So, out of morbid curiosity, I watched the a video *featuring gameplay
from the "Dead Space" remake game. I enjoyed the original game (even
if I thought the sequel was the better game) but generally have been
down on the remake because... well, because it's a remake. An
unnecessary remake at that; the reboot is almost entirely a graphics
overhaul, and the visuals of the original still hold up pretty well.

The remake's graphics are impressive, to be sure. I've heard rumor
that they're using some sort of raycasting, but - based on the video -
I don't think that's true. Still, even if the lighting is baked in,
it's still impressive enough that I have to give it the benefit of the
doubt. The textures are high-resolution, and there's a lot of detail
built into the models - both of the characters and the maps.

Yet for all that, the game feels significantly less scary and
atmospheric. There's an 'uncanny valley' effect with world-building
the same as there is with faces, and the original - with its less
detailed visuals - forced you to fill in the gaps yourself. Now, with
everything in stunning high-resolution, the more fantastical parts are
more noticeable.** In the original, when a monstrosity transforms out
of a low-poly model of a human corpse, it was easy to ignore that its
tentacles were coming out of nowhere. Now those unrealistic bits stand
out. And 'regular' uncanny valley effects remain too; the human
characters - for all their lifelike skin detail - feel plasticine when
actually animated, robbing them of their vitality. Original Isaac felt
a lot more alive than his 2022 doppelganger.

This problem isn't unique to "Deadspace" and are solvable... but they
require a lot more work and effort than EA seemed willing to invest in
the game. The 2022 reboot seemed satisfied to just up the
polygon-count and texture resolution and call it a day, but they
really should have rethought the mechanics of the monsters, which
would have required a lot more work in animation. Not having made that
investment, the game feels flat and lacks the immersive pull of the
2008 version.

Of course, this is all based on a video of an yet unreleased game, so
- who knows - maybe the final product will blow us all away. But I'm
doubtful. Art trumps technology in almost every instance, and
"Deadspace 2022" seems too focused on what its technology can do than
whether it's appropriate for the task.

=====================
* watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVcE0EIjJL0
** You see similar effects when jumping from animation to live-action

>Of course, this is all based on a video of an yet unreleased game,

I posted recently about going through all 3 games, as well as the books
and anime. This new gameplay video brings it all back, and looks fantastic.
My problem with it is the price -- my jaw can't help falling open at the $60
($70 on PS5) pricepoint, and I just can't justify it. I guess we'll see,
but this remake will just have to wait for a 40% discount for me to bite.

rms

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 19:37:34 -0600, "rms"
<rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:

>>Of course, this is all based on a video of an yet unreleased game,
>
> I posted recently about going through all 3 games, as well as the books
>and anime. This new gameplay video brings it all back, and looks fantastic.
>My problem with it is the price -- my jaw can't help falling open at the $60
>($70 on PS5) pricepoint, and I just can't justify it. I guess we'll see,
>but this remake will just have to wait for a 40% discount for me to bite.

I'll probably get the game too (albeit, like yourself, only after it
gets deeply discounted). I /like/ the "DeadSpace" games (I even get
some enjoyment out of the third game, even if it was a deeply flawed
title) and the remake will give me an excuse to play the games again
(not that I really need one). But at the same time, it feels very much
like a money grab; it's just rehashing what was popular rather than
taking a risk on something new.

This is especially galling since the original "DeadSpace" was created
to escape the sequel doldrums that EA found itself caught in during
the early 2000s. To see it reduced to a nostalgic cash-in saddens me.
Had EA at least created a sequel, that would be one thing, but no, we
get a remake. Not even a reboot, but an almost identical shot-for-shot
remake. It's lazy and tired. And - as I said - the improvement in
visuals really weren't necessary either, since the original still
stands up well enough on its own. It's not like we're talking
Quake-era triangle-men, after all.

But "Deadspace" aside, my complaints were more about how the chase for
ultra-realistic graphics can come, ironically, with a cost to a game's
sense of realism itself. The original's graphics were unarguably more
cartoonish than the remake's, but it has a visceral reality that the
newer game lacks, because it forced you to unconsciously fill in the
details. The newer games make everything so sharp and fine that you
can't help but see the gaps. There's something to be said for the
older, more stylized visuals.

