Dead Space 2 |OT| The Marker Is Not A Sharpie

Mar 9, 2007
2,078
0
0
Alabama
www.oursitexl.com
OK, so I'm near the end of this game
running around trying to get outside to the Marker I assume after I stab myself in the eye
.

Actually, that little staged item is rather fitting since at this point in the game I want to do exactly that to myself. This game has really fallen apart in the final few acts. Now I'm just running through corridors with endless necromorphs, no chance to stop and buy ammo, and the drops are horrendous, and it's just a mindless shootout, while I try to statis these new creatures long enough to get through doors.

It's really an exceedingly disappointing final few acts, but the game really overstayed its welcome shortly after you
get off the Ishimura again
. I swear, the game just feels like it's going on forever and the fact these last bits are just endless corridors with far too many necromorphs to handle is really damn annoying and souring me on the whole game. I can't believe this crap made it by playtesters after the pretty solid remainder of the game.
I think that was the whole point, to be overran as you made your way to the marker. I mean there were thousands of necros swarming it, of course they're going to keep coming for you. Just a mad dash to the marker, trying to hold enemies back till the doors shut. I kind of liked it. It was different and a nice change of pace from the "shoot the legs off enemies til room is cleared" from the rest of the game.
 
So I was trying to dig up that Army of Two resume to make fun of Nintex's assertion that EA's 2012 games are all for next gen platforms when I noticed a couple of interesting things.

1.) It sounds like the next Dead Space is on Frostbite 2, or some of the team have moved on to a new title. I'm unsure, because establishing the look and style would make sense for both as Frostbite would cause some large visual changes they would have to deal with. This does kind of sound like a new IP though:



2.) Visceral Melbourne was working on porting something to Vita at one point:



 
Apr 6, 2009
57,155
0
0
Vancouver...ish.
So I was trying to dig up that Army of Two resume to make fun of Nintex's assertion that EA's 2012 games are all for next gen platforms when I noticed a couple of interesting things.

1.) It sounds like the next Dead Space is on Frostbite 2, or some of the team have moved on to a new title. I'm unsure, because establishing the look and style would make sense for both as Frostbite would cause some large visual changes they would have to deal with. This does kind of sound like a new IP though:



2.) Visceral Melbourne was working on porting something to Vita at one point:



DS3 on Frostbite 2? That's... odd.
 

Kinyou

Member
Sep 12, 2009
48,208
1
745
I don't know if that would work out so great (on consoles at least)

What Engine is Dead Space using anyway?
 

Nizz

Member
May 18, 2007
12,604
0
945
Florida
The engine used in Dead Space looks/runs great already though. Not too sure how I feel if they switch to Frostbite 2.
 
DS3 on Frostbite 2? That's... odd.
I don't know if that would work out so great (on consoles at least)

What Engine is Dead Space using anyway?
They're using the internal one they've been modifying for a while.

I believe it was used in their James Bond games, Lord of the Rings games, The Godfather, Dead Space, and Dante's Inferno.

It's gotten a lot more investment over the years, but it is still based on technology that was architectured a long time ago with licensed games budgets in mind.

I was fully expecting them to use it for Dead Space 3 and then drop it heading into next gen. I'm not sure if the above resume or not suggests that they're just making a new IP on Frostbite 2, or if they've moving Dead Space over sooner than expected.

The reason I was expecting the switch though is that Dead Space 2 released in 2011, but lacked any kind of DirectX 11 support, largely had small environments, and the multiplayer seemed rather contained/smaller scale in ways that suggested to me there were probably technological reasons for it as well.

That and EA is switching over basically every other Visceral (and otherwise) core targeted franchise to the engine. The next Army of Two and this unknown game are using it, and Command & Conquer: Generals 2 is as well, which used to be part of their division.

But basically they're trying to get all of their franchises on an engine that can transfer console generations and still be top of the line, since otherwise they have to start over instead of being able to save a ton of time and progress.

