-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Ars Technica: How Dead Space's Scariest Scene Almost Killed the Game
- Thread starter JehutyRunner
- Start date
Dead Space is a marvelous game, but I have greater love for Dead Space 2. Wish we got a DS4 that's inline with DS1 And DS2.
This was fascinating to watch, hearing about the tentacle scene and the amount of work required to get it in makes it all the more impressive. Dead Space is one of my favorite games of all-time, with Dead Space 1 being slightly better than Dead Space 2 for me personally (hardcore mode can die in the vacuum of space) due to the more oppressive atmosphere. Earning the Impossible Difficulty and One Gun achievement in a single run was one of my most exciting and "boy I'm glad that's over" moments in gaming.
I hope EA at the least makes a remaster of the first two games for consoles if they choose not to make another one. I also hope Glen Schofield gets to make another game of Dead Space's caliber. Props to him and Visceral for making such a great game.
I hope EA at the least makes a remaster of the first two games for consoles if they choose not to make another one. I also hope Glen Schofield gets to make another game of Dead Space's caliber. Props to him and Visceral for making such a great game.
The first 2 games are really good, as is this short documentary. So much work for a moment thats so fleeting, and was just like a quick "that was cool".
I guess the millions of individual "that was a cool thing that just happened" reactions combined was worth it for his vision alone.
I guess the millions of individual "that was a cool thing that just happened" reactions combined was worth it for his vision alone.
Absolutely LOVED Dead Space and was stung with disappointment when they took the direction they did with DS2, and obviously after that goes without saying.
The slow, lumbering, STOMP EVERYTHING action was just too good
The slow, lumbering, STOMP EVERYTHING action was just too good
Dead Space 1+2 hold up so damn well.
Amazing games, I miss Dead Space so much and will never forgive EA for what they did to DS and ME (or Bullfrog for that matter).
Amazing games, I miss Dead Space so much and will never forgive EA for what they did to DS and ME (or Bullfrog for that matter).
I thought the same or maybe not specifically a call to EA, but any publisher out there because it sounded like he has ideas for new horror IP's.
Yep. OK maybe EA thought there wasn't an audience for a Dead Space remaster collection, but no Mass Effect either? Kinda feel they left easy money on the table there.
This.
Loved both DS1 and 2. Never got around to playing 3 though.
EA are not the bad guys here. They gave Dead Space multiple chances, and it wasn't profitable enough to justify further AAA investment, so they laid it to rest. They may return to it at some point, just as they may return to Crysis or any of those other series. But they didn't get where they are today by blowing money on games that don't make money.
Why do you think Alien: Isolation 2 never happened? Because it only sold 2 million copies after 6 months or so. SEGA did the sensible thing and said, "Yea, how about we go make games that will turn a profit?" The difference with Dead Space is that EA tried to keep the series going instead of dropping it.
EA published Dead Space. It didn't sell particularly well. But they gave it another chance. Dead Space 2 failed to meet expectations. Meanwhile, EA hedged their bets with lower budget projects such as the excellent Dead Space Mobile by an Australian team whose name escapes me, and Dead Space Extraction by Eurocom. (People who say that EA should simply have made low budget Dead Space games seem to ignore they released multiple low budget Dead Space games.) Despite Dead Space 2 failing to meet expectations, EA were still willing to give Visceral another chance with Dead Space 3. Just as they gave Crytek another chance with Crysis 3. It didn't work out.
The costs of creating AAA Dead Space games was outstripping sales. That's the simple truth. Dead Space 2 didn't meet expectations. Were EA supposed to stick their fingers in their ears and create another game that was sure to lose money? They took what seemed like the sensible option. They tried to pivot the series towards something that would sell.
Resident Evil survived by temporarily abandoning survival horror and pursuing action and co-op. Should Capcom have run the series into the ground until it became a money hole? For art?
I'd love a reboot that treated the entire last third of Dead Space 3 as a hallucination. Even if it leads to a new protagonist or doesn't directly acknowledge anything the events at the end of that game, I'd be okay.
I refused to play the games for years because I wanted to give EA no money, but after the wave of disappointment from the third game, I was moved by the amount of people who expresses sincere affection toward the series. Giving them a try was a sincere thrill. It was a series that was given the time it needed to hone and polish its facets and become something special, which was absolutely unexpected from EA... until the publisher, of course, inevitably interfered and forced multiplayer elements and microtransactions.
