Dead Space 3 Page 6

  • Page

    of 23 First / Last

  • Deleted user 19 January 2013 09:10:49
    Post deleted
  • Mola_Ram 19 Jan 2013 09:51:06 8,268 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    DeCoR wrote:
    So uhhhhh am I the only one concerned for Visceral's fetish for killing babies? Dead Space and Dante's Inferno have both featured it, pretty disappointed there wasn't a bigger deal made of that, its as about as degenerate as its possible to get.
    To be fair, the babies started it.
  • DUFFMAN5 19 Jan 2013 09:54:14 15,393 posts
    Seen 34 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Just finished playing the sp and co-op demo (same game,same demo) I enjoyed both. Great atmosphere once again. I played using TB surrounds which always ramps up the tention in any game.

    The co-op demo was with an american chap, no comms. I would think if you and a chum were playing, it could be a lot of fun.

    The only real difference with the co-op demo, apart from the ingame chat between Issac and "the other one" was during an interactive cut/action scene, where when playing alone I had a couple of qte prompts, when playing co-op I only had one, I'm going to assume the other chap had one/some Qte as well.

    I think the crafting will be fun, once you get a handle on it...I'm always shite at crafting or understanding crafting in any rpg, I'm sure this will be no different.

    Edit: big thank you to valli for the code ;)

    Edited by DUFFMAN5 at 09:56:56 19-01-2013

    "Duffman the grey is thrusting in the direction of the problem! Oh, yeah!"

  • Adamical 19 Jan 2013 10:42:54 316 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    DeCoR wrote:
    So uhhhhh am I the only one concerned for Visceral's fetish for killing babies? Dead Space and Dante's Inferno have both featured it, pretty disappointed there wasn't a bigger deal made of that, its as about as degenerate as its possible to get.
    Babies are perfect for horror. It's like, in real life, if you harm a baby you're the worst type of monster, so Visceral pick up on this to help depict the truly horrific situation.

    If a baby's dead/a monster, you know this shit is real!
  • RedSparrows 19 Jan 2013 10:50:46 24,208 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yeah, it's really scary.

    ....

    Dead Space is not for me.
  • Deleted user 19 January 2013 10:52:56
    @Adamical I personally don't buy that argument, there are certain things in civilized society whether religious or secular that should be held as sacred immovable values, harming or killing children is one of them and I think that should be respected come fiction or not.

    Bethesda for instance do not let you harm children in anyway in their games.

    In the unlikely event I actually buy Dead Space 3 I'm hoping it won't be repeated.
  • bad09 19 Jan 2013 10:54:35 6,255 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    DeCoR wrote:
    So uhhhhh am I the only one concerned for Visceral's fetish for killing babies? Dead Space and Dante's Inferno have both featured it, pretty disappointed there wasn't a bigger deal made of that, its as about as degenerate as its possible to get.
    It was certainly uncomfortable for me, ever since the first one I've felt that about their child fetish. Although the tentacle ones I did tend to forget they were babies after leaving the baby lab and seeing them floating in jars. With the second one they ramped it up though with young children in their school and went silly and comical with exploding babies. God knows what they'll do in 3.

    Not sure why more isn't made of it myself really once upon a time babies got cut from silent hill if remember correctly but then babies are used in horror at times and as I say it's almost a comedy attempt at being shocking now in Dead Space.
  • Deleted user 19 January 2013 11:04:48
    @bad09 Yeah I agree completely the tentacle ones were changed just enough so that to most they did not remind them of a human baby. Yeah I've seen in a video that enemy type is now derived from a dog, so there may have been some interesting discussions over at visceral.

    Yeah when thinking about other games that have involved killing of children and babies all that really came to mind was Silent Hill. Its been a long time but I think there were babies in the demo that as you said may have been taken out in the full game?

    If those are the only games that have done this there's a part of me thinking Visceral may have been hoping for a Modern Warfare 2 airport level of controversy with this issue, maybe they were even surprised it didn't come.

    Edited by DeCoR at 11:05:37 19-01-2013
  • King_Edward 19 Jan 2013 11:39:16 11,471 posts
    Seen 59 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I didn't even notice the babies. The first game's the only one I got near finishing though. The second was just too schlocky, didn't get more than a few chapters in.
  • Adamical 19 Jan 2013 11:45:29 316 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    DeCoR wrote:
    @Adamical I personally don't buy that argument, there are certain things in civilized society whether religious or secular that should be held as sacred immovable values, harming or killing children is one of them and I think that should be respected come fiction or not.

    Bethesda for instance do not let you harm children in anyway in their games.

    In the unlikely event I actually buy Dead Space 3 I'm hoping it won't be repeated.
    Well, I don't buy that argument. I can understand the want and, really, the need to not kill or harm babies in real life, but I don't see why it can't be portrayed in fiction for the purposes of telling a story.