But yeah, I still wasn't expecting it yet, but so far we have no leaks in regards to the game gameplay or technology wise, so we'll have to wait and see.
 

Corky

Nine out of ten orphans can't tell the difference.
Jul 1, 2009
18,776
0
0
That's it, you jerkstores have bumped this thread one too many times. Now I gotta replay DS2, I'm ashamed over the fact that I've only played through this game, which incidentally is a contender for my personal goty, once from start to finish :(.
 

SamuraiX-

Member
Jul 17, 2007
22,324
0
0
California
That's it, you jerkstores have bumped this thread one too many times. Now I gotta replay DS2, I'm ashamed over the fact that I've only played through this game, which incidentally is a contender for my personal goty, once from start to finish :(.
Do a Hard to the Core run. It'll put hair in places you didn't even know you had places.
 

Corky

Nine out of ten orphans can't tell the difference.
Jul 1, 2009
18,776
0
0
Is there going to be anymore DLC or has the well run dry? I would love to have another side story.
Oh god RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just realized that we can't even get the dlc on pc...

Monkey Pants, CodeCow et al. Please.... please for the love of god write some angry post its and put them on the desk of whoever has the power to make it happen.
 

Nizz

Member
May 18, 2007
12,604
0
945
Florida
That's it, you jerkstores have bumped this thread one too many times. Now I gotta replay DS2, I'm ashamed over the fact that I've only played through this game, which incidentally is a contender for my personal goty, once from start to finish :(.
I was replaying it a couple of weeks ago before I got Vanquish. Playing with new game+ is pretty nice. Switching between the different armors, upgrading the weapons. It's an easier ride through the second time. There's been one/two spots that still made me jump in my chair, lol.
 
Sep 16, 2007
8,436
0
0
Sundridge, Canada
Oh god RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just realized that we can't even get the dlc on pc...

Monkey Pants, CodeCow et al. Please.... please for the love of god write some angry post its and put them on the desk of whoever has the power to make it happen.
That sucks. : /

Some people slagged the DLC story but I enjoyed it. (But I'm completely stupid about Dead Space)

On the upside...but it on 360 or PS3 and play it again, get the achievements/trophies and unlocks and then do the DLC etc.

You deserve to treat yourself sir!

Do a Hard to the Core run. It'll put hair in places you didn't even know you had places.

Doing my hardcore run...that was some memorable shit right there. I got right down to planning out each encounter. Some fights on Hardcore mode created the most anxiety I've ever felt while playing a videogame.
 

Corky

Nine out of ten orphans can't tell the difference.
Jul 1, 2009
18,776
0
0
You deserve to treat yourself sir!
Sniff :'( I'm crazy about DS too.

I bought DS1 on 360 3 times, gave away 2 copies to friends and convinced several others to buy it back in the day as well. Unfortunately I've sold off my consoles by now and am as such stuck with the dlc-less pc version which for all intents and purposes is an amaaaazing version of the game in all aspects. Just wish they'd at least give the people a chance to buy it.

And now with the dawn of Origin, I fail do see why EA wouldn't want to start releasing dlc for their pc titles via their own DD system.


I was replaying it a couple of weeks ago before I got Vanquish. Playing with new game+ is pretty nice. Switching between the different armors, upgrading the weapons. It's an easier ride through the second time. There's been one/two spots that still made me jump in my chair, lol.
It's definitely on my to do list.
 

Kinyou

Member
Sep 12, 2009
48,208
1
745
They're using the internal one they've been modifying for a while.

I believe it was used in their James Bond games, Lord of the Rings games, The Godfather, Dead Space, and Dante's Inferno.

It's gotten a lot more investment over the years, but it is still based on technology that was architectured a long time ago with licensed games budgets in mind.

I was fully expecting them to use it for Dead Space 3 and then drop it heading into next gen. I'm not sure if the above resume or not suggests that they're just making a new IP on Frostbite 2, or if they've moving Dead Space over sooner than expected.

The reason I was expecting the switch though is that Dead Space 2 released in 2011, but lacked any kind of DirectX 11 support, largely had small environments, and the multiplayer seemed rather contained/smaller scale in ways that suggested to me there were probably technological reasons for it as well.

That and EA is switching over basically every other Visceral (and otherwise) core targeted franchise to the engine. The next Army of Two and this unknown game are using it, and Command & Conquer: Generals 2 is as well, which used to be part of their division.

But basically they're trying to get all of their franchises on an engine that can transfer console generations and still be top of the line, since otherwise they have to start over instead of being able to save a ton of time and progress.

But yeah, I still wasn't expecting it yet, but so far we have no leaks in regards to the game gameplay or technology wise, so we'll have to wait and see.
I don't know much about programming but I think this could be because they removed the loading times between levels and streamed them instead.

....though I guess that would actually cause bigger and not smaller levels so I might be wrong.

It's also interesting how only Dead Space seems to be the game where the engine really shines, can't remember any of the other games ever being praised for good graphics.
 
Sep 16, 2007
8,436
0
0
Sundridge, Canada
Sniff :'( I'm crazy about DS too.

I bought DS1 on 360 3 times, gave away 2 copies to friends and convinced several others to buy it back in the day as well.
Ha...same here. I saw $20 copies at Walmart about two weeks ago. Bought five of them and gave them to employees at work. They loved it. The wife...not so much. : /

Unfortunately I've sold off my consoles by now and am as such stuck with the dlc-less pc version which for all intents and purposes is an amaaaazing version of the game in all aspects. Just wish they'd at least give the people a chance to buy it.
Sounds like a perfect time to get yourself a new and super-cheap console plus Dead Space 2.

The real question is, can you afford to NOT buy a new console and play Dead Space 2 and the DLC?

You should make the purchase and play it before it's too late!!!!
 

Corky

Nine out of ten orphans can't tell the difference.
Jul 1, 2009
18,776
0
0
The real question is, can you afford to NOT buy a new console and play Dead Space 2 and the DLC?

You should make the purchase and play it before it's too late!!!!
Oh I do have DS2 on pc, just not the dlc. I'm foolishly waiting, and praying to god/jesus/budda/Gabe/Kotick/The Marker that the dlc will soon show up and make love to my heart.

*keeps praying*
 
I don't know much about programming but I think this could be because they removed the loading times between levels and streamed them instead.

....though I guess that would actually cause bigger and not smaller levels so I might be wrong.
It kind of depends on how you implement the streaming. I get the impression it doesn't stream every frame like Frostbite does because the game actually locks the doors and hatches behind you pretty frequently so they can unload that area from memory and never have to worry about loading it again.

There are also a lot of transitional elevators and small corridors, which lets them control when they're swapping out what's in memory instead of constantly doing it on the fly.

My guess would be that it loads a section of the level, locks out the previous section, and then waits until one of these transition points to load in anything else, thus capping the level size they can actually have.

It's also interesting how only Dead Space seems to be the game where the engine really shines, can't remember any of the other games ever being praised for good graphics.
I feel this says a lot about the strength of the team as opposed to the strength of the technology.

They're able to customize their technology base very well to do what they want, but I feel this indicates that they could do a lot more by heavily customizing a stronger base, given that the engine really hasn't shined in any other case.

That people on the core Dead Space team are now working with Frostbite 2 on this mystery project instead of their existing engine suggests that they agree with this as well.

However, this is also why I suspected Dead Space 3 would be on the existing engine, since customizing an engine can take quite a while, so starting that earlier while also simultaneously making Dead Space 3 on their existing engine lets them fully customize it the way they want it before having to ship a product.

That said, they could have been doing that during Dead Space 2 already without hinting that they were.
 

Corky

Nine out of ten orphans can't tell the difference.
Jul 1, 2009
18,776
0
0
I feel this says a lot about the strength of the team as opposed to the strength of the technology..
My sentiments exactly, and this goes both way of course. The discrepancies between games made by different teams using the same engine can be huge.

