Games

I've been playing Dead Space Remake, since it's been released on GamePass. Had to jump through some hoops to get my Xbox account linked to EA, but eventually managed to do it and I've been playing it for the past two weeks.

Just reached chapter 8 (comms array). So far, it's good. I'll preface saying that the last time I played the original Dead Space was five or six years ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I feel like the game's a lot more balanced than the OG, although not overly difficult. I remember blasting my way through hard mode with nothing but the starting gun back in the days, but I am playing more conservative here because I feel like ammo drops are scarcer, and stasis stations are a lot rarer than they were originally.

Finding all the guns in the wild instead of having to build them first lets you playtest them against real opponents, and having half the tech tree locked until you progress enough means that you are more incentivized in using them. In the original, I'd main the starting gun and install all my power nodes on it, while in the remake I'm acquiring nodes faster than I'm able to unlock upgrades for the guns, so I'm spending them on my side weapons. The ripper is still as gloriously broken as I remember it!

I like that they didn't rely exclusively on the procedurally generated enemy spawns, nor on the hand-made encounters, but have a mix of both. Procedurally generated content tends to fall flat because a computer doesn't know how to set the mood and jump scare you appropriately; while hand-made content tends to grow stale after you play the game once or twice (or reload the same section to complete it with more ammo/health). A mix of both is the best of both worlds, and I'm positively surprised by how well it works in practice.

As for the most discussed improvement in the game, the interconnected world, I honestly find it... okay, but I'm not blown away by it. It works in games like the OG Resident Evil because you have a bit more control over where to go, how to tackle specific threats, and what enemies to expect in each room. I remember myself planning ahead the best route to reach my destination inside Spencer's mansion or the police station. But Dead Space remake is still a fundamentally linear experience from start to end, so the ability to backtrack to previously explored areas is never fully utilized.

This is further exacerbated by a map system that I find too clunky to use (it's very slow and sometimes confusing when there are too many levels), the lack of precise notation (security doors are fully visible, but master override chests are one of many small icons that I'd never find if I didn't know where they are to begin with, and lockers do not appear on the map at all), and the frequent lack of proper rewards for backtracking.

I tested the system as soon as I was given a chance. After I completed the second level and got my first security clearance, I backtracked to the security door situated on the tramway halfway through the first level. I got ambushed by six (!) procedurally-spawned enemies on my way there, just to find common loot inside the room.

At first I was confused by this, but now that I'm halfway through the game, I understand how the system was designed: The developers didn't expect you to backtrack at your leisure. Instead, they carefully placed locked rooms and lockers at just the right clearance level, that you're supposed to have when the linear story gets you near those locked rooms. The level 1 clearance door on the first level? You can get it quite easily on chapter 6, when you pass by that room. The same applies to side missions as well. They are designed so you can complete them on your way to the main objective with very little extra effort.

I don't hate the game for this. I loved the original and I'm totally fine with the remake being another linear experience. I'm just confused by the design principle: they talked extensively about making the world more interconnected and adding side content and optional exploration on the side, but it ended up being just more content that you do while you progress through the linear story, rather than making it work properly as an open-ended experience, and I feel like the attempt at making the remake feel more open ended than it was originally largely failed for me, as I never felt truly in control of where to go or when to complete certain side quests or get some loot that was previously inaccessible.

As for the changes in the story, I'm only halfway through the game, and I don't want to tackle the argument until I have the full picture of the story. I'll only say that I liked some changes, I was okay with others, and I'm a bit dubious about a handful. One of them is Hammond, who is a lot less present in this first half of the game compared to the original; the other is Temple and Cross, who I like so far, but I feel like they are two completely different characters whose role could have been given to new characters instead of replacing their original storyline. But as I said, I'm only halfway through the game, so I may change my opinion on this.

TL;DR: I'll write my full opinion on the game when I finish it, but I'm liking it so far and I think it's a valid replacement for the original if you never played it and don't want to buy both. Some changes are appreciated, others less but don't detract from the overall experience, and the game for the most part feels like "the original, but improved", which is a perfectly valid spot to land on when you are developing a faithful remake. The game feels and plays like the original, but still manages to bring something new for who, like me, played the hell out of the first game back in the days.