Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dead Space 2 Announced

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the now-with-extra-dead dept.

Games 56

Electronic Arts announced on Monday that their popular survival-horror game Dead Space is officially getting a sequel. According to the press release, it's being developed for the PS3, Xbox 360 and PC. There's speculation that Dead Space 2 may include some form of multiplayer, after an EA job opening was spotted on LinkedIn that mentioned multiplayer level design for the franchise.

cancel ×

56 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fat chance, but... (0)

Judinous (1093945) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362362)

I wonder if we will actually be able to see more than 60% of the screen, this time? From the screen shots in TFA, it doesn't look like it. Within 5 seconds of gaining control in the first game, I opened up the menu to look for a way to change the perspective. When I realized that you couldn't, I gave it about 15 (incredibly frustrating) minutes before I simply shut it off, never to be played again. That was a UI decision right on par with Microsoft's ribbon, if you ask me.

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362388)

Agreed, the game felt slow and I didn't feel like I was in control. This was on the PC, for what I've heard the choppy gameplay was also due to it being a bad console port (what else is new?).

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

BoredAtWorkWhatElse (936972) | more than 4 years ago | (#30364264)

Agreed, the game felt slow and I didn't feel like I was in control.
This was on the PC, for what I've heard the choppy gameplay was also due to it being a bad console port (what else is new?).

It's the worst console port I've ever seen. I had to use 3 3rd party applications to even make the game somewhat playable.

You can't remap most of the keys with the UI or config files, so I had to use GlovePIE because I don't like to play on WASD.

You can't choose the level of Anti-aliasing and when it's "on" it can't be more than 2x, so I had to override the value using Catalyst.

But worst of all ... the game is unplayable with V-Sync on for some reason (everything is choppy, even in the menus) but when you turn it off there is also another bug that makes mouse speed dependent on your frame per seconds. The faster it runs the slower your mouse is, I basically had to drag my mouse across my desk twice to do a 360. So I ended up using a tool from RivaTuner to enable V-Sync in Direct X while its disabled in the game.

That made the game somewhat playable but there was still a small dead band for the mouse (meaning you had to drag the mouse the equivalent of a few pixels before it registered it) that made precision shots a pain to do.

I'm sure I missed out a great game, but since even after all those effort the controls were still awful compared to any other FPS straight out of the box, I played for maybe 1 hour and never touched it again.

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367644)

Oh please.

You also can't remap the controls to whatever wongo you like on the console versions either. And you found a way to do it.

Anti-aliasing? Any is better than what you get on the consoles. And you can always set it to a certain method manually in your graphics card control panel.

V-Sync was the only real issue. Just force it on in the graphics card control panel. And I believe they fixed it with a patch. Never had a mouse speed issue.

It had issues, sure, but 5 minutes of "uh, what? hmm. internets? ah." fixed it and the game is absolutely fucking amazing.

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367672)

but since even after all those effort the controls were still awful compared to any other FPS straight out of the box

Forgot to mention - LOL DEAD SPACE is NOT an FPS!

Re:Fat chance, but... (1, Informative)

abigor (540274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362390)

You missed out. Dead Space was a really fun game. Can't wait for the sequel.

Re:Fat chance, but... (2, Insightful)

Judinous (1093945) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362410)

It may have been a great game, but they absolutely ruined it with the camera. The fact that the center of rotation was still on your character, which was permanently stuck covering up one side of your screen, meant that the camera, and thus your weapon, rotated faster in one direction than the other. This only compounded the problems that arose from the fact that you couldn't see what was coming from the "slow" direction.

I understand that they were going for some kind of "cinematic view" or something, but it completely got in the way of the gameplay.

Re:Fat chance, but... (2, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362562)

That doesn't make sense. Rotation should occur the same speed in both directions regardless of where the axis of rotation is placed. Rotating about a point outside and to the left of you is awkward, yes, but you don't rotate faster in one direction than the other.

Now, because part of your screen is covered by your character, you have to rotate FARTHER to see everything coming from your left. But speed doesn't factor into it.

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362630)

Exactly. And I don't think the over-the-shoulder cam was that bad. It gave the game a little scariness boost too, and that was the whole purpose of the game. It was a wonderful game nevertheless.

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362720)

On of the tricks in many 3rd person games is to ignore the person, especially if there is a reticle. After the first level, the character sort of melted away perceptually, and I only noticed him to check the health bar. I bounce back and forth between 1st and 3rd person games, so maybe that helped. I don't really have a preference. Whatever works best for the developer on a particular game.