The trilogy really feels like it mimics the tones and imagery of the Alien films, and frankly, the gameplay surpasses Resident Evil 4. The psychological horror of the first game set on a ship is succeeded by more action horror in the sequel set in a derelict space station, which is followed by a third game that takes place on an isolated planet. The first half of that last game was just great, too, with the changes to the ammunition systems aside.
I'd really love to see it return.
I refused to play the games for years because I wanted to give EA no money, but after the wave of disappointment from the third game, I was moved by the amount of people who expresses sincere affection toward the series. Giving them a try was a sincere thrill. It was a series that was given the time it needed to hone and polish its facets and become something special, which was absolutely unexpected from EA... until the publisher, of course, inevitably interfered and forced multiplayer elements and microtransactions.
The trilogy really feels like it mimics the tones and imagery of the Alien films, and frankly, the gameplay surpasses Resident Evil 4. The psychological horror of the first game set on a ship is succeeded by more action horror in the sequel set in a derelict space station, which is followed by a third game that takes place on an isolated planet. The first half of that last game was just great, too, with the changes to the ammunition systems aside.
I'd really love to see it return.
It surely did fail to meet EA sales expectations, but did it make no profit? It sold well enough to cover production costs and make some profit but it was not the big blockbuster EA wanted, so they made the third one a generic shooter because they thought this would reach more people but shooter fans didn't notice and Dead Space fans were disappointed.
EA killed a profitable series because it was not big enough not the blockbuster they wanted, because Dead Space is just no material for a big Blockbuster, obviously. Thats how Dead Space ended and thats how EA became the big Juggernaut it is, with a games output that is successful but unremarkable and forgotten quickly.
Last edited:
This is the most sycophantic nonsense I've read. They pushed a massive advertisement campaign and forced multiplayer into a survival horror game sequel that sold great for its genre, then cried defeat when it didn't sell more that titles in that genre do. It was EA's fault for unrealistic expectations.
Then they made a third game and shoved microtransactions and more multiplayer in, and cried defeat when it sold great for the genre but expected sales that don't correspond to reality. Not to mention that they muddied the IP in the process of chasing unicorns.
I really, really love this game. DS2 improved a few things but I never considered it the better game. I enjoyed DS3 for what it's worth but it's easily the worst one.
I remember some videos of people really sucking at the game because they didn't notice that.
Just making sure: you are shooting at limbs rather than doing headshots or body shots, right?
I remember some videos of people really sucking at the game because they didn't notice that.
One part that I shall never forget is
when you are being chased by the big necromorph that you can't kill with your weapons
so maybe it's that.
That's not the reason sadly.
EA simply wanted to much out of a genre that can't deliver such high sales.
Nobody forced EA to start a whole media-assault with Dead Space (and Dantes Inferno). Nobody wanted a comic series, an animated movie, etc. just more games like Dead Space 1 and 2. But EA wasn't happy with the sales. Not because it wasn't profitable but because it didn't generate as much money as they wanted. They tried to make Dead Space as profitable as possible (Dead Space 3 is such a clusterfuck because of the EA meddling) and then just ended it.
They put Visceral onto other games like Battlefield Hardline and a new Star Wars game so they could make them more money. Hardline was shit and EA wasn't happy (not Viscerals fault, they did as instructed) and now even before their Star Wars Game was finished EA pulled the plug because they thought this type of game (single player) wasn't a surefire bet to generate as much cash as possible for them.
So they closed Visceral. EA closed a Developer, again, just because they wanted to make more money. Now Visceral doesn't cost them anything because they fired everybody but they also don't earn a single cent from that decision.
How about letting Visceral and other studios work on further games as long as they make a profit or are at least not costing them anything? Sure they won't get rich by doing that but at least we would get more of the games we really want and EA wouldn't loose a single cent.
But no. They don't want that. If you're playing Dead Space 4 or Dantes Inferno 2 you're not playing one of their moneymakers. So they kill their own studios so that they don't take time away from potential customers of Fifa/Battlefield/etc.
I'm really wondering why they're paying for a Command & Conquer Remake without microtransactions.
How?
There's a tutorial for that. You find audio logs where it's talked about and it is even written in blood on the wall behind the device you're using to attack them...
EA should just re-organize itself into EA Sports and make FIFA/NFL and nothing else. Then everyone would be happy.
Brilliant game, brilliant insight and i now believe Schofield is finished with Call of Duty. Thank god for that, now go away and make more great games.
I feel the comments on EA are a little harsh. If games don't sell very well then unfortunately they don't get made. Blame the people who don't buy these great games, there are many examples of this unfortunately.