    It's not like you know these babies. It's not like they're real, so as long as that's where the horror remains, I don't see a problem.

    And it is horror. When I saw the babies in DS, I didn't think about how fucked up and wrong Visceral were, I thought about how indiscriminate and ruthless the alien virus was. It brought me deeper into the story.

    Honestly, for me, killing babies or any defenceless animal is totally fine as long as it's a) not real, and b) in aid of story telling, not gratuitous.
  • Deleted user 19 January 2013 12:03:49
    @Adamical Ok fair enough I understand where you're coming from.

    I suppose from that I would just want to ask you is there any action you would view as so abhorrent that even within the realm of fiction is too far for you?
  • Pumpatron 19 Jan 2013 12:18:48 388 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Same here, I didn't have any problem with the infected babies. Because they weren't babies anymore they were just another monster. I liked the fact the virus would infect anything and everything.

    I don't see what the big deal is. You've been happily killing infected older humans, but as soon as they are below a certain age it's wrong? Yes they look less fucked up, but it's still very clear they've been infected and are no longer human. Kill them, kill them all. ;-)

    Edited by Pumpatron at 12:36:48 19-01-2013
  • Adamical 19 Jan 2013 12:19:01 316 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    DeCoR wrote:
    @Adamical Ok fair enough I understand where you're coming from.

    I suppose from that I would just want to ask you is there any action you would view as so abhorrent that even within the realm of fiction is too far for you?
    Good question.

    The thing is, I can think of plenty of acts that I consider abhorrent, but it's really their context that decides whether or not I could accept them as part of fiction.

    Once upon a time, I would've said graphic rape or brutality, but then I saw Irreversible. That shit was fucking intense, but I never felt like the film makers went too far; I felt like it was there to portray something utterly raw, and it really did.
  • creepylizard 19 Jan 2013 12:25:50 786 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    @Adamical
    I thought that film was utterly revolting. And not in a good way.
    Dead babies are fine by me though
  • MatMan562 19 Jan 2013 12:31:08 2,604 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Personally i'd think it was weird if there weren't any babies/ young children. A virus like the one in Dead Space wouldn't discriminate by age so if they weren't in the game to be shot at where were they? Necromorph school?

    XBL/ PSN/ Steam/ NNID - MatMan562

  • Deleted user 19 January 2013 12:34:35
    @Pumpatron Hey Pumpatron any chance of making that quote a bit clearer? Just looks a bit like I typed what Adamical said there.
  • Adamical 19 Jan 2013 12:42:41 316 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    @creepylizard Haha, yeah, it was intense. Revenge is a dish best served cold, to the face, repeatedly, until your head is mush.
  • Deleted user 19 January 2013 12:42:42
    @Adamical Ok well I accept how you view the context being the deciding factor.

    Its interesting that you said before you saw that film which I can't say I've seen, that you would be against viewing what was depicted in it. Would you say it desensitized you to it in anyway?

    I suppose the logical conclusion to my argument is for people to not consume that which they find disagreeable or offensive.

    I would be interested in the developer view of that, as in would babies as enemies for example be worth the loss of potential customers, is it necessary for the story they're trying to tell.

    Edited by DeCoR at 12:44:08 19-01-2013
  • Telepathic.Geometry 19 Jan 2013 12:47:31 11,558 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    DeCoR wrote: So uhhhhh am I the only one concerned for Visceral's fetish for killing babies? Dead Space and Dante's Inferno have both featured it, pretty disappointed there wasn't a bigger deal made of that, its as about as degenerate as its possible to get.
    If that bothers you, you defo don't wanna go to the Valley of Defilement in Demon's Souls. It's orders of magnitude more disturbing than the Dead Space babies.

    || PSN Barrysama || NNID Barrysama ||

  • Deleted user 19 January 2013 12:47:54
    Pumpatron wrote:
    Same here, I didn't have any problem with the infected babies. Because they weren't babies anymore they were just another monster. I liked the fact the virus would infect anything and everything.

    I don't see what the big deal is. You've been happily killing infected older humans, but as soon as they are below a certain age it's wrong? Yes they look less fucked up, but it's still very clear they've been infected and are no longer human. Kill them, kill them all. ;-)
    My personal view is any kind of dehumanization of babies/children is inherently wrong.
  • Deleted user 19 January 2013 12:51:17
    @Telepathic.Geometry Why do you say that? The human looking heads on insect like bodies? Can't say I was particularly disturbed by it.
  • Telepathic.Geometry 19 Jan 2013 12:55:20 11,558 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Dude, didn't you get to the end of the valley and meet Astraea? Don't you know what horrible dark shit is going on there at the source of the defilement? It's so fucked up... Check it out man. :)

    || PSN Barrysama || NNID Barrysama ||

  • Adamical 19 Jan 2013 13:06:40 316 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    DeCoR wrote:
    @Adamical Ok well I accept how you view the context being the deciding factor.

