Dead Space Extraction Details and Trailer
This topic is locked from further discussion.
it doesn't matter if it's well made and you're right, there wouldnt be as big an uproar if it wasn't dead space since people were hyped about basically the next resi 4, only this time made for wii rather than ported to it with a better control scheme and even if, people would still be angry cause we freakin have enough on-rails shooters! we don't need anymore we're mostly angry over the failed hype thoughcheese7monkeyI guess this is where my train of thought and most everyone else's in this thread are on separate tracks, then. The most important thing I've learned since I've been following and talking about games is that hype is the anti-satisfier. We've seen it many times in this generation alone, the most obvious of which was Brawl. If you hype something up to beyond mere excitement, chances are great that you'll be disappointed.
That's why I'm pushing for people to accept this game for what it is, not for what we ignorantly expected it to be (I say "we" because I also thought it would be a third-person shooter and "ignorantly" because we were just assuming). If you genuinely don't like on-rails shooters, then you don't have to like it or buy it; but if you enjoy games like this, or are interested in seeing how the Dead Space universe is applied in this way, then you shouldn't be denouncing the game just because you thought it would be something different. I have a hard time believing that everyone has such a passionate hatred for on-rails shooters.
I have a hard time believing that everyone has such a passionate hatred for on-rails shooters.JordanElekTo me, they just feel old. Pointing at stuff while wondering where the screen is going next isn't fun for me. I played RE:UC for about 20 minutes (with a friend, I might add). Got bored and will probably never touch it again. "! A zombie! Gonna blast your head off.. wait.. no! The screen! Don't turn away! I was shooting that!"
[QUOTE="JordanElek"] I have a hard time believing that everyone has such a passionate hatred for on-rails shooters.To me, they just feel old. Pointing at stuff while wondering where the screen is going next isn't fun for me. I played RE:UC for about 20 minutes (with a friend, I might add). Got bored and will probably never touch it again. "! A zombie! Gonna blast your head off.. wait.. no! The screen! Don't turn away! I was shooting that!" That's fine, and I totally respect your opinion. But in general, much of the language in this thread is so over-the-top that it's obvious that there's much more going on than simple dislike of the genre in most cases. I'm just trying to elicit some thoughts about how although this may be disappointing news, it's not nearly as bad as some people are making it out to be.Litchie
[QUOTE="cheese7monkey"] but the wii is freakin filled with on-rails shooters now, if hotd hadn't been released then maybe, but the new hotd means that we pretty much don't need another freakin rail-shooter! we were all expecting a fun 3rd person shooter, something the wii has yet to get (ignoring resi 4) not another freakin rail-shooter even a normal fps would've been alright, but not another freakin rail-shooter!clicketyclickIf two on-rails shooters (RE:UC and HotD:O) and sections of another game only available in Europe (Disaster) means that the Wii is "filled" with them and no more are needed, then having over 6 normal FPS games (CoD 3 & W@W, MoH: H2 & V, MP3, RS - I'm only counting the games that weren't universally panned) and RE4 plus a ton of 3rd person action games means that the Wii is absolutely overrun with 1st and 3rd person shooters by comparison and no more are needed. In fact, we could use some more on-rails shooters to balance things out!
There may be more FPS's, but I don't think that's a proper comparison. They should be weighed by how many people want them. If lots of people want FPS's and only a few want rail shooters, then 6 to 2 may be a proper ratio. I would argue that it doesn't take many rail shooters to reach saturation.
If two on-rails shooters (RE:UC and HotD:O) and sections of another game only available in Europe (Disaster) means that the Wii is "filled" with them and no more are needed, then having over 6 normal FPS games (CoD 3 & W@W, MoH: H2 & V, MP3, RS - I'm only counting the games that weren't universally panned) and RE4 plus a ton of 3rd person action games means that the Wii is absolutely overrun with 1st and 3rd person shooters by comparison and no more are needed. In fact, we could use some more on-rails shooters to balance things out![QUOTE="clicketyclick"][QUOTE="cheese7monkey"] but the wii is freakin filled with on-rails shooters now, if hotd hadn't been released then maybe, but the new hotd means that we pretty much don't need another freakin rail-shooter! we were all expecting a fun 3rd person shooter, something the wii has yet to get (ignoring resi 4) not another freakin rail-shooter even a normal fps would've been alright, but not another freakin rail-shooter!presto7640
There may be more FPS's, but I don't think that's a proper comparison. They should be weighed by how many people want them. If lots of people want FPS's and only a few want rail shooters, then 6 to 2 may be a proper ratio. I would argue that it doesn't take many rail shooters to reach saturation.
