Dead Space: Exploding Death Trailer

By Jim Rossignol on August 11th, 2008 at 9:39 pm.


This new piece of Dead Space in-game footage is gruesome and gory, and really rather more fun that most of the other stuff we’ve seen so far. I’ve heard some mixed reports from people who’ve had time with this game, but I have to say I’m still anticipating something rather entertaining. Tiny writhing stuff exploding out of the corpse of your enemy is the new…?

__________________

« | »

, .

45 Comments »

  1. Steven Hutton says:

    What is that stun thing he’s using? Some kind of time-slower-downer? Well, I liked it when he used it to decapitate one in slow motion. Very cool.

  2. finchDenton says:

    Can’t wait for the animated movie, the four animated comics were impressive.

    It seems that this kind of precision shooting would be much better suited to a mouse then the thumb-sticks on a controller…

  3. dartt says:

    …is the new tiny writhing things NOT expoding out of the corpse of your enemy.

  4. sbs says:

    Slow elevator scene spotted!

  5. Matt says:

    …is the new Phil Collins album?

  6. noggin says:

    I wouldn’t have thought someone with their lungs on the outside would be that tough…

  7. Wurzel says:

    Hmm, certainly the guns look pretty innovative and sound meaty, and I’m liking the way the UI is presented. Could be great, though obviously you’ve got to remain skeptical about these things.

    @Matt: If only…

  8. Gladman says:

    This game would be better if stuff got dismembered straight away, or the limbs look like they’re slowly detatching as you hit them more, otherwise it looks like a broken mechanic.

  9. Valentin Galea says:

    All I can say is that I have a Dead Space wallpaper:D

  10. Gladman says:

    @ Valentin

    Background, BACKGROUND.

    Wallpaper is what you put on your walls, GAWD.

  11. garren says:

    That camera movement looked kinda awkward. Mouse ftw I suppose.

  12. MetalCircus says:

    I’m still not convinced on this. It’ll be fun for a laugh probably but… it all looks a bit generic?

  13. Tom says:

    I thinking this is starting to look awesome.
    I can understand peoples doubts. This looks a little to much like something I could REALLY enjoy. But it’s gonna need a whole lot more than just gore to make this kind of game work well.
    Personally, I’ve got fingers crossed.

  14. Matt says:

    I think more games should have you knocked on your arse when firing a stupidly big weapon, especially at close range.

    Also, I’m liking this guy’s bad posture – makes me feel less guilty about my poor physique.

  15. heliocentric says:

    i can attest to valentin’s statement. His bed room is covered in dead space wall paper. Kitchen has red faction tiles in his bathroom.

    Remember chopping the zombies in half in ravenholme? This is that but you need to rend psudeo people paraplegic before they’ll stop trying to om nom you. Not liking the stuff i’ve seen of the protagonist movement, feels like console third person limitedness.

  16. Erlam says:

    “Not liking the stuff i’ve seen of the protagonist movement, feels like console third person limitedness.”

    I’m of the same opinion. I’d consider the game if it had First Person view, but watching that, forget it. It’s like he’s viewing through the side of his head or something, but still walking ‘forward.’

  17. bc9b89 says:

    Did anyone else notice the musical cue when he went around the corner and saw the couple of baddies lurking back there? That fucking rocked. Also, were those real time events coming out of his back when he got attacked by those little dudes? That was kinda cool.

  18. Skalpadda says:

    Wow, that’s disgusting. In a good way.

    Am I the only one who’s a bit bothered by the sounds of the err.. alien.. mutant.. umm.. things? It sounds to me like they’ve recorded a zoo and then played back the animal noises at various speeds with some dude growling into a mic over it. I swear I could single out pig, monkey and cat noises there. The weapon sounds are ace though.

  19. bc9b89 says:

    Hehe, that would actually be a good way of doing it if they did. Reminds me of they way they used actual animal entrails to make sets that were suposed to look organic in Aliens.