    Its interesting that you said before you saw that film which I can't say I've seen, that you would be against viewing what was depicted in it. Would you say it desensitized you to it in anyway?

    I suppose the logical conclusion to my argument is for people to not consume that which they find disagreeable or offensive.

    I would be interested in the developer view of that, as in would babies as enemies for example be worth the loss of potential customers, is it necessary for the story they're trying to tell.
    Yeah, I probably should've been clearer. I didn't mean to imply that I was a changed man after seeing Irreversible. It didn't change me in any way; it just opened my eyes to the fact that, in the right context, there's nothing that I would consider unacceptable in fiction.

    Even still, I can imagine I'd be very uncomfortable watching graphic child molestation, but perhaps only because I can't think of a context in which that would be appropriate. I think, also, that to convincingly portray such a contemptible and outright grotesque act would require a level of understanding on the actors' part which I'm not sure a child's mind could comprehend, let alone endure.

    So yeah, to answer your original question, that's probably the limit.

    EDIT: To clarify, I think my limit comes into play when there's a risk of real damage to real people in the act of telling the story.

    Edited by Adamical at 13:13:35 19-01-2013
  • Pumpatron 19 Jan 2013 13:08:04 388 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @DeCoR

    So dehumanisation of adults is fine then?

    As Adamical says it's about the context. I'm basically saying what he said, only not as well.
  • Deleted user 19 January 2013 13:55:40
    Adamical wrote:
    Yeah, I probably should've been clearer. I didn't mean to imply that I was a changed man after seeing Irreversible. It didn't change me in any way; it just opened my eyes to the fact that, in the right context, there's nothing that I would consider unacceptable in fiction.

    Even still, I can imagine I'd be very uncomfortable watching graphic child molestation, but perhaps only because I can't think of a context in which that would be appropriate. I think, also, that to convincingly portray such a contemptible and outright grotesque act would require a level of understanding on the actors' part which I'm not sure a child's mind could comprehend, let alone endure.

    So yeah, to answer your original question, that's probably the limit.

    EDIT: To clarify, I think my limit comes into play when there's a risk of real damage to real people in the act of telling the story.
    Ah ok thanks for clarifying. Thats interesting.

    Did you know some academics researching those people have begun to refer to them as "child attracted individuals" just thought I'd mention it. Well glad we would agree on that.

    Fair enough, although it can be said today's taboos are tomorrows norms looking at the west over the last century so I prefer to take a bit more of a cautious approach when it comes to things like this.

    Edited by DeCoR at 13:56:41 19-01-2013
  • Deleted user 19 January 2013 13:58:56
    @Pumpatron No not at all, but young children particularly babies are incapable of inflicting pain or consciously committing evil acts and so are for me, off limits.
  • Oh-Bollox 19 Jan 2013 14:03:38 5,423 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    DeCoR wrote:
    @Pumpatron No not at all, but young children particularly babies are incapable of inflicting pain or consciously committing evil acts
    Quite capable of inflicting pain. Consciously committing evil acts? Debatable.

    The censorship of Silent Hill was about child-sized enemies, IIRC, not children.
  • Deleted user 19 January 2013 14:08:42
    @Oh-Bollox Yep true I should have said pain in a sadistic sense. Babies are debate ably capable of committing evil acts? Or any of the evils associated with humanity in general?

    Thanks for clearing that up.
  • creepylizard 19 Jan 2013 15:19:38 786 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    DeCoR wrote:
    @Oh-Bollox Yep true I should have said pain in a sadistic sense. Babies are debate ably capable of committing evil acts? Or any of the evils associated with humanity in general?

    Thanks for clearing that up.
    Course they are. Look at Stewie in Family Guy
  • Oh-Bollox 19 Jan 2013 15:58:09 5,423 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    DeCoR wrote:
    @Oh-Bollox Yep true I should have said pain in a sadistic sense. Babies are debate ably capable of committing evil acts? Or any of the evils associated with humanity in general?

    Thanks for clearing that up.
    Look at any ethics debate about personal responsibility. There is no proof that, before age x, we are not capable of good or evil, or responsible for what we do.

    As for the dehumanisation of children: it's wrong to dehumanise human beings full stop. There is nothing sacred about childhood, that's a very recent social construct that still has not even caught on in most of the world today. It really doesn't apply here because they're not human any more, they are, IIRC actually corpses of babies that have been reanimated and mutated. If you were shooting black or Asian babies, you'd have a point (as in, the game would be strenuously trying to convince you of the 'otherness' of other humans). Here they are not recognisably human in appearance or behaviour (tentacles, ability to survive in a vacuum and fire projectiles, etc).
  • Page

    of 23 First / Last

Log in or register to reply