So...Dead Space 2, am I the only one who thought this deserved least a GotY nom?

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]Dead Space 1 was not atmosphericActicEdge

Serious? The atmosphere is like half of that game's appeal.

I agree that it's not scary, but it is very good at creating a sense of place. Mostly thanks to the sound design, e.g. the part where you start the ship's engines.

What was so atmospheric about this game? I played this game maxed out, at midnight in complete darkness with headphones. Was I suppose to be absorbed? Because I definitely wasn't. Everything is realized well (sound design was excellent) but man its just not scary or gripping. Perhaps sterile steel just doesn't do it for me.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"]

Dead Space hadsuperior pacing- take tram to new area, carry out your mission, return to tram, repeat. This gave the game a great structure and sense of progress. Chapter separations were meaningful. With DS2 it just refused to end. Every mission seemed to be making excuses to delay your objective

You are not the first one on this board I have heard say that DS2 had fewer jump scares. I don't know what to say. I played both games and they both did too many jump scares but jump scares is almost all that DS2 ever did. Everything is putting on a little show for you.

DS1 did have at least one effective horror creature in it. The invincible zombie that stalked you in a couple areas. I also liked that open part, and the part in every stage where you have to back track to the tram provided genuine horror because you were actually anticipating something. As in, actually using your brain

topgunmv

The invinsible enemy that stalked you in DS1 was not scary, it was annoying. I feel like trying to argue Dead Space was at all horror is just non sense, that game is not scary, the jump scares are not scary, the atmosphere is not tense, the backtracking is nothing great. DS1 was an 8.5 to me, it had great graphics, great combat, a decent story, cool creature design and good pacing. It is not a horror game in any sense of the word though. Its an action game in space.

Well that's just like, your opinion man.

I know :P

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]

Serious? The atmosphere is like half of that game's appeal.

I agree that it's not scary, but it is very good at creating a sense of place. Mostly thanks to the sound design, e.g. the part where you start the ship's engines.

HoolaHoopMan

What was so atmospheric about this game? I played this game maxed out, at midnight in complete darkness with headphones. Was I suppose to be absorbed? Because I definitely wasn't. Everything is realized well (sound design was excellent) but man its just not scary or gripping. Perhaps sterile steel just doesn't do it for me.

If by atmosphere you mean it was like you actually were on a ship in space then yeah I agree it was believable. I wasn't blown away but yeah it was believable. I think my biggest problem with this game's visual is that everything looks the same because its all steel and metal.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

What was so atmospheric about this game? I played this game maxed out, at midnight in complete darkness with headphones. Was I suppose to be absorbed? Because I definitely wasn't. Everything is realized well (sound design was excellent) but man its just not scary or gripping. Perhaps sterile steel just doesn't do it for me.

ActicEdge

If by atmosphere you mean it was like you actually were on a ship in space then yeah I agree it was believable. I wasn't blown away but yeah it was believable. I think my biggest problem with this game's visual is that everything looks the same because its all steel and metal.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Atmospheric doesn't have to equate to scary, as I'd agree that both games aren't scary. However I would absolutely say the game has atmosphere, one of the things it nails pretty damn well. HoolaHoopMan

If by atmosphere you mean it was like you actually were on a ship in space then yeah I agree it was believable. I wasn't blown away but yeah it was believable. I think my biggest problem with this game's visual is that everything looks the same because its all steel and metal.

Well I did say the game had great graphics :P

I had one problem with the visuals, I didn't say it was visually ugly :P

I felt that the mission structure that you're praising was Dead Space's biggest fault. It felt too disjointed every time you got on and off the tram. The passive chapter titles that were in Dead Space 2 felt much more organic and fixed something I felt was an actual detractor of the first. Honestly I can't think of a single thing from the first that the second doesn't do better. More variety in enemies, weapons, set pieces, zero g sequences, and they added in some excellent voice work for Isaac.