On 17/10/2022 02:37, rms wrote:
>> Of course, this is all based on a video of an yet unreleased game,
>
>   I posted recently about going through all 3 games, as well as the
> books and anime.  This new gameplay video brings it all back, and looks
> fantastic. My problem with it is the price -- my jaw can't help falling
> open at the $60 ($70 on PS5) pricepoint, and I just can't justify it.  I
> guess we'll see, but this remake will just have to wait for a 40%
> discount for me to bite.
>

My guess would be that it's the old milk the hardcore fans before
lowering the price to a more acceptable level.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 18:48:59 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>So, out of morbid curiosity, I watched the a video *featuring gameplay
>from the "Dead Space" remake game. I enjoyed the original game (even
>if I thought the sequel was the better game) but generally have been
>down on the remake because... well, because it's a remake. An
>unnecessary remake at that; the reboot is almost entirely a graphics
>overhaul, and the visuals of the original still hold up pretty well.

Glen Schofield - the 'creator'* of the original "Dead Space" seems to
agree.** "“Honestly, if it were up to me, I wouldn’t remake it. I am
glad for them, but I wouldn’t. I want to move on and make something
new."

Of course, he has some personal investment in the original remaining
untouched; it's his baby, his vision*. The remake dillutes that
vision. Still, I can't disagree with him or the article: 'it's new
games and IPs that help push the industry forward'. The triple-As need
to start pushing out original ideas rather than plastering over their
old constructions with fancier textures and higher-polygon models. And
gamers need to stop falling for their tricks too. The triple-As keep
making remakes because people keep buying them.

Thank God for the Indies. So much of their output is crap but at least
it's /new/ crap and not the same old stuff vomited out year after
year.

===================
* because nobody else was involved with the development of the game,
naturally. Nope, it all sprang out of Schofield's head, complete and
ready to play. God, I hate how journalists put individual developers
on pedestals
** read here:
https://www.psu.com/news/glen-schofield-on-ea-motives-dead-space-if-it-were-me-i-wouldnt-remake-it/

On 27/10/2022 16:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Of course, he has some personal investment in the original remaining
> untouched; it's his baby, his vision*. The remake dillutes that
> vision. Still, I can't disagree with him or the article: 'it's new
> games and IPs that help push the industry forward'. The triple-As need
> to start pushing out original ideas rather than plastering over their
> old constructions with fancier textures and higher-polygon models. And
> gamers need to stop falling for their tricks too. The triple-As keep
> making remakes because people keep buying them.
>
> Thank God for the Indies. So much of their output is crap but at least
> it's/new/ crap and not the same old stuff vomited out year after
> year.

I think as I've said before yes it would be nice if they started pushing
new IP's more but considering they would seem to be a trusted and low
risk formula then I can't blame them for sticking with it. As you say,
they aren't going to change tact all the time people keep opening their
wallets.

It's something I don't really understand. A sequel to a popular game,
yeh why not. Yet another one after that, that's pushing it. After that I
don't know were all the sales come from.

On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:44:09 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>It's something I don't really understand. A sequel to a popular game,
>yeh why not. Yet another one after that, that's pushing it. After that I
>don't know were all the sales come from.

It's an evolutionary trait; you stick with stuff that's proven to be
safe. Trying new things has risks (and in the wild, those risks can be
deadly). It takes effort often to even realize how much we've limited
ourselves, and even more to purposefully push past those limits. And -
depending on life experiences - we can often become overly cautious
about exploring new options because previous attempts to expand our
options have been disappointing.

(I mean, I'm speaking to the choir here: look at us old geezers all
hanging out on Usenet ;-)

And with games and entertainment, there's even less inclination to
explore new ideas, especially past a certain age. We only have so much
time in our day to play, so why take a risk with "Devils Daggers" when
"Call of Duty" 1 through 72 have given us - more or less - what we
want? Eventually you'll tire of the formula, sure, but it can take a
long time.

(And don't forget the social issue. Sure Alice might be tired of
Assassins Creed by the time the 22nd game is out, but your friend Bob
has only played the last ten games, and so he still gets enjoyment
from them. So now Alice has to make a choice: keep playing a game that
bores her but she can still get some enjoyment playing with Bob, or
risk something new, which may not be fun and might also distance
herself from her friend. Guess which option Alice picks?)

And it's not like sequels are all exactly the same; developers do
tinker with the formula... just enough to seem fresh without being
dangerously new.

It's not unique to games either. TV, movies, books all suffer from the
same problem... Often even the authors want to change but can't lest
they lose their audience. And god knows - as much as I rail against it
- I'm not immune to the lure of the same. Oh look, another Star Wars
product? Take my money!

So I don't really blame publishers for crapping out sequels, or people
for buying them. I wish we'd both be braver in trying new things, but
I get why it's the way things are. Still, I have a special disdain for
remakes, which abandon any pretense of newness and just reward the
infantile desire to keep everything the same and safe. It's the
ultimate in stagnation and does nothing for the art and nothing for
the consumer of the art. The only thing it benefits is the pocketbook
of the publisher, who is preying - and encouraging - its customers'
fear of the new.

On 28/10/2022 15:33, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 11:44:09 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>
>> It's something I don't really understand. A sequel to a popular game,
>> yeh why not. Yet another one after that, that's pushing it. After that I
>> don't know were all the sales come from.
>
> It's an evolutionary trait; you stick with stuff that's proven to be
> safe. Trying new things has risks (and in the wild, those risks can be
> deadly). It takes effort often to even realize how much we've limited
> ourselves, and even more to purposefully push past those limits. And -
> depending on life experiences - we can often become overly cautious
> about exploring new options because previous attempts to expand our
> options have been disappointing.
>
> (I mean, I'm speaking to the choir here: look at us old geezers all
> hanging out on Usenet ;-)
>
> And with games and entertainment, there's even less inclination to
> explore new ideas, especially past a certain age. We only have so much
> time in our day to play, so why take a risk with "Devils Daggers" when
> "Call of Duty" 1 through 72 have given us - more or less - what we
> want? Eventually you'll tire of the formula, sure, but it can take a
> long time.
>
> (And don't forget the social issue. Sure Alice might be tired of
> Assassins Creed by the time the 22nd game is out, but your friend Bob
> has only played the last ten games, and so he still gets enjoyment
> from them. So now Alice has to make a choice: keep playing a game that
> bores her but she can still get some enjoyment playing with Bob, or
> risk something new, which may not be fun and might also distance
> herself from her friend. Guess which option Alice picks?)
>
> And it's not like sequels are all exactly the same; developers do
> tinker with the formula... just enough to seem fresh without being
> dangerously new.
>
> It's not unique to games either. TV, movies, books all suffer from the
> same problem... Often even the authors want to change but can't lest
> they lose their audience. And god knows - as much as I rail against it
> - I'm not immune to the lure of the same. Oh look, another Star Wars
> product? Take my money!
>
> So I don't really blame publishers for crapping out sequels, or people
> for buying them. I wish we'd both be braver in trying new things, but
> I get why it's the way things are. Still, I have a special disdain for
> remakes, which abandon any pretense of newness and just reward the
> infantile desire to keep everything the same and safe. It's the
> ultimate in stagnation and does nothing for the art and nothing for
> the consumer of the art. The only thing it benefits is the pocketbook
> of the publisher, who is preying - and encouraging - its customers'
> fear of the new.
>

Don't get me wrong. I understand why they do it and I certain;y don't
blame them but, and this maybe rose tinted spectacles, if I compare say
the first twenty years of my gaming to the last twenty it really feels
quite different in terms of trying new things. That seems especially
true in the triple-A space which is compounded by the fact they are
mechanics driven games and unlike narrative driven games there's less
innovative flexibility there.

Other forms of entertainment, films are definitely the worse and even
ahead of PC games. Someone did look at the summer blockbusters a few
years ago and only one was an original IP. That's not good. TV I see it
less although I think part of that is we still have BB2 and C4 which for
the moment are still the ones which are far more open to new ideas and
taking risks.

Saying all of that, books - guilty as charged I'm afraid. I tend to play
it safe there with going what I know. I think part of that is I find
books a lot more hit-and-miss. So recently I picked up a book by Iain M.
Banks (that's the title used instead of Iain Banks for his sci-fi
novels). I struggled with it and have put it down and got a Terry
Pratchett instead!