    God, I’m gushing, but this game looks cool if it can overcome the fact that the player character moves like a tank.

  20. Pidesco says:

    He’s blind, but walks around with a floating seeing eye probe.

    Anyway, the combat seems pretty meaty, which is good. Everything else seems a bit underwhelming, especially as it doesn’t seem in any way scary

  21. Cronus says:

    The video seems to be down. Edit: I’ve checked back and it’s up again.

  22. greenbunny45 says:

    I can’t find the video anywhere besides here… and its not loading

  23. po says:

    Urgh, 3rd person (hope it’s optional) and the lighting on the character model makes it look like everything else has been put in with green screen.

  24. tonic says:

    ditto on the not loading

  25. James says:

    Did I see a quick-time event at 1:40 when he’s shaking the things off his back?

  26. houseinrlyeh says:

    Wasn’t this supposed to be Survival Horror? This looks very much like a generic SF 3rd-person-shooter WITH GORE to me.

  27. Alex says:

    Ugh… gruesome. Somefink innovative here? Don´t fink so.

  28. Caiman says:

    I’m a big fan of Alien(s) and The Thing, both of which this game clearly draws heavy inspiration from. But it just doesn’t seem as scary as it could be, probably due to the third person perspective making you detached from the consequences.

  29. Ed says:

    Looks like utter crap. Lighting’s all wrong.

  30. heliocentric says:

    i hate that resi 4 was a good game despite its stupid respective. Other people are copying it. Loving the tiny little things, shame that pressing the a button kills them.

  31. subedii says:

    RE4′s viewpoint was very much a part of its gameplay, just like the inability to strafe was (that wasn’t accidental, it was a deliberate design decision).

    Just as important as how the design empowers the player is the specific ways in which it limits the player as well.

    Making RE4 an FPS would have drastically altered its gameplay. Third Person OTS works far better for the style of game that they were trying to create there.

  32. sbs says:

    subedii: They’ve been saying that since the very first RE, no?
    “Ohh ye the controls are so clunky and unresponsive and camera behaves so retardedly* because the game is SCARIER that way!”
    Frankly, I call bullshit.

    *(which, according to Firefox, is not a word. But then again, according to Firefox, “Firefox” is not a word either, so fuck it.)

  33. Ian says:

    @Gladman:

    We’re not even going to get you started on MS Paint.

  34. subedii says:

    Alright, sbs, what exactly did you feel was so debilitating about the control scheme for RE4? We’ll leave out the previous RE games, those were largely facing technical limitations that forced the fixed camera angles.

    RE4 didn’t have fixed camera angles and instead went for an OTS viewpoint. The character was relatively athletic but couldn’t barrel through levels like a bunny on meths (which, if we’re honest, is how most FPS characters tend to move).

    About the only real limitation I can see is the inability to strafe. You can call bullshit on that, but then what is the reason you believe that they removed it? It wasn’t removed for technical reasons, unless you’re arguing that Capcom have the programming and animation capability to implement everything else in the game but when faced with moving a character sideways encounter a brick wall.

    So, it was a conscious choice then. The question then becomes why did they make that choice? This they’ve explained, and I actually agree with them here, it would have fundamentally changed the combat and gameplay mechanics. Instead of the stop-and-pop mechanic, the gameplay instead would’ve devolved into a circle strafing marathon. The OTS view and aiming and the rest would’ve gone out the window for what effectively would have become a 3rd person action game that was trying to be a first person shooter.

    As for the camera being retarded, I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree there. The camera was OTS, it was always looking straight ahead at what you were looking at, and if you needed you could pan it to the sides and up and down, though this was pretty rare. If they had implemented a free-roaming or automatic camera then I’d probably agree with you here, because those are almost impossible to get right in any game, but here I have to say the camera worked fine. It was always looking where you were aiming (something a lot of games fail on even today) and instead of giving a weird birds-eye view they gave you one where you needed to be mindful of your blindspots whilst being able to focus on what’s ahead of you.