I feel the comments on EA are a little harsh. If games don't sell very well then unfortunately they don't get made. Blame the people who don't buy these great games, there are many examples of this unfortunately.
"Some profit" is not enough. You cannot run a business where you are throwing around over 60 million dollars per game if each game is only making "some" profit. What happens when you have a total flop? You start to burn through money. Why do you think Epic sold Gears of War? Because while Gears of War 1 cost 12 million dollars, Gears of War 4 was going to cost 100 million dollars by their internal estimates. Times changed. Publishers no longer had the luxury of pissing money up the wall on games that couldn't justify the money sunk into them. Dead Space production costs were rising and sales were not rising to match.
The only reason Dead Space sold in the first place was because it had a massive advertising campaign. That's how AAA gaming works. Also, adding MP to Dead Space was a very safe move. Low cost, decent benefit for sales. I don't recall anyone complaining when co-op was added to Dead Space's predecessor, System Shock 2. Dead Space games were expensive to make. Surely you understand that the poor sales of horror games is why they largely disappeared.
"Unrealistic expectations" is a meme perpetuated by people in denial about the skyrocketing costs of AAA game production. Think about the projects EA greenlit that outright flopped or underperformed. There were a lot of them. EA were throwing around a lot of money on a lot of different genres. EA had to absorb the cost of those projects somehow. Publishers have to absorb the cost of games that flop, of overheads, and all sorts of other factors. They invest a certain amount of money into a game, and they expect a certain return. Games are a business. They always have been.
Do you have an alternate solution that doesn't involve EA throwing good money after bad? Again, Resident Evil did the exact same thing. It worked for Resident Evil. It didn't work out for Dead Space. But trying to go down a horror path would have gone even more badly. The poor sales of horror games in other series is evidence of that.
Comic books and animated movies are far cheaper to make than AAA games. People can want games like Dead Space 1 and 2 all they want. But the costs of making such games was increasingly dramatically. Allowing Visceral to make Dead Space 3 in the first place was EA choosing to give them another chance to make a profitable game. When Dead Space 2 was greenlit, stuff like budget and sales expectations would have been calculated long ahead of time. EA put money into the Dead Space 2 slot, and didn't get the return they were expecting. This was a bad thing. People can whine about EA's supposedly "unrealistic" expectations, but I will again remain you that the cost of making AAA games has spiked dramatically. Dead Space was always an expensive series. It's why the gulf in production values between the low budget spinoffs and the mainline games is so high.
EA were extremely generous with Visceral. After Dead Space 2, they still greenlit Dead Space 3. Unfortunately Dead Space 3 didn't work out. People like to imagine a horror-oriented Dead Space would have sold better. Despite some glaring problems with that logic.
Visceral then spent a lot of time and money working on a Jack the Ripper game. This was eventually canned after years of troubled development. EA then put Visceral onto Battlefield: Hardline. Which is easily one of the best games they ever made. Not sure why you think the game was "shit". Unfortunately, Hardline underperformed. EA then gave Visceral another chance. They were put to work on a Star Wars game. And... after years of development and a lot of EA's money, Visceral had jack shit to show for it. EA at this point re-evaluated. The Visceral Star Wars project was in serious trouble, and salvaging it would be extremely expensive, and it was a kind of linear TPS game that the market had largely turned against. So the project was taken off Visceral, who were shut down, and as far as anyone can tell, the project has been rebooted into some kind of open world thing. Nobody's really sure. Visceral being closed down was unfortunate. But it occurred after several years worth of canned projects and consistently underperforming games.
There's a bizarre myth that EA don't make singleplayer games, or that they said singleplayer games don't sell. This is complete nonsense and they said no such thing.
You're saying that EA should pay hundreds of people tens of millions of dollars each year to make games they know the market isn't interested in, so that... you can have games that you want? I'm sorry, but that's not how business works. If EA greenlit Dead Space 4 today, it would be even more expensive than whatever Dead Space 3 cost to make. Dead Space 2 reportedly cost 47 million, which was pretty steep for a game that began production in 2008. And that's likely not factoring in marketing costs which are absolutely critical to move units.
You won't find a single publicly owned AAA publisher starting off their product pitches with, "We've determined that the market doesn't want this product, and it's going to cost us somewhere between 50 and 100 million dollars, and we'll have to allocate hundreds of staff to work on it from a studio we founded specifically to make profitable games, and said studio has given us a string of financially disappointing titles, but hey, let's just throw more money into a black hole so we can win internet brownie points by making incredibly expensive games aimed an unreliable audience. This seems like a super sensible business strategy. I'm sure our shareholders will be overjoyed."
