Is the rumour not true after all? EA says Dead Space is 'still important'
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1836378/dead_space_not_cancelled_after_all_ea_says_it_remains_important.html
Is the rumour not true after all? EA says Dead Space is 'still important'
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1836378/dead_space_not_cancelled_after_all_ea_says_it_remains_important.html
Disappointing, I think they could've finished Issac's story with this 3rd game and started a new story for the 4th game.
The game had great gameplay functions, its disappoingting to see that end if this is the case.
Spend less in development. I don't know the numbers and im just guessing but im sure the first one cost half of what 3 did to make.
| forest-spirit said: True or not it's clear where EA, and some other big publishers are heading. Unless you can turn a game into a long lasting series with 5m+ entries it's just not worth making. Which is why I prefer smaller publishers such as Paradox and Atlus. Heck even Nintendo is a million times better despite largely playing it safe with 25 year old proven franchises. |
Its starting to behave more like TV, shows that don't climb onto the top ten lists after one season (or, preferably, one episode) are axed at once, never getting the chance to come into their own. And a of the shows that actually do fail are either too niche or plain bad, same goes for games.
Shows like "Friends", "Seinfeld", "NYPD Blue" and "CSI" actually had fairly weak beginnings, quality-wise, but they rose to the occassion when the actors and writers got warm and turned out to be become classics, and incredibly successful to boot.
I'm not saying that Dead Space series would have become classic but a lot of games that do okay can become great with some polish. Instead, developers opt to change the recipe completely or at least enough to alienate fans of the first installation(s) and new fans are less likely to start enjoying a direct sequel since they have no relation to the beginning.
The recipe in gaming today is usually as follows; release game, recieve mediocre sales and reviews. Okay, throw in action, effects, sex and other gimmicks to reap a profit. It often works. Apply same recipe to sequels to milk, milk curdles as consumers tire of the same old shit (unless you happen to be making Call of Duty), sit back and watch in astonishment as your franchise dies. Branch out and launch spin-off's on unlikely platforms as a last grasp at straws. Make sour comments in the gaming press and start to talk about your new franchise getting ready for the same process. Rinse and repeat.
Hold up! EA says they're not cancelling it. The IP is still 'important' to them.
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/03/05/ea-on-dead-space-4-cancellation-rumors-they-are-patently-false-the-franchise-remains-an-important-ip/
EDIT
I noticed somebody posted this above. Carry on :D
Playstation = The Beast from the East

Sony + Nintendo = WIN! PS3 + PSV + PS4 + Wii U + 3DS
As a fan of the Dead Space series I'd prefer it to end at 3, I don't want to have a story that starts to become dull and boring which was the case for me in 3.
I hope EA doesn't close down Visceral, they developed a great series in Dead Space and a quality game in Dante's Inferno.
Mummelmann said:
Shows like "Friends", "Seinfeld", "NYPD Blue" and "CSI" actually had fairly weak beginnings, quality-wise, but they rose to the occassion when the actors and writers got warm and turned out to be become classics, and incredibly successful to boot. I'm not saying that Dead Space series would have become classic but a lot of games that do okay can become great with some polish. Instead, developers opt to change the recipe completely or at least enough to alienate fans of the first installation(s) and new fans are less likely to start enjoying a direct sequel since they have no relation to the beginning. The recipe in gaming today is usually as follows; release game, recieve mediocre sales and reviews. Okay, throw in action, effects, sex and other gimmicks to reap a profit. It often works. Apply same recipe to sequels to milk, milk curdles as consumers tire of the same old shit (unless you happen to be making Call of Duty), sit back and watch in astonishment as your franchise dies. Branch out and launch spin-off's on unlikely platforms as a last grasp at straws. Make sour comments in the gaming press and start to talk about your new franchise getting ready for the same process. Rinse and repeat. |
Now that you mention CoD, I wonder when that well will finally dry up.
JGarret said:
Now that you mention CoD, I wonder when that well will finally dry up. |
That's a damn good question. I think that the 8th gen will show the answer and suspect that the market will be flooded with so many CoD-like games that one out of two things is bound to happen; either one game or several games emerge that behave like CoD but improve upon every aspect, thus stealing the thunder and sales and earning the coveted favourite stamp by reviewers or, the sheer volume of CoD like games detract sales and attention from the original.
The tendency we're seeing with more open world games, more and more CoD clones appearing and doing things slightly differently lends the belief that CoD will soon be an outdated recipe for blockbuster sales and new trends and gimmicks will set the standard for some years to come. If Infinity Ward and Treyarch start straying too far away from the core recipe, the Call of Duty name in itself will lose a lot of edge and power (look to the Forza series for an example, the arcade elements in Horizon drove away most of the fans the simulation series had established).
I've only played the first Dead Space, but I would consider it one of my favorite games ever...
Necromorphs scare the crap out of me...
Have a nice day...