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

Feanturi (99866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367704)

I was initially quite put off by the way they had the character out in front and off to one side, it drove me crazy. I put the game away after about 15 minutes of running into doorways and went off to other things. Then Ghostbusters came out, and forced me to get used to that style because I just couldn't put that game down until it was done. After that, I returned to Dead Space eagerly, and found it was easy to control and that I now actually like it that way. Dead Space 2 will find its way into my computer very easily when the time comes.

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

geekprime (969454) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362576)

I spent the entire game in "aim mode" it was slow in spots but pretty fun. Yes, really. Both.

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

ailnlv (1291644) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362608)

Maybe the main character just isn't an ambiturner, like Zoolander. Have you tried turning left 3 times?

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#30366032)

It may have been a great game, but they absolutely ruined it with the camera. The fact that the center of rotation was still on your character, which was permanently stuck covering up one side of your screen, meant that the camera, and thus your weapon, rotated faster in one direction than the other. This only compounded the problems that arose from the fact that you couldn't see what was coming from the "slow" direction.

I understand that they were going for some kind of "cinematic view" or something, but it completely got in the way of the gameplay.

I really didn't find the camera rotation to be a big problem...

Yeah, it was occasionally difficult to see what was going on because your character was in the way, but only occasionally. I've played plenty of games that got it far more wrong than Dead Space did.

Re:Fat chance, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30362400)

Wow, what a minor little thing to make you miss out on such a fantastic game.
If you really want newer games to look good, you need an HDTV. If you don't want to get an HDTV, play games just for the game and don't worry so much about whether they look fantastic.

Re:Fat chance, but... (1, Insightful)

Judinous (1093945) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362426)

That's exactly the problem. I don't care how a game looks, but their camera angle ruined the gameplay itself.

Re:Fat chance, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30362710)

I agree. There were also several other things that ruined it to me..

Alone the game had great atmosphere.
But when you toss in a time gun and a gravity gun, and the huge glowing health bars on the guy's back, and it just sucked the fun right out of the game.

Problem is that there are fanboys, and the fanboys are loudest, squeekiest wheels.

Re:Fat chance, but... (4, Informative)

atomicstrawberry (955148) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362446)

It was a fairly deliberate design decision, they wanted to make you feel constricted and claustrophobic. Apparently it worked too well in your case.

One of the biggest tricks with PC Dead Space was that you *must* disable vsync. Vsync in the game is horribly bugged and causes major input lag. Without the lag, the controls (especially the camera) are a lot more responsive and you'd probably find that after a bit of play the constricted view becomes less of an issue because the game no longer feels like you're issuing commands to someone on the moon.

Re:Fat chance, but... (2, Informative)

geekprime (969454) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362606)

disabling vsync AND setting the fps max to 60 was what cured all my problems. When I got 300fps it made the mouse control funky/odd and slow, capping it fixed that nicely, Oh and unplugging the long forgotten logitech rumble controller stopped the slow drift to the right that took me a day to figure out, Oops.

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30363602)

> logitech rumble controller

I know what you mean. I found that the device sometimes needs recalibrating after system reboots. All I need to do is jerk left/right sticks for a few seconds in order for it to recalibrate. I do not need to unplug it in order to stop the nasty effect that you were describing.
 

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362696)

Not to mention the way all important information (health, ammo, etc) was incorporated right into the onscreen graphics, so no room was wasted on a HUD.

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

fx242 (1222592) | more than 4 years ago | (#30364094)

This game is full of bad game "design decisions" (at least in the PC version):

- Why the hell you could not jump? Great graphics, great atmosphere, but stuck in the floor?
- The input is lagging. I've tried to disable vsync, etc, but i still got a considerable amount of lag on my mouse.
- YOU CANNOT CHANGE DEFAULT KEYS. This really killed the game for me, as i don't really use any of the AWSD ones for movement. This is the first game in like 15+ years where i could not change the default keyboard controls.

TL

Re:Fat chance, but... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367578)

If you played it on a 4:3 monitor I can see your issue.
Completely different experience compared to a 16:9 monitor.

It was fun, but... (1)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362460)

Man did that game ever drag on and on. I did enjoy the slower pacing of the gameplay, and the feeling that you're trudging through molasses while your enemies are rollerblading down a smooth asphalt hill. It really added to the tension.

The overwhelming feeling of "Yeah, I've been here before, at least three times" just killed it for me. I never progressed past the Leviathan because I had just had my fill of spending an hour in an area where every single room looked exactly the same. It's weird, because I love movies like Alien, 2001, Moon, Sunshine, etc.