Last edited:
Dead Space 3 is still a legit good game.
It's just radically different from 1 and 2.
There is absolutely no indication this statement makes sense.
Seriously, so much of what you're saying does not seem to fit within reality. You're claiming that a horror focused entry of a Dead Space sequel would not work well when there's two immediately relevant data points of history that contradict that claim, and that's the first two games which sold fantastically for their genre. You even admit as much in that same post above when referencing its marketing.
You're literally claiming that nothing more could be to keep the highly-regarded, multi-million selling series alive. Just think about premise, and please tell me you acknowledge its faults in logic.
Whatever koolaid you're drinking, it's splashing into your keyboard and causing it to regurgitate some of the most outrageous, defensive hypothesis about EA's business models. Unrealistic expectations aren't a myth, they are a problem with formulaic publication models that EA is notorious for, along with Square and Capcom. When every bit of market data suggests a certain genre sells within a certain margin, it's no one's fault but the publishers to expect greater sales than that.
This generation EA has disappointed on so many fronts but the one I didn't expect was their lack of investment in remasters, especially early on in the generation when many publishers were digging into their legacy content to make a quick buck.
Dead Space Trilogy remastered would be a welcome addition.
This was a great watch!
As a developer of regular (non video game) software, there was some stuff in this video that helped me out.
Dead Space and Dead Space 2 are in my top list of games. I made the mistake of playing 2 at the hardest difficulty without new game plus and almost couldn't finish it..
Thanks for posting this!
As a developer of regular (non video game) software, there was some stuff in this video that helped me out.
Dead Space and Dead Space 2 are in my top list of games. I made the mistake of playing 2 at the hardest difficulty without new game plus and almost couldn't finish it..
Thanks for posting this!
I only played through it once, but I remember being very pleasantly surprised at the first half of the game and the freedom you had to search abandoned ships here and there and fulfill secondary objectives. I remember thinking to myself at the time "they got something really good going on here".
That feeling ended up not holding up until the end of the game, and I won't even get into the writing and it's awful lack of nuance (which had already been seen in the second game), but there were flashes of brilliance in there, for sure.
I bought it on Origin the other day, so once I'm done playing all the stuff coming out in January I think I'll be doing a trilogy playthrough.
The first two games are classics, and the second game is my favorite cinematic shooter after Uncharted 2. It's such a good game.
Still kind of dumbfounded by the love for Dead Space. Don't get me wrong, it's a solid game, but it's mostly RE4 but without all the excellent encounter or level design, variety, good boss fights, etc. I never found it to be this metroidvania survival horror classic that other people see, it's a linear horror action game that just didn't have quite a solid enough grip on its design to make it a classic.
Dead Space 2 got it right though and improved on everything. One of the best RE4 clones out there.
Dead Space 2 got it right though and improved on everything. One of the best RE4 clones out there.
While I can't speak for everyone else, what really takes this game above and beyond the survival-horror genre for me, when compared with a game like RE4, is the way that EA got the atmosphere down in this game. Sound design as well. Combined, they made for a truly terrifying experience.
I thought they meant the invincible enemy, or the room you kept coming back to before finding the key.
Which reminds me.... I should play the third one on Gamepass, had it downloaded for a while.
Which reminds me.... I should play the third one on Gamepass, had it downloaded for a while.
In case you haven't noticed, horror games were largely unable to keep pace with the rising costs of AAA production. It's why they dried up. You can say, "Oh, it sold well for its genre," until the cows come home. But that wasn't going to stop the production costs of each Dead Space game rising dramatically. The budget creep of game production where a costs of making a game increase by several times in eight years is not something you can wave a wand at and make disappear. It's why AA games basically vanished. It's why indie games are struggling in the modern market.
Dead Space 2 sold well enough for EA to greenlight a sequel. But the games were not meeting expectations. Something had to change. I think some Dead Space fans genuinely don't care about the financial concerns of Dead Space because they only care about getting games they want.
We see this attitude with Alien: Isolation. The game didn't flop, but it wasn't profitable enough. It was in the black, but not in the black enough. Some people don't care. I've found a lot of gamers have no understanding of the concept that videogames are a business where people spend tens of millions of dollars and expect a healthy return on that investment.