HoolaHoopMan

there were not chapters in DS2. They did put in chapters just to emulate some of the actual pacing in DS1 but don't fool yourself: DS2 is just one long miandering chapter that gets new parts tacked on with no rhyme or reason. You seriously felt disjointed every time you got on and off the tram? I love games that follow that pattern of breaking the game into logical chunks like that with repeating touchstones to get your berrings. (DS = SM64 lol) There is no logic in DS2, only randomness. If you like COD or Killzone campaigns I guess you'll like DS2.

The graphics, weapons, zero gravity, leveling up and set pieces in DS2 are better though. Adding character to Isaac was inevitable because of how DS1 ended, but Isaac's blank 'every man' in DS1 was much more effective, kind of like how Master Cheif lost much of his appeal after they explored his character. The best video game protagonists are ambiguous. It lets them be a stand-in for the player- and it makes it much more effective as horror imo

\Also seriously I hate QTEs. DS2 has some of the worst ever where it is just ridiculous how Isaac could survive it

there were not chapters in DS2. They did put in chapters just to emulate some of the actual pacing in DS1 but don't fool yourself: DS2 is just one long miandering chapter that gets new parts tacked on with no rhyme or reason. You seriously felt disjointed every time you got on and off the tram? I love games that follow that pattern of breaking the game into logical chunks like that with repeating touchstones to get your berrings. (DS = SM64 lol) There is no logic in DS2, only randomness. If you like COD or Killzone campaigns I guess you'll like DS2.

The graphics, weapons, zero gravity, leveling up and set pieces in DS2 are better though. Adding character to Isaac was inevitable because of how DS1 ended, but Isaac's blank 'every man' in DS1 was much more effective, kind of like how Master Cheif lost much of his appeal after they explored his character. The best video game protagonists are ambiguous. It lets them be a stand-in for the player- and it makes it much more effective as horror imo

\Also seriously I hate QTEs. DS2 has some of the worst ever where it is just ridiculous how Isaac could survive it

GunSmith1_basic

Of course there were chapters, the difference being it was more organic and not some archaeic, "Get on tram, next level", type of design. The levels were still distinct and took place on different parts of the station. They changed it because they realized it just wasn't a good way of going about transitioning into another part of the game.

The SP of Dead Space 2 isn't even close to resemblinhg COD so why even reference it? COD has individual levels that are broken up into segments, something that you're praising DS1 for having. If anything the you could compare the level changes in DS2 to something like HL or HL2. So I think you have it ***backwards. The level/single player progression in DS1 is more similar to COD than DS2 is.

If you like COD or Killzone campaigns I guess you'll like DS2.GunSmith1_basic

Of course there were chapters, the difference being it was more organic and not some archaeic, "Get on tram, next level", type of design. The levels were still distinct and took place on different parts of the station. They changed it because they realized it just wasn't a good way of going about transitioning into another part of the game.

The SP of Dead Space 2 isn't even close to resemblinhg COD so why even reference it? COD has individual levels that are broken up into segments, something that you're praising DS1 for having. If anything the you could compare the level changes in DS2 to something like HL or HL2. So I think you have it ***backwards. The level/single player progression in DS1 is more similar to COD than DS2 is.

HoolaHoopMan

okay i got the cod wrong. I haven't played COD for a while so whatever. I did play Killzone 3 recently and DS2 is basically the same thing

I doubt anyone was complaining that DS1 had that tram system. They went to the never ending corridor design because that is the trend in the industry (to the point of cliche at this point). EA recognized that Dead Space was a marquee franchise and made it more mainstream and took the safe route

[QUOTE="Phazevariance"]

Dead Space 2 was a great game, and a perfect sequel to DS1. It would have made my top 10 GOTY submittions.

jamejame

Noticing that no one answered your question, it's from Evil Dead II. A classic comedy/horror film.

On topic, I'd have to agree that I enjoyed the original Dead Space more than it's sequal; had a more cohesive atmosphere and story. There were some elements of Dead Space 2 that either fell apart or just didn't fit well. An example would be the regenerator. In the first game, they existed because the scientist there was expirimenting on the creatures. In the second game, they are just there for some odd reason.

I thought it was pretty killer.