My point was that 2 games does not equal "the wii is freakin filled with on-rails shooters" and his argument was faulty. Frankly, I don't really give a damn whether I'm playing FP or TP. I give a slight edge to TP because I like having peripheral vision, but it's not going to affect what I buy. And whether a game's on rails or not, who really seriously gives a damn? I don't think you can take this thread as proof of anything, except the existence of many people with uninformed expectations who have - and continue to - make purchase decisions before getting all the information. But that's hardly surprising if you're right that they really want FPS. If these people wanted tons of FPS games, they picked the wrong console. They put their money on the wrong horse and are at the wrong race track.Frankly, I don't really give a damn whether I'm playing FP or TP. I give a slight edge to TP because I like having peripheral vision, but it's not going to affect what I buy. And whether a game's on rails or not, who really seriously gives a damn? I don't think you can take this thread as proof of anything, except the existence of many people with uninformed expectations who have - and continue to - make purchase decisions before getting all the information. But that's hardly surprising if you're right that they really want FPS. If these people wanted tons of FPS games, they picked the wrong console. They put their money on the wrong horse and are at the wrong race track. clicketyclickSorry but I as well as everyone here have the right to judge a game before we play it. Plus why would anyone here expect anything less that a third person horror/shooter? The fact that this went from the expectation of a TPS to a rail game is beyond disappointing. The Wii has a lot less quality shooters than 360 or PS3 we all know, the point is why are devs doing very little about that especially since it's a very popular genre that's lacking in a big way on Wii?
[QUOTE="presto7640"][QUOTE="clicketyclick"] If two on-rails shooters (RE:UC and HotD:O) and sections of another game only available in Europe (Disaster) means that the Wii is "filled" with them and no more are needed, then having over 6 normal FPS games (CoD 3 & W@W, MoH: H2 & V, MP3, RS - I'm only counting the games that weren't universally panned) and RE4 plus a ton of 3rd person action games means that the Wii is absolutely overrun with 1st and 3rd person shooters by comparison and no more are needed. In fact, we could use some more on-rails shooters to balance things out!clicketyclick
There may be more FPS's, but I don't think that's a proper comparison. They should be weighed by how many people want them. If lots of people want FPS's and only a few want rail shooters, then 6 to 2 may be a proper ratio. I would argue that it doesn't take many rail shooters to reach saturation.
My point was that 2 games does not equal "the wii is freakin filled with on-rails shooters" and his argument was faulty. Frankly, I don't really give a damn whether I'm playing FP or TP. I give a slight edge to TP because I like having peripheral vision, but it's not going to affect what I buy. And whether a game's on rails or not, who really seriously gives a damn? I don't think you can take this thread as proof of anything, except the existence of many people with uninformed expectations who have - and continue to - make purchase decisions before getting all the information. But that's hardly surprising if you're right that they really want FPS. If these people wanted tons of FPS games, they picked the wrong console. They put their money on the wrong horse and are at the wrong race track.Yeah, I understood your point, and mine is that if nobody wants on rail shooters, then two is too many.
Personally, I wasn't interested in the game to begin with, so it doesn't matter that much to me, but I think the people complaining have a vaild argument here. EA told Wii owners they were getting Dead Space, but we're not. We're getting some other game that happens to share the same name. It may still be a good game, but it's not what they made it out to be. It's something else, and nobody wanted it.
So now the cool thing is to hate on on-rails shooters?
Why didn't I get the memo?
House of the Dead seemed to turn out alright, yet everyone is acting like this is the end of the world.
And then the Wii is filled with on-rails shooters? Holy cow, it has two. If that's the requirement for a console to be "filled" with a certain genre, the Wii's doing pretty good in each regard and doesn't need any more games!
So now the cool thing is to hate on on-rails shooters?
Why didn't I get the memo?