Give me a game like GOW2, with cinematic pacing and an environment that is consistently changing and moving from one dynamic location to another.

Re:It was fun, but... (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#30366256)

Man did that game ever drag on and on. I did enjoy the slower pacing of the gameplay, and the feeling that you're trudging through molasses while your enemies are rollerblading down a smooth asphalt hill. It really added to the tension.

The overwhelming feeling of "Yeah, I've been here before, at least three times" just killed it for me. I never progressed past the Leviathan because I had just had my fill of spending an hour in an area where every single room looked exactly the same. It's weird, because I love movies like Alien, 2001, Moon, Sunshine, etc.

The pace was a little slower... But given the slightly awkward controls and camera, I think that was a good thing. Especially since you had to aim rather deliberately to cut up some of the creatures. Something truly fast-paced might not have worked well.

Some of the environments became a bit repetitive, that is true. But if you paid attention there were usually some changes from the last time you were there. Not enough to hide the fact that you'd been there before... But better than having it completely identical.

You mention Alien... Frankly, Dead Space reminded me a ton of Alien.

Nothing happens at all for the first half of Alien. They're waking up, figuring out where they are, landing the ship, etc. The most exciting thing is when they break something while landing. No monsters, no blood, no chaos... Nice and slow. And just as you're settling in and getting used to the pace of things, it all goes to hell.

But even after it all goes to hell - even after we've discovered the monster and he's killing people one by one - the pacing still alternates between calm and chaos. You'll have a scene or two where the monster is killing someone and there's screaming and crying and blood and everything... And then you'll have a scene where the remaining survivors figure out what has happened and deal with their decreased chances of getting out alive.

Dead Space had a similar kind of pacing. There were lulls where you were steadily trudging through some area that was more or less safe... Some area you'd been through before, or some area with just some pansy monsters... And then they'd drop something worrisome on top of you. A new monster you didn't expect, or one of those tentacles that drags you away, or whatever.

Beautiful game, but... (2, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362540)

Man, that storyline was full-blown asinine. It played out like a bad Sci-fi movie channel. After hours of monsters jumping out with Hollywood precision and yet *another* fire to extinguish, I found myself bored even with the frightening shock attacks. Too many contrived challenges and obstacles, and a writing team obsessed with trying to be original even at the expense of the plausible.

Plus, that crazy weapons upgrade scale. It was painfully slow and there was no practical way to get a feel for all the weapons before the game is over (and there's no way I'll play that game again).

But, I'll reiterate that it was one of the most beautiful games I've ever played.

Re:Beautiful game, but... (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362928)

Shouldn't you iterate that it's beautiful before reiterating it?

Re:Beautiful game, but... (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30365242)

Shouldn't you iterate that it's beautiful before reiterating it?

Shouldn't you read the title of the post before being a dickface?

Re:Beautiful game, but... (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30363176)

I was hoping for something like system shock 2. We got it in some ways. Story and characterisation weren't among them.

Re:Beautiful game, but... (1)

destroyer661 (847607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30364728)

Yeah I think they could take a good hard look at SS2 and try harder with the sequel. Co-op would be something pretty fun too I think, but a lot of games lack co-op these days that's hard enough to make it fun.

Re:Beautiful game, but... (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#30366328)

Man, that storyline was full-blown asinine. It played out like a bad Sci-fi movie channel. After hours of monsters jumping out with Hollywood precision and yet *another* fire to extinguish, I found myself bored even with the frightening shock attacks. Too many contrived challenges and obstacles, and a writing team obsessed with trying to be original even at the expense of the plausible.

It almost seemed to me like there were two games mashed together into one.

The first half of the game made a lot more sense. You were sent out to investigate this ship that wasn't responding... The ship itself is in really rough shape, almost falling apart. So of course you've got to get the reactor working again, or try to send a message home, or fix the orbit, or whatever. That all makes some kind of sense. I was OK with pretty much all of that.

But somewhere along the line it stopped being about the ship, and started being about the monsters. And then you had one level after another where you were basically just trying to kill some giant boss monster. It didn't seem like you were really trying to accomplish anything in particular... Just kill the next boss and continue towards the end of the game.

Re:Beautiful game, but... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367834)

Wrong. There were very few "bosses" in the game.

The game was about the monsters after 5 minutes.
The game was also about the ship (and later the marker) throughout.

The game was certainly not about killing the monsters. It was about getting the ship repaired and such - the monsters were just an obstacle.

Re:Beautiful game, but... (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#30368400)

Wrong. There were very few "bosses" in the game.