On another note,I wonder, how has DS2 performed financially?
 
My sentiments exactly, and this goes both way of course. The discrepancies between games made by different teams using the same engine can be huge.

On another note,I wonder, how has DS2 performed financially?
Well, Dead Space 1 was (marginally) profitable, and the actual production cycle for Dead Space 2 was only about one year. Dead Space 2 also sold significantly faster than Dead Space 1 (and thus with a notably higher average sale price), even though its LTD still seems to be in the 2-3 million range. So, even though it almost assuredly cost more to make, I suspect it was rather profitable for them.

That said, EA has been very clear that they are hoping to grow the franchise significantly. They throw the number 5 million units around a lot, and also view it as a major franchise on par with the below:



(If you're confused why Sim City is there, it's because they intend to launch it as a Facebook game soon, and likely hit something ridiculous like 50+ million MAU/8+ million DAU.
 

Corky

Nine out of ten orphans can't tell the difference.
Jul 1, 2009
18,776
0
0
Good to hear, I really want the DS franchise alive and kicking. Seeing EA themselves place the franchise among their other major lineups is rather reassuring. After all critical acclaim only goes thus far in this day and age, so here's hoping the next installments sells even better .

<3

edit : oooh shiii... it's on :



 

Evolved1

make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
Sep 24, 2006
20,113
0
0
far left of center
Man this game was so good until the end. I'll never replay it, and I would have otherwise.

I'm still interested in DS3. But only if they make some additions to the core gameplay... it was getting a little too samey before the awful chase levels kicked in. Maybe that's why they did that. To change it up.

Hopefully for DS3 they can think of something that's actually a good idea.
 

Replicant

Member
Mar 20, 2007
28,357
0
0
There is DLC for Dead Space 2?

Also, I hope the engine change doesn't alter the quality of the graphics in Dead Space 3. At least not if it's for the worse.
 
Apr 6, 2009
57,155
0
0
Vancouver...ish.
Good to hear, I really want the DS franchise alive and kicking. Seeing EA themselves place the franchise among their other major lineups is rather reassuring. After all critical acclaim only goes thus far in this day and age, so here's hoping the next installments sells even better .

<3

edit : oooh shiii... it's on :



Sometimes I forget how good this game can look.
 

senador

Member
Jul 5, 2011
3,280
0
0
33
UT
bigshinyrobot.com
Hot damn those screens look good. They make me want to replay. DS2 is one of this generations best looking games IMO. Using Frostbite 2 wouldn't make sense to me for this reason, unless they are intending to change the game in huge ways...which I'd be skeptical of.
 

Monkey Pants

Outpost Games Creative Director
Nov 25, 2009
259
0
0
San Francisco
www.ianmilham.com
Technologically speaking, our engine is uniquely tooled towards small spaces with lots of detail on the walls and edges. Has to do with deferred rendering and stacked-up polygons being very expensive.

But in exchange for that we get great, alive lighting and shading and VFX, so we choose settings and set-ups that pay off on those aspects.

The loading is handled the same way in DS1 and DS2. The Level Designers manage it by hand, streaming in what they need when. It's very labor intensive but allows us to control things tightly. Sometimes we lock doors behind you (or have other things happen) if there's no way we can have a big set-up happen and also potentially allow you to backtrack to another big set-up you just went through.

In DS1 we had the tram/map fiction, in DS2 we just got rid of that, and streamed the whole game in sequence. The "Chapter 5" call outs in the corner are just window dressing. Sometimes we're not even loading anything then!
 
Technologically speaking, our engine is uniquely tooled towards small spaces with lots of detail on the walls and edges. Has to do with deferred rendering and stacked-up polygons being very expensive.

But in exchange for that we get great, alive lighting and shading and VFX, so we choose settings and set-ups that pay off on those aspects.

The loading is handled the same way in DS1 and DS2. The Level Designers manage it by hand, streaming in what they need when. It's very labor intensive but allows us to control things tightly. Sometimes we lock doors behind you (or have other things happen) if there's no way we can have a big set-up happen and also potentially allow you to backtrack to another big set-up you just went through.

In DS1 we had the tram/map fiction, in DS2 we just got rid of that, and streamed the whole game in sequence. The "Chapter 5" call outs in the corner are just window dressing. Sometimes we're not even loading anything then!
Thanks for the insight.

I didn't mean to imply that the engine didn't work well for Dead Space's needs. It very clearly does.

That was actually why the resume listing surprised me, since I didn't see much benefit to a major technology change during this gen unless there was some extreme need to have the game specific code tied to your current gen work up on next-gen consoles as fast as possible.

I'll just assume that listing is for those some of your other projects. :p
 

Minamu

Member
Feb 2, 2009
11,363
2
720
33
Skövde, Sweden
Technologically speaking, our engine is uniquely tooled towards small spaces with lots of detail on the walls and edges. Has to do with deferred rendering and stacked-up polygons being very expensive.

But in exchange for that we get great, alive lighting and shading and VFX, so we choose settings and set-ups that pay off on those aspects.

The loading is handled the same way in DS1 and DS2. The Level Designers manage it by hand, streaming in what they need when. It's very labor intensive but allows us to control things tightly. Sometimes we lock doors behind you (or have other things happen) if there's no way we can have a big set-up happen and also potentially allow you to backtrack to another big set-up you just went through.

In DS1 we had the tram/map fiction, in DS2 we just got rid of that, and streamed the whole game in sequence. The "Chapter 5" call outs in the corner are just window dressing. Sometimes we're not even loading anything then!
More of this would be awesome to read. Company secrets can be spoilered ;)
 

Muffdraul

Member
Apr 23, 2008
10,196
16
805
Los Angeles
Technologically speaking, our engine is uniquely tooled towards small spaces with lots of detail on the walls and edges. Has to do with deferred rendering and stacked-up polygons being very expensive.
The most amazing DS2 moment for me was when I looked closely enough to notice that the little Post-It® notes on the walls were actual 3D objects that stuck out at the bottom just like the real thing. I was all "WHOAH!"
 
Apr 6, 2009
57,155
0
0
Vancouver...ish.
Technologically speaking, our engine is uniquely tooled towards small spaces with lots of detail on the walls and edges. Has to do with deferred rendering and stacked-up polygons being very expensive.

But in exchange for that we get great, alive lighting and shading and VFX, so we choose settings and set-ups that pay off on those aspects.

The loading is handled the same way in DS1 and DS2. The Level Designers manage it by hand, streaming in what they need when. It's very labor intensive but allows us to control things tightly. Sometimes we lock doors behind you (or have other things happen) if there's no way we can have a big set-up happen and also potentially allow you to backtrack to another big set-up you just went through.

In DS1 we had the tram/map fiction, in DS2 we just got rid of that, and streamed the whole game in sequence. The "Chapter 5" call outs in the corner are just window dressing. Sometimes we're not even loading anything then!
Very cool info.
 

Monkey Pants

Outpost Games Creative Director
Nov 25, 2009
259
0
0
San Francisco
www.ianmilham.com
The internet is full of info on deferred rendering, I'm sure, and I'm just on the art side, so I'm a poor spokesman for it, but the end result is that you have to think about performance differently than just number of polys.

We're not usually bound by how many polygons there are, but instead on how many passes each pixel on the screen gets. Stacking up polygons in front of the camera gets exponentially expensive, whether they're transparent or not (although that makes it worse). Also, having a pixel touched by a lot of lights hurts. You could kill our framerate with just 8 polygons if they all covered the entire view and stacked up.

What's that mean in the end?

Spaces with a lot of detail in the middle where it can layer over the background, or several big lights that wash over the whole scene (i.e. The Sun) are very bad for our engine.

Spaces with lots of detail around the perimeter (lots of bits on the walls) work well because you can't stack them up in the view. Spaces with lots of lights that have quick fall off so they only affect a small area work great, especially because those lights can be dynamic (flickering, turning on/off, etc.).

Spaces that offer a lot of freedom of direction are hard because our LDs can't manage the streaming well.

They also tend to lend themselves to man-made areas and light sources like spaceship hallways, which is why we made the engine like that in the first place. If we stick to these rules we can push more than almost anyone else.

As we attempt new things, we're broadening the capabilities of the engine so we have more freedom.
 
The internet is full of info on deferred rendering, I'm sure, and I'm just on the art side, so I'm a poor spokesman for it, but the end result is that you have to think about performance differently than just number of polys.

We're not usually bound by how many polygons there are, but instead on how many passes each pixel on the screen gets. Stacking up polygons in front of the camera gets exponentially expensive, whether they're transparent or not (although that makes it worse). Also, having a pixel touched by a lot of lights hurts. You could kill our framerate with just 8 polygons if they all covered the entire view and stacked up.

What's that mean in the end?

Spaces with a lot of detail in the middle where it can layer over the background, or several big lights that wash over the whole scene (i.e. The Sun) are very bad for our engine.

Spaces with lots of detail around the perimeter (lots of bits on the walls) work well because you can't stack them up in the view. Spaces with lots of lights that have quick fall off so they only affect a small area work great, especially because those lights can be dynamic (flickering, turning on/off, etc.).

Spaces that offer a lot of freedom of direction are hard because our LDs can't manage the streaming well.

They also tend to lend themselves to man-made areas and light sources like spaceship hallways, which is why we made the engine like that in the first place. If we stick to these rules we can push more than almost anyone else.

As we attempt new things, we're broadening the capabilities of the engine so we have more freedom.
That's actually one thing I really wanted to ask about.

Isn't the tile based deferred shading implementation in Frostbite 2 an attempt to address the issue of having lots of overlapping lights while still using a deferred renderer?

Or is the culling implementation they refer to just them removing lights from the calculation until it becomes cheap enough to calculate?

They sell it as if it's the former, but looking through this power point again, I'm starting to think their solution might be "cheating" (in the sense that they're solving the issue by just computing only the most important lights per tile instead of finding a new way to show everything).

I can definitely see why that would be rather problematic in a game significantly more dependent on lighting.

Edit:

Oh right, there was one other question I was quite curious about.

Monkey Pants said:
Spaces that offer a lot of freedom of direction are hard because our LDs can't manage the streaming well.
Is the primary reason that an automated and/or per frame streaming approach won't work the fact that not every platform has a guaranteed storage device?

I imagine that having low resolution assets for people without hard drives is much more noticeable in a slower paced third person game like Dead Space than having PS2-era models and textures on a desk you see for a few seconds in Battlefield 3.

Or are there additional notable issues with that? I imagine that with set pieces you have to guarantee some level of linearity leading up to it to ensure you can load everything you need, but I was primarily wondering in terms of areas with somewhat less pre-determined events going on.

Also I'd like to once again thank you for your insight. It's quite rare to actually be able to ask technology questions directly instead of trying to piece together information from PowerPoint presentations.
 

Monkey Pants

Outpost Games Creative Director
Nov 25, 2009
259
0
0
San Francisco
www.ianmilham.com
That's actually one thing I really wanted to ask about.

Isn't the tile based deferred shading implementation in Frostbite 2 an attempt to address the issue of having lots of overlapping lights while still using a deferred renderer?

Or is the culling implementation they refer to just them removing lights from the calculation until it becomes cheap enough to calculate?
I'm sorry, but when I read your questions all I hear is this.

I'm not sure about DICE's approach so I can't really say. Frostbite does use deferred, but I know it's different than ours. Maybe Codecow can chime in.

When it comes to being more open, we mostly realized that the type of game we wanted to make just didn't call for a GTA style open world streaming solution. Once we knew that, we didn't invest in one. It was sort of a chicken and egg thing. We also then didn't make LODs for our assets, as that's a huge production cost and the type of game we were making just didn't call for dynamically seeing things from far away and then getting close to them.