House of the Dead seemed to turn out alright, yet everyone is acting like this is the end of the world.
And then the Wii is filled with on-rails shooters? Holy cow, it has two. If that's the requirement for a console to be "filled" with a certain genre, the Wii's doing pretty good in each regard and doesn't need any more games!
AlexSays
Yeah, I wonder where all of the fans of the new House of the Dead buggered off to.
Fact is this will be of higher quality then if they downgraded the original for a port.
ugh. people just cant get it right with the wii can they?
the wii is finally getting some good horror titles.... and then they make them on rails.
whatever, I hope it fails miserably and then they will realize they need to make an ACTUAL game for the wii. MFers.
Yeah, I understood your point, and mine is that if nobody wants on rail shooters, then two is too many.presto7640And the point of my last post was to explain that you can't take this thread as evidence that no-one wants rail shooters. Besides, a company can make any game they please even if it is niche; they shouldn't be beholden to population ratios anyway. If that weren't so, you wouldn't see any more core games on Wii. Two core games is probably all it takes to fulfill the ratio of hardcore to casual players.
Personally, I wasn't interested in the game to begin with, so it doesn't matter that much to me, but I think the people complaining have a vaild argument here. EA told Wii owners they were getting Dead Space, but we're not. We're getting some other game that happens to share the same name. It may still be a good game, but it's not what they made it out to be. It's something else, and nobody wanted it.presto7640If Harry Potter were written in a different tense or with different pronouns (first person vs. third person), would it cease to be Harry Potter? It wouldn't be the same book, sure, and this Dead Space is admittedly not the same Dead Space as on the other platforms. But it is set in the same universe, conserves the same plot, and explains and continues the story, fleshing it out and explaining what has happened. That means it's the same franchise. It's not at all a valid point to claim that this Dead Space only "happens to share the same name" merely because it's a first person rail shooter.
i dont understand why people are Bringing house of the Dead here, and saying "nobody hated it,etc",House of the Dead has ALWAYS been a Rail Shooter, This is Dead Space...Known as a 3rd Person with lots of Horror and Gore.
I hope they change their Minds and at least leave it as a regular FPS and allow us to Control the Character
the wii is finally getting some good horror titles.... and then they make them on rails.
fluffy_kins
What prevents the developers from making an on-rails game scary or of high-quality?
Link: http://wii.ign.com/articles/954/954895p1.html
Trailer: http://wii.ign.com/dor/objects/14320036/dead-space/videos/deadspace_wiitrailer_021709.html
I'm sure many have heard of EA announcing Dead Space for Wii. IGN manage to get some details about Dead Space Extraction. It seems the game will NOT be a port of the 360/PS3 versions, it will actually be a prequel with a different storyline and it will also be in first person. Sounds great, I was hoping it won't be a port.
King-gamer
Yea it's great it's not a port but I don't like the fact that it's in first person. They could have done RE4's type of gameplay.
It's apparently an 'on rails' shooter, which could still be fun, but not what I had in mind.presto7640ditto
clicketyclick
I wasn't trying to say that nobody wants on rails shooters. The only point I was trying to make was that your comparison of the number of FPS's to rail shooters doesn't work, at least to me it doesn't. I think you have to weigh them by demand, and since we don't know the demand the argument is moot. That's all I was trying to say.
I disagree with the Harry Potter thing too. To me, it would no longer be Harry Potter as we understand it to be now. Granted, the story and setting are connected between these two Dead Space games, but if you change the perspective, you change the entire experience. And here, we're not only changing the perspective, but the entire way the game is played. That's not always a bad thing, some franchises are successfully rejuvinated with such a change. What makes me so critical of it in this case is that I believe this game is an attempt to appease shareholders more than provide a great gameplay experience. I realize that I may end up being way off the mark, but that's what it looks like to me right now.
Dead Space is new IP, fresh off the vine. It's not like they're changing an established tradition. It's been one freakin game! And of course everyone knows how disastrous it is to change formats and how no-one likes it. That's why everyone hated RE4 and no-one bought it. It should just be impermissible.i dont understand why people are Bringing house of the Dead here, and saying "nobody hated it,etc",House of the Dead has ALWAYS been a Rail Shooter, This is Dead Space...Known as a 3rd Person with lots of Horror and Gore.
I hope they change their Minds and at least leave it as a regular FPS and allow us to Control the Character
jjc0929
[QUOTE="fluffy_kins"]the wii is finally getting some good horror titles.... and then they make them on rails.
VGobbsesser
What prevents the developers from making an on-rails game scary or of high-quality?
This is exactly what I was talking about. People say on rails shooters are "boring" or that they're not scary or not good... as I said, there are many weak arguments people are using to justify their assumptions about the game and why the game should have met their assumptions.The only point I was trying to make was that your comparison of the number of FPS's to rail shooters doesn't work, at least to me it doesn't.presto7640Well that's perfectly expected, considering my comment wasn't directed towards you. It was directed to a certain person in order to show how their argument based simply off the raw number of games on the console is flawed. To try to pick apart what I say on the basis of things I wasn't attempting to address is cheap and unfair. In any case, I already explained why it shouldn't even matter what the ratio is, otherwise, no more core games for you!
I disagree with the Harry Potter thing too. To me, it would no longer be Harry Potter as we understand it to be now. Granted, the story and setting are connected between these two Dead Space games, but if you change the perspective, you change the entire experience. And here, we're not only changing the perspective, but the entire way the game is played. That's not always a bad thing, some franchises are successfully rejuvinated with such a change. What makes me so critical of it in this case is that I believe this game is an attempt to appease shareholders more than provide a great gameplay experience. I realize that I may end up being way off the mark, but that's what it looks like to me right now.presto7640Appease shareholders?! Because Dead Space did oh-so-well did it?! It did okay, but probably the losses exceeded the profits. Dead Space and Mirror's Edge were two recent games emanating from EA's new philosophy of actually investing time and money in R&D of NEW game ideas. That's extremely costly and rarely profitable. Dead Space is still far from a proven franchise. The Silent Hill games are from different perspectives - different characters and even different plots - yet they are all part of the same franchise and only a troll would say otherwise. No-one would claim that the different perspective meant that each game only "happens to share the same name" and is conning you into buying it, thinking you're getting a Silent Hill game, while it's Silent Hill in name only!
Personally I'm very disappointed. I had hyped up the thought of Dead Space with RE4 controls, which would be vastly superior to on-rails. On-rails is fine, but I find it just makes it less serious and less frightening if you can't control yourself. It will just all be reflex shooting now. Maybe I'm wrong though. Please prove me wrong. It's probably my own fault that I hyped it up before having any details, but that doesn't stop me from being really disappointed. I'm sure it will be good, but it won't be as good as the 3rd person Dead Space Wii that I had dreamed up :PWow, lots of hate for on-rails shooters in this thread, while there is currently massive love for House of the Dead: Overkill permeating this very forum. You guys confuse me sometimes. ;)
We should judge the game for what it is, not what we hoped it would be. Judging from the trailer, it's going to be a pretty sweet arcade shooter.
JordanElek
On-rails is fine, but I find it just makes it less serious and less frightening if you can't control yourself. It will just all be reflex shooting now. Maybe I'm wrong though. Please prove me wrong.Jimmi323I can't do that, but you can't prove yourself right either. ;) All I can do is provide evidence, and the developers of Umbrella Chronicles did a great job of providing an overall freaky atmosphere with the occasional make-you-jump scare. It's all about atmosphere in this type of game, and a predetermined perspective makes it much easier to create that atmosphere.
It's probably my own fault that I hyped it up before having any details, but that doesn't stop me from being really disappointed.Jimmi323That's what caused you to be really disappointed, which was my point in a different post. ;)
the wii is finally getting some good horror titles.... and then they make them on rails.
What prevents the developers from making an on-rails game scary or of high-quality?
This is exactly what I was talking about. People say on rails shooters are "boring" or that they're not scary or not good... as I said, there are many weak arguments people are using to justify their assumptions about the game and why the game should have met their assumptions. How is it a weak argument? If you don't care for rail shooters, you don't care for rail shooters. It's not an argument at all really, it's plain fact. I simply don't want to play any game if it's on rails because I don't like that style of game play. Pointing and clicking on the screen is not fun *for me*. For people that are in the same boat as I am, we have the right to be dissapointed because of what we thought the game was going to be.It's apparently an 'on rails' shooter, which could still be fun, but not what I had in mind.presto7640yea i saw this on joystiq.com. Im not saing its 100% going to be a flop but i would be lying if i said the bottom did not drop out of my excitement when i read that. I cant figure out why thay would go this route. i mean deadspace on the ps3 was a very great game and IMHO one of the defining exp for next gen gaming.When i first saw the trailer and readthat it was going to be a prequle :spelling: i had a moment of great hype then i read its a on rails shooter though and that sent warrning bells off in my mind that this is just going to be a cheap cash in on the wii much like what i thought of the REuc game.... blah. of coursewho knows it could turn out great. though i strongly feel on rails shooters should have died out a long time ago. if thay actualy add some real story and NPC's ectto it and make the shooting actualy fun "unlike reuc" it may just add to the deadspace story. but i have a STRONG feeling we would have been better off with a port with watered down graphics. At any rate for any current Wii only owners i have to say if you get the chance play deadspace on a ps3 or 360. its a great time.
That's what caused you to be really disappointed, which was my point in a different post. ;)JordanElekOf course that's why I'm disappointed. I'm not mad at EA, just... disappointed. It's like when a kid tells their parents they want a 360 for Christmas, so the parents go to Wal-Mart and the people at Wal-Mart recommend a Wii because it's so popular. The kid is mad at the parents, because it's not what they expected, but it's still good, just different.
On a completely separate note, I'd be willing to bet the co-op alone will be reason to buy this game. It's better to share your scares. Who watches horror movies by themselves?
[QUOTE="umcommon"] - FPS games sell well on 360 also because it has an established market of FPS buyers. It has a large hardcore contingent. It's a vicious circle, isn't it? - Well, they've seen that shooters in established, proven franchises can work. There's still some hesitancy over new IP or spinoffs from new IP. Results haven't been consistent. Whether that's to do with demographics, advertising budgets and tactics, or game genre is something that remains to be tested. And to tell you the truth, I'm relieved that this game will be focusing on the lightgun aspect of the wiimote, and not gimmicky waggling like so many failed efforts. - Everyone's negative reaction in this thread. As I explained above, you shouldn't take this thread as evidence that no-one wants rail shooters. Nor does it matter how many want them. All that matters is whether they make a good game. [QUOTE="presto7640"]The only point I was trying to make was that your comparison of the number of FPS's to rail shooters doesn't work, at least to me it doesn't.clicketyclickWell that's perfectly expected, considering my comment wasn't directed towards you. It was directed to a certain person in order to show how their argument based simply off the raw number of games on the console is flawed. To try to pick apart what I say on the basis of things I wasn't attempting to address is cheap and unfair. In any case, I already explained why it shouldn't even matter what the ratio is, otherwise, no more core games for you!
I disagree with the Harry Potter thing too. To me, it would no longer be Harry Potter as we understand it to be now. Granted, the story and setting are connected between these two Dead Space games, but if you change the perspective, you change the entire experience. And here, we're not only changing the perspective, but the entire way the game is played. That's not always a bad thing, some franchises are successfully rejuvinated with such a change. What makes me so critical of it in this case is that I believe this game is an attempt to appease shareholders more than provide a great gameplay experience. I realize that I may end up being way off the mark, but that's what it looks like to me right now.presto7640Appease shareholders?! Because Dead Space did oh-so-well did it?! It did okay, but probably the losses exceeded the profits. Dead Space and Mirror's Edge were two recent games emanating from EA's new philosophy of actually investing time and money in R&D of NEW game ideas. That's extremely costly and rarely profitable. Dead Space is still far from a proven franchise. The Silent Hill games are from different perspectives - different characters and even different plots - yet they are all part of the same franchise and only a troll would say otherwise. No-one would claim that the different perspective meant that each game only "happens to share the same name" and is conning you into buying it, thinking you're getting a Silent Hill game, while it's Silent Hill in name only!
I don't believe the person you were directing the 'ratio argument' at was talking to you either, so I don't understand your point, and you are either missing mine completely, or are unable to accept criticism. I've been trying to stay friendly, but you're really pushing it with your dismissive tone.
Silent Hill? who cares? I specifically said that changing things from game to game works for many franchises, so I guess we agree on that? I don't see what you're trying to say with that.
As far as appeasing shareholders, there's no way I can explain myself without a huge wall of text, so I won't bother. I'll simply say that I have my reasons for thinking that, and if you don't agree, that's fine. As I said myself, I may be way wrong.
I think we've both said enough to each other at this point, and it might start to get a little personal. I don't see anything productive coming from further debate.
I don't believe the person you were directing the 'ratio argument' at was talking to you either, so I don't understand your point, and you are either missing mine completely, or are unable to accept criticism.presto7640He was saying that 2 games mean the wii is filled with rail shooters. There was no mention of ratios or anything like that. It was not part of his argument. I quoted him, addressing what I said to him to point out that his argument, as it stood, was contradictory. If you want to bring up ratios, that's fine. But it isn't a flaw in my argument, because what I was saying was meant as a criticism of what HE wrote, and he did not write what you are bringing up. It is not valid to criticise people for not considering what they weren't arguing against. I was using HIS logic - not my own - to demonstrate why HIS (not your) argument, as it stood, doesn't work. I addressed your point separately. [QUOTE="presto7640"] I've been trying to stay friendly, but you're really pushing it with your dismissive tone. Silent Hill? who cares? I specifically said that changing things from game to game works for many franchises, so I guess we agree on that? I don't see what you're trying to say with that. I'd just like to say you gave me a good laugh when you talk about my dismissive tone... and then the next sentence you wrote was to say "who cares?" to my argument. :P My point was that changing the experience and genre does not mean it is not the same franchise. Just because it went from 3rd to 1st person and from free movement to on rails does not mean that it is a completely different thing and only happens to share the same name but bears no resemblance to the other game. There are more important aspects to a game than the perspective and how the camera works or whether you get to exercise your thumb on the analog stick. Namely, plot, atmosphere, universe, tone, styIe, etc.
[QUOTE="psychobrew"] How is it a weak argument? If you don't care for rail shooters, you don't care for rail shooters. It's not an argument at all really, it's plain fact. I simply don't want to play any game if it's on rails because I don't like that style of game play. Pointing and clicking on the screen is not fun *for me*. For people that are in the same boat as I am, we have the right to be dissapointed because of what we thought the game was going to be.clicketyclickThat's fine. But saying that on-rails shooters are always and necessarily boring, not scary, and poor quality by virtue of their genre is weak and unjustifiable. If people are disappointed because of what they thought the game was going to be, then it is all their own fault and they shouldn't complain about the developers as if they've committed treason or betrayed them. Sure, but I think after every point (in this thread, anayway), there's an invisible asterick that says "For Me." Some people find this type of game borring, and if the player is board it's not scarry. Other people love this type of game, and that's fine, but when EA says they're bringing Dead Space to the Wii people expected Dead Space in all its glory, not another dumbed down spin off (rail games are dumbed down *to me*). I don't think people's expectations were unrealistic in what they were expecting based off the anouncement. I place the blame on EA for not making it clear that the game wasn't really Dead Space, not the people who thought it was and are now dissapointed.
[QUOTE="fluffy_kins"]the wii is finally getting some good horror titles.... and then they make them on rails.
VGobbsesser
What prevents the developers from making an on-rails game scary or of high-quality?
you know what, you're absolutely right. I really hadn't thought about Umbrella Chronicles, a game that I love, so I take back my statement.
He was saying that 2 games mean the wii is filled with rail shooters. There was no mention of ratios or anything like that. It was not part of his argument. I quoted him, addressing what I said to him to point out that his argument, as it stood, was contradictory.clicketyclicktrust me, the wii has a lot more than 2 rail shooters
[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]He was saying that 2 games mean the wii is filled with rail shooters. There was no mention of ratios or anything like that. It was not part of his argument. I quoted him, addressing what I said to him to point out that his argument, as it stood, was contradictory.cheese7monkeytrust me, the wii has a lot more than 2 rail shooters Uhh... okay... so.. um.. can you name them? Since there's so many, you don't even have to remember them all at once. ;)
Plus why would anyone here expect anything less that a third person horror/shooter? umcommonRail shooters are not "less" than third person shooters, they're simply a completely different thing, champ.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment