet-satisfying game mechanic gimmick (DS with strategic dismemberment, MaxPayne with bullet time);
both games had a perfect harmony of gameplay and story element (after playing DS1, I felt exhausted, exactly like what Issac should have felt at the end of DS1; similarly, after playing Max Payne 1, I felt like a mad cop on crack eating pain killer like it was candy. --Unlike GTA4 or Tomb Raider 2013, where the gameplay and story are in stark contrast).

I would argue Dead Space 1 (and Max Payne 1) is what "cinematic" gaming experience should be, instead of the COD "press A for awesome" interactive movie. In DS/MP, the player retains his agency to an extent, and with said agency, the player experiences the game's protagonist's activities in the game's environment.
 

Zewp

Arcane
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,568
Codex 2013
The thing that bothers me the most about DS3 is how they butchered the story. I liked the idea of necromorphs in DS1 because they were shrouded in mystery and you genuinely didn't know what the motive for their existence and the infection was.

Now in DS3
they've dumbed them down, to an extent. Now that we know the motivation for their existence and spread is because a carnivorous moon and its friends want to eat everything, it removes all mystery and turns it the story into another cheesy 'save the galaxy' scenario and it diminishes the impact the idea of the necromorphs had. It's the exact same thing EA did with the ME series. Why can EA not just finish a sci-fi trilogy and leave the main antagonists shrouded in mystery? It would make the story so much better. But instead, they leave us with stereotypical villains that we've seen countless times in countless other games before.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
7,336
I'll never understand people who insist that Dead Space series had a non-crap story at some point. It's about magic markers turning flesh into The Thing-alikes so you could kill them in gory ways. Or get killed by them in gory ways. What the fuck else you need to know? Even the "twist" at the end of DS1 was obvious.
 

Zewp

Arcane
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,568
Codex 2013
Except DS1 never explained what the point of the markers was, why necromorphs couldn't come close to them or where the markers came from. It was nice having a bit of mystery to the game instead of just 'shoot these undead minions.'
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
7,336
Well, if you loved the mystery so much, you shouldn't have touched the sequels. WTF did you expect? It can't stay mysterious for 3 fucking games, else you would be here bitching about them never explaining anything... or someone else would. Me, I just do my best to ignore the story and proceed with the killing. Hey, it's still fucking mysterious to me. :lol: Not that I care, this is not Silent Hill I'm playing.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom