Dead Space 3's Action Focus Was 'Necessary Evil'

Some would contest whether or not Dead Space was ever a scary franchise, but most will agree that Dead Space 3 focuses more on being an action title. In a recent NowGamer interview, Dead Space 1 writer Antony Johnston explained why he thinks the added action emphasis occurred.

While admitting that the newer Dead Space games weren't really for him thanks to the action focus, he said that the emphasis was "a necessary evil in order to broaden the fan base."

"I know the developers always wanted to go bigger, in terms of scope. And I've mentioned before that the universe we created was huge, with lots of elements, which simply didn't make it into the first game.

"So to get that story told, to round out the universe, it was inevitable the settings and environments would open out a bit, become a bit more epic in scale."

Without the more epic scale Johnston claims that Dead Space would likely become "pretty dull."

What do you think, does Johnston have a point? It seems to me that regardless of what Dead Space "really is" (or was), there is a group of people that wish Dead Space 3 was more of a horror game. People who are upset to be cast aside for the sake of a wider audience, even.

Dead Space 3's Action Focus A 'Necessary Evil' - Dead Space 1 Writer [NowGamer]


Comments

    In other words, they have to get the COD crowd or EA is shutting them down

      Yep. Whether it be TV shows or video games, simply recouping costs and making a modest to impressive profit doesn't seem to be enough. I understand they're running a business but it becomes more about extracting every cent from customers vs. building a loyal fab base and genuinely focusing on their experience.

      So many games have downloadable or on disc DLC -on day one with increasing frequency no less. Then there are micro transactions, extra editions with anything from fluff in game cosmetic items to physical items like art books and soundtracks. Perhaps it's all a necessary 'evil. '

      I wonder how the developers for companies such as EA feel if they have to compromise their vision for a game because its parent company wants mass appeal.

      Last edited 09/02/13 10:59 am

    How do you continue making a horror series when you, playing as Issac, have already seen and experienced the threat once before. Aliens was no longer as scary as Alien because we knew the threat just as Ripley did. The only thing that remains is the tension and if your after the best experience for that then change the difficulty to the hardest the game offers and see what it means to play a survival horror. Because then your counting every bullet just like we did with the first resident evil

    Why bother making a survival horror franchise (even if that premise was pretty thin even in DS1) if you're just going to warp it into something else?

    Is it really not that scary anymore? I'm still thinking about getting it

      Play it on the 'impossible' difficulty whilst thinking it's an 'action' game, I dare you.

    I'm not sure where everyone got this weird appreciation for the first game, i found it rather underdesigned. And there was HEAPS of shooting, there was LOADS of action. I enjoyed it but it ended up being an exercise in just clearing rooms. Dead Space 2 became more action-oriented but with that came variety in puzzles, setting and action. They also learnt some pacing, refraining from blasting you with hordes of two types of enemies. Did people forget this? I mean these were pretty common criticisms in reviews. Adding action doesn't necessarily make the game bad if the shoe fits and it FITS everything about Dead Space, including the original.

    If you want a bad game that focused on action in an obvious misstep, look at Resident Evil 6. Dead Space 3 is no RE6, not even close and i doubt anyone who's spent time with either would argue. I finished Dead Space 3 last night and i fail to see exactly how much quantifiable "action" was really added to the game, beyond Dead Space 2.

      Here we go someone who actually played the game. The action sequences were were pretty much on par with DS2, I suppose people were disdained by the human enemy shoot-outs, but those were so easy and such rare occurrences you couldn't really say that attributed to action at all.

      And I very much agree, if you had to critisise the game, it'll be the pacing, DS3 devs seem to think giving you more enemies at one time and more often makes a better game. But then that was what DS2 did and that was met with universal praise.

    DS3 was a better game for the action focus. There's still plenty of "boo!" moments, but how scary can enemies be when you've already killed thousands of them? I agree with the decision to open it up. In DS2 they tried to force the "horror" elements too much that it suffered, and I think they saw that and just let loose.

    dead of duty space

    I loved all 3 games and I'm not sure why the series cops so much flack for being action packed. There aren't that many horror games that are action focused and TBH it fills a nice niche for me. It's nicely designed sci-fi with lots of body horror thrown in, the best of both worlds.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now