Same goes for HDR. Our engine doesn't have it, even though that's pretty common these days. We just don't go into really bright spaces much, fictionally, so no one really misses it.
 
I'm sorry, but when I read your questions all I hear is this.

I'm not sure about DICE's approach so I can't really say. Frostbite does use deferred, but I know it's different than ours. Maybe Codecow can chime in.

When it comes to being more open, we mostly realized that the type of game we wanted to make just didn't call for a GTA style open world streaming solution. Once we knew that, we didn't invest in one. It was sort of a chicken and egg thing. We also then didn't make LODs for our assets, as that's a huge production cost and the type of game we were making just didn't call for dynamically seeing things from far away and then getting close to them.

Same goes for HDR. Our engine doesn't have it, even though that's pretty common these days. We just don't go into really bright spaces much, fictionally, so no one really misses it.
Thanks!

I was mainly wondering since I was trying to think of whether there was any practical reason to actually switch technology even when changing generations.

Given how fast your production cycles are, I figured that productivity certainly wasn't an issue, so I was wondering if any of the other benefits Frostbite 2 gave actually made sense for Dead Space.

I get the impression that they likely don't though, because as you said, Dead Space doesn't actually need to have large, open environments that can get dynamically altered in unpredictable ways.

The animation system is also - to my understanding - a separate internal middleware, and it's not like Dead Space has animation issues anyway, so that doesn't seem especially pressing either.
 

Minamu

Member
Feb 2, 2009
11,363
2
720
33
Skövde, Sweden
Thanks!

I was mainly wondering since I was trying to think of whether there was any practical reason to actually switch technology even when changing generations.

Given how fast your production cycles are, I figured that productivity certainly wasn't an issue, so I was wondering if any of the other benefits Frostbite 2 gave actually made sense for Dead Space.

I get the impression that they likely don't though, because as you said, Dead Space doesn't actually need to have large, open environments that can get dynamically altered in unpredictable ways.

The animation system is also - to my understanding - a separate internal middleware, and it's not like Dead Space has animation issues anyway, so that doesn't seem especially pressing either.
Maybe it does for 3 or 4? :)
 

SUBZERO-08

Member
Mar 22, 2010
1,591
0
655
British Columbia, Canada
So I'm just starting this game for the first time (PC), and had two questions:

1. Is there no way to bind the right mouse button to toggle the weapon, like there was in the first game? That way I don't have to hold down the button while I shoot.

2. Why are all the weapons free in the first shop in chapter 1? Is this supposed to be this way, or is it a glitch of some sort? There is 18 different weapons and 9 suits available for 0 credits in the shop.
 

Draft

Member
Mar 30, 2005
18,403
2
0
38
Visceral should keep using their own Dead Space engine. DS 1 and 2 are a couple of the best looking HD generation games.
 

badcrumble

Member
May 12, 2006
26,793
4
0
Not just good looking on a technical level, but remarkably aesthetically unified. Anything that significantly disturbed the Dead Space 'look' would be a bad idea, IMO (and I mean in the little and big ways that an engine change would - setting changes that give the Dead Space aesthetic new room in which to flower are awesome).
 

JJD

Member
Jun 24, 2011
6,419
0
525
This thread is amazing! Thanks to Nirolak for digging all those info nuggets, and Codecow and Monkey Pants for sharing all that insight! Love DS, I hope we see a new one soon!
 

vikingvessel

Member
Feb 5, 2011
534
0
0
Technologically speaking, our engine is uniquely tooled towards small spaces with lots of detail on the walls and edges. Has to do with deferred rendering and stacked-up polygons being very expensive...
These detailed fun facts are so luscious. THANK YOU for sharing. And thanks to everyone for keeping the conversation going.
My tech savvy goes about as far as playing them, so this direct from the source stuff takes the perceived magic to yet another level.