The game was about the monsters after 5 minutes.
The game was also about the ship (and later the marker) throughout.

The game was certainly not about killing the monsters. It was about getting the ship repaired and such - the monsters were just an obstacle.

Gonna have to disagree.

For the first half (or so) of the game it felt like I was trying to fix the ship. Most of the objectives directly involved fixing something that was broken. And generally the process of fixing the thing involved locating spare parts and flipping switches. There were certainly monsters in the way, but they were simply obstacles. The goal was to get some gizmo up and running (for whatever reason) - not just to kill something nasty.

After some point (and I'll admit it has been a while since I last played, so I can't very well identify exactly when it happened) it felt like the primary goal was to kill the monsters - not fix the ship. The regenerating super-necromorph is a good example of this... You had an entire couple of levels that seemed to revolve entirely around killing this guy.

Yes, of course, the marker and the monsters were always part of the story - even before you knew what the marker was or where the monsters came from. And the ship was always part of the story - even when you were eyeball-deep in necromorphs.

And I realize there weren't a whole lot of real boss monsters in the game.

Nor am I suggesting that you ever got a mission objective that simply said "kill the boss necromorph."

But it seems to me that at some point the ultimate goal changed from get enough of the ship working again to get out of this alive to kick necromorph ass and chew bubblegum.

Not that there's really anything wrong with kicking necromorph ass and chewing bubblegum... But it feels different.

The first half of the game felt like I was stuck on a rapidly sinking ship with some unpleasant monsters. The monsters were less of a worry (because I could kill them) than the sinking ship. The primary threat to my continued existence was the environment (the ship) itself. If that ship was allowed to sink, it wouldn't matter if I killed monsters or not, because I'd be dead either way.

Once the ship had been sufficiently fixed, it became just like pretty much any other shooter/horror game. I was no longer on a rapidly sinking ship, but rather on firm ground. I could take my time to deal with the monsters in whatever manner I felt necessary.

I've always felt that a hostile environment adds a wonderful amount of tension to a horror movie/game/story/book/whatever. Look at something like Alien [imdb.com] - not only is there a monster that wants to eat you, but there's nowhere to run to. Or The Thing [imdb.com] - you can't just walk away, you're out in the middle of the ice and snow.

Once the ship had been stabilized, that sense of a hostile environment was largely alleviated. Sure, you were still stuck on the ship out in space... But it was a freaking huge ship. It felt distinctly possible that you could find a quiet place to hide out and wait for rescue.

And that meant that you were some kind of lone warrior taking the fight to the enemy - much like in Halo or Quake or just about any other shooter I've ever played.

Re:Beautiful game, but... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367758)

Plus, that crazy weapons upgrade scale. It was painfully slow and there was no practical way to get a feel for all the weapons before the game is over (and there's no way I'll play that game again).

You're doing it wrong.
The upgrade system is not meant to allow you to upgrade all of your guns fully. Only a couple of them.

And besides - the starting gun is the best gun, by far.

Re:Beautiful game, but... (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369238)

That's my point. There's no way you can get a feel for all the guns in the time you have. The upgrade system was designed like it was for a MMO, where you're going to have repeated playing. How many people play these types of games more than a couple times? So, in practice you're never going to get a taste for some weapons.

Re:Beautiful game, but... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30369904)

And you never need to - they're all trash.
Cutter all the way.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30362550)

Dead Space is just another repetitive horror shooter with nice graphics. Only this time they reused every room at least thrice.
Oh. And there are only like three kinds of enemies.

Why is this news again? Cause EA/someone is trying to "milk the cow dry" again?

Totally loved the main game... (2)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362676)

..but no more clunky asteroid shooting sequences, please. That was like checking into an elegant hotel and then finding a steaming turd in the toilet that took way too many tries to flush. Made me not want to replay it. Add more zero gee bits instead.

Re:Totally loved the main game... (1)

ProzacPatient (915544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30363818)

Man I really liked Dead Space from beginning to end and since most people seem to hate it so I'd say its underrated.
But none the less that part of the game pissed me off, though I thought the part leading up to it was pretty well done where you are outside.
Granted the game had a lot of monster closet moments but it kind of kept you on edge if you expected to get raped from behind around every corner.

I'm looking forward to a sequel, but knowing EA I expect a total disappointment since its EA's trademark to take games with massive potential and ruin them, sort of like Core Design managed to do with Tomb Raider (and some other games) before Crystal Dynamics took it over.

Re:Totally loved the main game... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30365802)

I got through the part in just six or seven tries, but it was like falling into a time warp to the 8-bit days, and suddenly I'm playing a cheap Star Raiders rip off with a four direction joystick.