Wait a minute. Don't tell you actually believe that Square Enix had "unreasonable expectations". Because that's not how AAA game production works. Consider that prior to the SE buyout, Eidos were having trouble making Tomb Raider profitable in 2008 on sales of about 2.5 million copies per game. Go back and look at the production values of 2008 Tomb Raider games compared to the modern ones. Making AAA games is really, really, really expensive. And then you have to add marketing on top of that because without marketing nobody will buy the game. Square Enix had a lot of flops. Kane & Lynch 2 was a crazy awesome art game, but it tanked. Sleeping Dogs was in development hell for years, and it underperformed really badly, with 1.5 million copies sold. Tomb Raider and Hitman: Absolution were not cheap, for example. When combined with SD tanking, they failed to meet expectations. That's how a company ends up losing money instead of making money. If a game underperforms, some publishers will drop it. Others will focus on why audiences didn't like the game, and try to make a sequel that addresses those complaints. As an example, some people forget that Hitman: Blood Money didn't sell particularly well compared to Hitman Silent Assassin. The series was on a downward trend. So it made sense for Square Enix to try and pivot the series to something that would sell. They did the same thing with Deus Ex and also Thief. Thief had some severe problems and you can almost see the broken bones of production hell poking out of its flesh, but Deus Ex managed to be hit. Unfortunately, after being in a development for like 5 years, Mankind Divided underperformed. Some people will blame Square Enix for that because the publisher is always Satan in their minds.
Publisher expectations are crafted by business people dealing with large amounts of money. People responsible for keeping the business running and profitable. If EA weren't such a profitable company, they wouldn't have kept Visceral around for so long despite so many troubled projects. A lot of people forget that. EA gave Visceral so many chances, and they had the luxury of doing that because EA is a very wealthy company.
In fact, EA were so wealthy they decided to be nice and greenlight DICE's pet project, Mirror's Edge: Catalyst, an open world sequel to a six hour long 100% linear game that underperformed. Of course some people love to blame EA for Mirror's Edge: Catalyst also underperforming despite their best efforts such as listening to feedback about how the game was painfully linear and had zero replay value and was also six hours long. "No, no, EA," they insisted. "What we really wanted was a linear, 6 hour long game for $60. We would have bought that. Honest." Notice how fans of underperforming games often think the best way to make a sequel to is to make it exactly like the underperforming game? Stepping on a rake once hurts, but I'm sure if you step on the rake enough times, it'll turn into a money tree, right?
Nobody wanted EA to be ok with loosing millions. If a game doesn't make your money back then don't make a sequel. But EA gave Visceral a chance and they made Dead Space 2. Again not earning what EA hoped for but it was profitable as was the first game. So they hoped to widen the appeal with comics and animated movies. They tried to make it less of a horror game and put even a coop mode into it. The sales were not good, even worse than the first 2 games. Nobody wants a toothless horror-light game.
1. Please explain that glaring logic problem with Dead SPace 3 being a true Dead SPace game and not a dumbed down action coop shooter with microtransactions.?
2. The Jack the Ripper game was at least something new. A publisher should want new experiences. They wouldn't have to try so damn hard to copy a battle royal mode into their newest microtransaction borefest if they would try new stuff more often.
3. Outside of a few harcore fans nobody liked Hardline. It reviewed badly and the sales were also bad. This one is on EA and EA alone. They wanted a cops and robber Battlefield and Visceral were the poor fucks who were chosen to make it. Only EA would think a 3rd-person horror-dev could make a battlefield in their first try. Why don't they let the FIFA guys take a shot at Battlefield. They seem to think anybody can make this garbage.
4. EA canned those games before the market could tell them if they're good or not. MS is getting shit every time somebody mentions Fable Legends or Scalebound. They want to dictate what the market has to want. Other publishers seem to have quite success with these kind of games. Strange that the publishers with the biggest microtransaaction moneymakers aren't able to make good singleplayergames anymore.
1. The market isn't not interested. It's less interested in those games for sure but they made their money back with Dead Space 1, 2, Dantes Inferno and Hardline.
2. That's not how business works? How does Business work exactly? Buying developers and letting them develop games that nobody wants? EA bought so many developers over the years and almost all of them are dead today. That's good business? What would EA loose if these studios would make new games as long as they don't bleed money?
EA is one of the most hated companys on the planet because of their way of killing of studios after they're done with them. The PR bonus and goodwill alone should be woth the 0 Dollars EA would have to pay for old studios making new games as long as they make their money back. How would that be bad for business?
Again, nobody wants EA to loose money on projects that aren't worth it. Just let them develop games as long as they make their money back.