    If I’m honest, it sounds as if your complaints aren’t so much that the game itself was bad at what it did, it’s that the game wasn’t some other, totally different game that you wanted it to be.

  35. sbs says:

    subedii,
    I am well aware that RE4 had a really well working OTS camera, my post was more directed towards the first RE than anything else, and not about me disliking the game at all – but the statement that controls etc. were limited(read: piss poor) for the sake of atmosphere and gameplay, which the team itself claimed when asked about why it was such a pain to play. I just hated the fact that they went with “it’s a feature!” while I thought it was terribly broken in those regards.

    Thanks for taking the time to reply, your points are more than valid and I largely agree. Except for the last sentence – I admit to bitching about things like that, alot, while playing the game(and secretly having a great time). Silent Hill combat is another good example of this, but that’s another story.
    I’m not going to be ignorant enough, though, and dislike a good game because of that ;)

  36. Real Horrorshow says:

    This looks awesome, call me a traitor.

  37. Theory says:

    Yeah, that was awesome.

  38. subedii says:

    Silent Hill’s combat was definitely a pain. There it’s difficult for me to discern to what extent they deliberately made it awkward (playing a human in this bizarre warped world) and to what extent they simply didn’t know what they were doing. :)

    As for the earlier RE games, I think that the change of control scheme in RE4, was in their own way an admission that things weren’t quite that good in the previous games.

  39. trillex says:

    Am I the only one who thought that this was too bright to even look remotely scary?

  40. Erlam says:

    “Am I the only one who thought that this was too bright to even look remotely scary?”

    I’m there too.

    Also, let me see if I can play out this game for you:

    You walk into a room.
    Bad guy attacks you, moving towards you.
    You walk backwards, firing.
    You walk backwards, firing.
    You walk backwards, firing.
    It dies.
    You walk into a room…

    And so on. Oh, add ‘You struggle with the awful camera view.’

  41. Mr.Teeth says:

    Matt says: …is the new Phil Collins album?
    Wurzel says: If only…

    Well wait no longer, hot of the Phil press…
    http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i10/grindFish/philcollinsnewalbum.jpg

    I would say its his most brutal album since he left Genesis…

  42. GeorgeR says:

    I’m looking forward to this, but at the same time, not expecting much from it. So, I should be fine. The hype machine for it really seems to be in full force though

  43. sigma83 says:

    I’m really digging the visuals and sound design. Ditto monsters, HUD-less system and stuffs.

    I really really really dislike the 3rd person camera and the fact that the character moves like he’s got lockstep and is wearing a hundred pounds of suit. If that’s intentional it doesn’t look good enough.

  44. Okami says:

    @subedii: I think they made Silent Hill’s combat deliberately awkward. Or maybe they didn’t do it deliberately at first but decided not to change it at one point.

    I don’t think any videogame ever scared me as much as Silent Hill 2. And part of that was the combat. It wasn’t just, that combat was hard and could kill you. It was a truly awkward experience, it didn’t empower you the way killing things in game usually does and beating an opponent wasn’t satisfactory, at most you were relieved, that it was over.

    After a combat in SH2 I’d allways feel revulsion, not only towards the creepy enemies, but towards myself as well. You often had to hit monsters when the were lying on the ground in order to finish them – abd even then the clunky controls made it an awkward task to hit them. I never felt like a hero or a skilled fighter but just like a clumsy, frigthened person, whacking away in disgust at some hellspawned (well not really hell – christian mythology isn’t complex enough to come up with such things) monster.

    A horror game should never have smooth combat mechanics, otherwise it’s just an action game with zombies.

  45. Cossak says:

    It looked to me like the player character was looting the corpses of the monsters for at least ammo and health, which is completely absurd given the lengths they’ve gone to in making a convincing and seamless world (no HUD, in-game inventory, physics, etc.)