Itâ€™s a strange place to be in gaming when the highlight of a publisher/developer showcase is a remake of a game from over ten years ago. We shouldnâ€™t even be getting a Dead Space remake since thereâ€™s really no reason this series should have ever ended. I mean, sure, sales numbers or critical reviews may have dropped for the last game in the series way back when, but thatâ€™s never stopped EA before. Somehow it did with the Dead Space series.
And now weâ€™re getting a sort-of remake. Itâ€™s the first game but itâ€™ll look prettier, come with updated mechanics and stuff from the second and third game in the series, and also, a better story. Most of these arenâ€™t really needed when doing a remake. And we go over a little bit of why we think theyâ€™re doing it this way and what that may mean down the road. Thereâ€™s debate about the story in Dead Space. That it still needs an ending. The third game did not wrap it up. And while the DLC for it made an attempt to end it, it still split the community as to what might have happened at the end. A conclusion to that would be nice, but weâ€™re getting a remake.
I donâ€™t know if itâ€™s a one and done sort of situation, but knowing EA theyâ€™re likely testing the waters. Just…where do you go after remaking the first game of a trilogy? Do you then remake the remaining two? Do you move on to a fourth or add a subtitle?
It feels like they had the right idea with Mass Effect. In fact, the more I think about it, something like that would have been perfect for Dead Space. I guess weâ€™ll see what their plan is. I only hope that if Dead Space can come back, even as a remake, thereâ€™s still hope for Splinter Cell. Both series had their last game released in the same year – 2013.
Speaking of that…Ubisoft, itâ€™s been 2,895 days since the last Splinter Cell release (non-animated series or guest spot in another game franchise or VR exclusive).
Podcast: Play in new window | Download