As we speak EA is paying a new studio (made out of ex-members of a studio they bought and killed off) to make a Command & Conquer Remake. This new game won't have microtransactions. Why is EA doing that? How is that good for their business? They owned the studio. They would've developed a ton of new Command & Conquer games for EA over the years and it would've been profitable. Just not as profitable as they wanted. But now they're suddenly it's profitable enough again?
Dead Space 3 kinda sucks, but if you played the first two gamed I guess it is worth finishing the trilogy.
In your version of reality, EA is the Savior and benefactor to the companies it gobbles up, assimilates, and then shutters. It's as though you're oblivious to the history of the company, and willfully ignorant of how its mandates on their own developers were only in the interest of chasing the giant runaway success at the expense of the companies they assimilated and employees they sacrificed.
EA set their expectations, budget, and development requirements. Visceral complied and created a well loved series that, while not the biggest in the industry, was successful... Until EA tried for the second time to create a sequel stuffed with demands and expectations that the rest of the genre, or the two previous games, gave no indication were possible. Place the blame on EA, because that's where it belongs.
Last edited:
Great watch, never played any horror survival game ever but when my buddy told me to try Dead Space I did and was hooked. Only game I actually went back and played on the hardest difficulty, Dead Space 2 on the hardest difficulty is still my best gaming achievement lol.
Wish they'd do a remaster. I enjoyed Dead Space 3 as well but the first 2 I'd love to play again on my PS4. With the power they have today I can't imagine how amazing a Dead Space 4 would look.
Wish they'd do a remaster. I enjoyed Dead Space 3 as well but the first 2 I'd love to play again on my PS4. With the power they have today I can't imagine how amazing a Dead Space 4 would look.
Visceral was formerly known as EA Redwood Shores. They were an Electronic Arts creation. EA's studio. EA's money.
Dead Space was originally a System Shock game. It goes without saying that, uh... System Shock 2 did not sell very well. Nor did Prey, its spiritual successor. Nor did Alien: Isolation, its OTHER spiritual successor. And ultimately, nor did Dead Space in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, because the cost of making these games was increasing but audiences were not responding well to horror. It's the same reason Capcom made Resident Evil 4, 5 and 6, three of their best selling games. It's why they stopped making survival horror Resident Evil games for several years. The market just wasn't there for them.
Regardless of sales or reviews, Battlefield: Hardline is an absolutely fantastic game. In case you've forgotten, the Dead Space 1 team went off to make Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, which was a fantastic FPS game. The Dead Space 2/3 team made Hardline. Hardline is a truly exceptional singleplayer police FPS game with a strong stealth focus, wide linear level design paired with outright non-linear sections, a colourful cast, and a whole lot of multiplayer Battlefield bullshit nailed to its back like a dead elephant. One could perhaps be critical of EA for putting the Battlefield branding on the game. As we saw with Battlefield V, the Battlefield audience is kinda populated by man-children who were always going to hate a Battlefield game that is specifically about NOT shooting people. Also, the MP is completely out of tone with the game's story. Howewever, the Battlefield branding would in theory help sales. Selling people a 7 hour long FPS game is difficult.
Hardline also had the misfortune of widely pissing off people in the professional review-sphere because they considered the game to be a glorification of police violence despite the campaign being no such thing. It was a game released at a bad time politically, with a problematic brand.
What are you talking about?
EA are considered one of the best companies to work at. They treat their employees extremely well, and they historically give studios a lot of leeway. And they frequently merge employees into other studios instead of firing them. Basically the only people who hate EA nowdays are angry, out of touch gamers. They're not without fault, but they are one of the best game companies on the planet as far as employee treatment goes.
Because remasters of Command & Conquer games are low budget, low risk, and a reasonably decent return on investment. It's in line with EA's general approach. If the remasters sell well, they will consider greenlighting new entries. If they don't, it's not big loss. Bear in mind that RTS is one of those fickle genres where people say they want RTS games to come back but older school RTS games often struggle to sell.
It's also why they make mobile games. Why did they make Dead Space Mobile? Why did they make Mirror's Edge Mobile? Because it was lower budget and would make a decent amount of money. Why did they make Command and Conquer for mobile? Because it was low budget and was guaranteed to make money.
Last edited:
Dead Space I and II are so damn good. III I would rather forget. It was EA that pushed all the bad things for that game, wasn't it?
I love Dead Space.
I havent bought anything EA all generation because they just don't make anything that interests me anymore.
I havent bought anything EA all generation because they just don't make anything that interests me anymore.
