Just last week I picked up a PS3 and a couple games for it, one of them being Dead Space.
I like it.
That said, it's true (as many critics have stated) that the game feels very much to be a distillation and refinement of other games in the genre that have come before it. Which is not a crime, but I wish there was more of a sense that the game design was going to surprise and/or captivate me in some way as I progress. Maybe the zero gravity areas will do the trick. On the plus side, the game so far (an hour or so in) has been scary, though as I become more accustomed to the combat mechanic I feel the fear draining off a bit. Also worth mentioning: the incorporation of what are normally HUD elements (like health) into the suit of the character in the 3D game world is very slick.
I do want to comment on a few things, though.
First, I find it a little scary that for a long time preceding the release of the game I read statements from the developers on how daring and bold a direction it was for them to take and for EA to publish. I have to periodically reread these statements to make sure they weren't intended to be humorous. Seriously, folks, it's Resident Evil in space. Here, I'll put it in quotes because the preceding sentence is exactly what you would write on the powerpoint slide during your pitch meeting with EA: "It's Resident Evil in Space." Simple and accurate. The game industry has some frightening perceptions about innovation if this is considered a wild and risky premise.
Second, I think they could have done a better job with the enemy creature design. Not that they don't look good. But the game's main combat mechanic is based on the premise that cutting off the creatures' limbs is more effective than shooting them in the body. This theme however is not carried over in the art direction of the creatures because, looking at them, there is no reason to believe or predict that attacking the limbs will be more effective. What I think would work would be if the bulk of a formerly human torso (and its organs) was largely decimated by the new being's hostile takeover, mainly serving to hold the limbs together in a viable form. The limbs themselves would feature ad hoc growths representing a new set of organs, gruesomely and almost haphazardly grafted onto the original body's arms and legs. Not only would this be visually unsettling, it would also explain to the player graphically why targeting the limbs will be more appropriate than focusing on the torso.
Third, there has been some debate on various forums about which is scarier, a first-person or third-person view. My initial reaction was somewhat incredulous as I could not imagine how anyone could consider seeing a monster approaching their onscreen avatar in third-person to be as intense and frightening as seeing said monster approach their own local viewpoint (first-person). I will concede some ground however because I had considered the third-person view to be like that of games such as Devil May Cry and God of War. With the player's avatar so removed from his own viewpoint, and able to face/travel any direction, I never experience any level of fear. However, in games like Dead Space and Resident Evil 4, the third-person view is closer to the avatar and matches his own viewpoint (commonly referred to as an over-the-shoulder view). I found that this view in Dead Space could definitely be effective. So now the question comes down to which pushes the immersion a little bit further: pulling the camera in that last bit so you see through the avatar's eyes, or being able to see your avatar (i.e. yourself) being physically attacked and reacting. I'm inclined to believe the deciding factor may actually come down to each individual game's presentation of the enemy's attacks and the subsequent reaction of the avatar. A game like Dead Space may show the avatar writhing and struggling to push off a grasping enemy, while a game like Left 4 Dead might shake the camera and splatter blood on the view screen. These mechanics are not exclusive to either presentation. Right now I feel like we're stuck in a draw between the two, but my gut still tells me that first-person has the greater overall potential, so I'll have to think about it some more to see if I can formulate some reasons to back up my instincts.
Fourth - and I hadn't originally intended to reach four points - I think I have experienced an odd crossover of expectations due to playing this game while still very much in the height of my playing of the game Left 4 Dead. Mainly, I think I carried over my expectations of enemy behavior in Left 4 Dead into Dead Space. This may have resulted in a more frightening experience than the game should rightfully claim to have generated on its own. I'll explain: in L4D, enemies are constantly spawned into the world in a fashion that both keeps the players on edge and ensures the experience does not become predictable (the intensity and locations of the enemies varies each time you play the same levels). I think I entered the Dead Space game environment in a mindset expecting the same type of monster generation. Considering the creepy environments and limited ammunition, this made things intense and scary. It was only after playing for a while that I could see that the game never broke from standard video-game-enemy conventions, things like spending 10 minutes in a room safely figuring out a puzzle followed by an enemy attack the second I'd pressed the button to solve it <sigh>. It will be very interesting to seeing how scary I find the game over the next few hours of play. Hopefully it can retain its intensity.
-Jason