The biggest problem was that shooter part didn't obey the y-axis inversion setting for the rest of the game. It really felt like something they shoehorned in at the last moment for whatever reason.

I saw some people on gaming boards who stopped playing the game because they could not get past that part. That would win EA a "No Twinkie!" award over at Gamasutra. You *NEVER* make a minigame a show stopper.

Re:Totally loved the main game... (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#30366356)

..but no more clunky asteroid shooting sequences, please. That was like checking into an elegant hotel and then finding a steaming turd in the toilet that took way too many tries to flush. Made me not want to replay it. Add more zero gee bits instead.

Yeah... Did not like that sequence at all. Very awkward. Messed up the pacing of the game. Seemed completely contrived.

Re:Totally loved the main game... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367856)

I had no problem with the asteroid sequence.
Did it it one try on both playthroughs (hard and impossible).

The only people who complain about that are people who played it on a console / with a game pad.

Re:Totally loved the main game... (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30372154)

Yes (X360 in my case), and the fact that the shooting segment ignored the y-axis setting in the rest of the game, so it was completely opposite what I am used to in every single game I play, including the rest of Dead Space itself. It was amazing that I did it in as *few* as seven tries. I saw people online who returned the game after hitting that part.

PC version used mouse? Point and click? Damn! For the consoles they should have just added a small side quest to locate an auto targeting circuit and have the guns fire themselves or something.

I really need to build a new gaming rig. Hitting the same problem with Dragon Age. You can micromanage the characters on the XBox, but, oh my the interface makes it tedious. I'm at the half way mark and I'm tempted to just switch to casual and use the tactics scripts. A game simply isn't worth this much annoyance.

Where's the news? (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362910)

An EA game gets a sequel? That's unpossible!

Re:Where's the news? (1)

Fotograf (1515543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30362946)

yea, and i bet all my faith it will be also GOOD SEQUEL!

Re:Where's the news? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30363206)

Knowing EA it's gonna be a teabag sequel.

Re:Where's the news? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30366908)

"Dead Space 2011"--to be followed by "Dead Space 2012," "Dead Space 2013," and "Dead Space 2014."

As Kent Brockman once said... (1)

billsayswow (1681722) | more than 4 years ago | (#30363054)

"Some might say this hardly qualifies as news."

Not sure how they will top the first one (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30363740)

on the Wii.

Plasma cutter!!! (1)

JoeDuncan (874519) | more than 4 years ago | (#30364026)

What the sequel desperately needs is the light sab^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H plasma cutter from the movie.

I played the whole first game in the hope I would get to slice up zombies with the plasma cutter and it never happened :(

Old news? (1)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30364944)

I could have sworn that a sequel was announced or at least discussed a while back. Well, given the game's popularity it was inevitable anyway.

Why would the want to release another PC version? (1)

TrogL (709814) | more than 4 years ago | (#30365632)

The current one is unplayable. I've tried several controllers and it's impossible to walk in a straight line. I've got so many fingers involved in just trying to stay still and not spin in circles there's nothing left over to shoot with.

Re:Why would the want to release another PC versio (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30366166)

I've tried several controllers

There's your problem right there. The keyboard and mouse are way more responsive than any controller. (again, like others have stated, once you turn the in game vsync off the gameplay is perfectly fine)

Zero-G Multiplayer combat outlined (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30365662)

1. Watch enemy run along flat surface.
2. Wait for them to "leap" to another surface.
3. Fire at them as they move in a totally predictable, totally unchangeable, slow-as-your-nan-on-a-skateboard straight line towards that surface.
4. Revel in all that jib glory
5. ...
6. Get a refund.

Scared teh crap out of me (1)

FrigBot (1459361) | more than 4 years ago | (#30367892)

I borrowed the game from a friend and played it a fair amount. But it scared the shit out of me. I just couldn't finish it. I'm serious, it was too much. This was on my PS3. Which has since died the blu-ray laser death. Anyway, maybe I'll get around to finishing it someday if I fix my PS3. And I didn't mind the controls or the view or camera angles at all. But then I'm used to Grand Theft Auto and the 3rd person view to begin with. I think a sequel could be good, as long as there are some real evolutionary improvements and not just a rehash of the original. Scared the shit out of me, man.

This should be a release announcement! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30388512)

With the way the first DEAD SPACE was received and sold, they should've been working on it over a year ago. And by now, we should be hearing, "Dead Space 2 preparing to release in Summer 2010" or something.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?