@Akriel_Boulve: Well thanks for sharing your very deep insights that I talk nonsense without thinking because you've already decided what a non-existent product from Ubisoft would look like, and you think Dead Space “looks fine”.
Oh and of course how could I forget?: Some people agree with you.
What argument wouldn't look nonsensical compared to bleeding-edge hot takes like that? I've got goosebumps.
I can't even call it nonsense. It's just baseless, useless, speculative word vomit, and I think you should have some content to offer before wasting my time in future. Nothing uncivil about that.
@Akriel_Boulve: And I never said anything in my first comment that compares to what's in your first reply. According to you I'm someone who talks “nonsense” and doesn't “think for even two seconds” before he talks. You came to me with that s***. and now you're telling me that if that's wrong it's my fault? Gee that's quite some personality you've got there.
If you're going to call my very solid arguments nonsense, you better bring something better to the table, than pure, unfounded guesswork about what a hypothetical Ubisoft remake would be like, the implication that because Limbo is scary now, it couldn't be meaningully improved upon in 15 years, and the anecdote that you personally think DS 2008 looks “fine”.
@Akriel_Boulve: . Did you just never learn to talk to people in a civilised manner or do you just not feel your arguments can stand on their own merit without a bunch of insults thrown in for good measure. Here I can talk like that too.
“Dead Space was not really hindered in any meaningful way for being a product of its time. As such, the graphics and gameplay overhauls didn't really add that much to the game that fixed the original.”
That's stupid and you're talking nonsense. Survival horror arguably relies more on its appearance than any genre. You're essentially saying games from 2008 (or some time earlier) were more-or-less as good as they could meaingfully look and any improvement is negligible. That's dumb, and you're dumb. Side-by-side the graphics alone make the remake far scarier, and the redesigned ship means you can't rely on memory to get by. The horror and therefore overall experience is obviously amplified. Any idiot can see that. Think for two seconds (if you can) and you'll see how stupid that is. “Also, using old IP doesn't mean that the new release will be creative and interesting or even fun to play. Think on it for two seconds and you'd see the problem with your line of thinking. Imagine if modern Ubisoft remade AC1 and AC2. Not just gave them graphics upgrades, but remade them from scratch. What do you think would happen? Big expansive open world with endless collectibles and busywork tasks. This isn't changed just because they used the old IP.”
Well that's just dumb. Endless collectibles and busywork? You just pulled that out of your ass. If they went back to remake an old game they would try to keep it the same in spirit as the original, because people who liked that game the way it was, is the audience for the remake. Remakes never do what you described, regardless of how s*** the publisher. It would be more or less the same, but better. The reason Ubisoft hasn't done any remakes, is precisely because they only want to make massive BS filler fluff games now. EA and Ubisoft are as corrupt, dishonest, and intellectually bankrupt as each other. You would have said the same thing about this remake, and you'd have been wrong, because you talk nonsense.
Wow, treating each other like trash is pretty great, huh?
@HAWK9600: For me when I'm pedaling uphill the bike itself feels like an actual ball and chain. Sometimes I feel it'd be easier to strap it to my back and carry it.
@Akriel_Boulve: . Yeah of course you can remake a game badly. Or a movie/TV show in the case of Velma. I'm saying if a remake is good, then that's good. And whether its a remake or not has no bearing on whether its good.
This was your point, right?: “Case in point, Dead Space 3 didn't ruin Dead Space 1 but it DID prevent us from having any new entries into the series.”
Look at Assassin's Creed. They hardly ever do remakes. Every new game is a new one, and they just get worse and worse and worse almost without exception. It peaked at AC2 and with the exception of Black Flag it was just a downhill spiral into the heat death of the universe. They just don't have the creative spark to adapt, and keep reinventing themselves, the way companies like CAPCOM can. And COD or FIFA bring even less to the table. Just tiny graphics updates and a new setting.
So what do they do instead? Well they just keep adding superfluous busy-work crap, until the game is so bloated it doesn't even have an identity any more. The publisher usually demands it of the dev.
In cases like that (which are norm, it seems to me) it's far better to merge the technical know-how and manpower you've got now, with the creative liscene of the past. Better that than endless generic crap. Sometimes you get real gems like this one.
And remember, a bit part of the reason Dead Space 3 didn't get the numbers, was because it wasn't released on Steam. A Dead Space 4 would've been even worse.
naryanrobinson's comments