- Publisher: Electronic Arts
- Release Date: Feb 5, 2013
- Also On: PlayStation 3, Xbox 360
- Critic score
- By date
Pelit (Finland)Feb 21, 2013With a weak start, enjoyable middle parts and a great ending, Dead Space 3 is a game not to be missed. With such a heavy emphasis on gore, the game could've used a touch of psychological horror. Still, you can't really fault Dead Space 3 for lack of strong atmosphere. [Feb 2013]
PC Master (Greece)Jun 10, 2013Its emphasis on the action element might be a nuisance to some of the franchise’s fans, but the game’s production values in every aspect will reward even the most doubtful gamer. [March 2013]
Feb 16, 2013Dead Space 3 for PC is a good port, with plenty of advanced video options but standard res textures and no DirectX 11 support. That said, the game itself is stunning and the fans will not be disappointed.
Feb 18, 2013Dead Space 3 offers a huge variety of situations and epic moments, and becomes an amazing rollercoaster ride. Is it less scary? Maybe, but the game has tons of sequences that will keep you on the edge of your seat.
Feb 8, 2013Dead Space 3, despite its strengths in presentation, atmosphere and sound remained well below the class of its predecessors. Too bad if you consider that this is probably due to targeting a wider audience.
Feb 27, 2013An excellent horror game burdened with action pretensions – but it still delivers a fraught, polished experience.
Feb 18, 2013Despite noticeably upping the action level, bolting on co-op, and even charging us extra to cheat, this space-zombie shooter trilogy brings it home nicely with a lengthy, atmospheric, and suitably gory climax for our long-tortured hero, Isaac Clarke.
Feb 5, 2013This PC version is better than some straight-over ports I've seen this generation, but it certainly could have benefited from a little more time spent on PC-only features.
Feb 15, 2013In reality, Dead Space 3 could almost be regarded as a stand-alone expansion pack for Dead Space 2. The single player gameplay is largely identical to the previous instalment. But, since I found Dead Space 2 an enjoyable experience, I find no fault with that at all.
Feb 8, 2013Considering the elegance and sophistication of the world, combat and upgrade design, it’s a shame everything else seems so ho-hum.
Feb 25, 2013Sure, it’d be nice to see the kind of PC support title such as Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3 are getting, but Dead Space 3 is more than a straight port and still quite a bit of fun.
Feb 14, 2013Storytelling-wise, Dead Space 3 falls flat, but it’s an enjoyable action romp -- if you play it with someone. Oh, and it’s definitely not an “quad-A” game – more like a decent B-movie.
Awards & Rankings
Mixed or average reviews- based on 1409 Ratings
User score distribution:
Positive: 598 out of 1409
Mixed: 466 out of 1409
Negative: 345 out of 1409
Feb 5, 2013Look... I never felt the need in the past to create a Metacritic account, just to give my opinion in the game. I always felt there was alreadyLook... I never felt the need in the past to create a Metacritic account, just to give my opinion in the game. I always felt there was already a review making my point for me or I just did feel like a was the best person to be a sample of the player demographic for a game. But this time, I felt a need to do so.
I am not a easily turn down or disappointed person. I have finish plenty of games way worst than Dead Space 3 in the past. My tolerance level is very high. But this game... made me sick. I consider myself a hardcore fan of the franchise. I got a fair amount of collector items and others gizmo related to the games. Including the full size Plasma Cutter from the first game, every films, some articles of clothing's and some other things like poster and such. Deciding if this make my opinion biased is up to you, but I felt I needed to throw this out there.
I tried to go in this game with the most neutral attitude I could, so my opinion would be biased. I tried not to judge at face value as much as I could... but... I simply couldn't do it. This game is not bad... its insulting. Its insulting to its fan base and to its target audience. Everything that ever made the game good is now either gone or broken. This game was about survival, scavenging the bare minimum and fighting a loosing battle against creature that are clearly stronger, faster and more resilient that you. It was about the oppression of empty space, the feeling of incoming doom, the loneliness and the tense feeling of having nowhere to run in a claustrophobic and dark environment. Here... its just about shooting. Shot the Necromorph, shot the Unitologist and shot more Necroporph. Never before did I ever left the Necromorphes being, without a better choice for words, so lifeless. Its previous game they were this hunting entity, omnipresent at all time, keeping you on your toes at all times since they could move freely in the environment. They are just obstacles now. Lying down, death faking, obstacles. You go through featureless rooms after features less rooms and get rid of the next obstacle. Shoot-out are not fun. The fact that I can crouch, made me cringe. Its not much the actions of crouching, but what it represent. it represent the state the game have reached. A point were taking cover from enemy fire was a necessity because of the turn the game as taken in the form of a generic third person shooter Gears of War like. The coop was something I really wasn't agreeing on from the very beginning and I know I wasn't the only one. The idea of having a sidekick in a survival game is without a doubt the most game breaking idea that genre can make. It break the atmosphere the game could have ever tried to create. But at one point Visceral told us the Single and Coop were to independent story line and both would have their own flow. Lies. The game was clearly build as a coop game from the ground up. There's a big difference between different story lines and making the sidekick characters jumping in and out of the story in single player.
Also, while on the topic of survival horror. Its say on the name Survival. And for me it included struggling with resources. Having the bare minimum at all time, keeping the atmosphere tense as you dread the next encounter, with half a clip left. The quick decision you got to make "Should I fight or run to keep the few shot a have left". Searching every last inch of the game for that Plasma energy clip and this feeling of joy as you find those rare items that make you life just a bit easier. Two words for that Inventory full". I was playing on Impossible from the start, because I figured I was the same game right, so since i'm used to it it shouldn't make sure I get the most of it by going all out. Never at any point did I ever struggle with Med-packs or ammo. My inventory was full at all time. Never did I felt I was in real danger. And you know why? Autosaves.... in a survival game... about struggling to survive.
I can't say I am disappointed with the game, because really I already had very low expectations about it. But, in the end even though I went on and on about how much I truly despise that game, if you take a few steps back and look at the big picture, it is not a bad game. Its simply not a good successor to the franchise. You know a game a stray from the right path when you can change the game name any problems.
Overall, it is not a bad game in its core, its just an ungraceful sequel. The big problem with this game is what it represent. It represent profit over substance. This is the sad state were the gaming industry is going. And it make me deeply depressed.
If you are still reading, thank you. It means a lot to me... almost as much as this franchise used to to me.… Full Review »
Feb 5, 2013Let me start by saying I loved the first two games!.... Typical third game in a successful franchise. Due to the success of the previousLet me start by saying I loved the first two games!.... Typical third game in a successful franchise. Due to the success of the previous games, developers (or more likely EA) thought the last game in the series needs to be bigger, more action packed than the games before. This way they made a game that falls into the 'action' genre rather than, the 'horror/survival' genre. The game is very action packed, the pacing is very fast (explosions, crashes, push "E" before you fall from the cliff, huge tentacles attack you...). This way the game is less scary than previously. The monsters are almost the same as the ones in the previous games (not too original...). The characters feel rather generic. The story is very cliche ridden. The weapon customization part is a very nice addition, wish we could customize our suits too. I really like the DS1 and DS2, but the DS3 feels rather generic.… Full Review »
Feb 22, 2013I'm a fan of Dead Space. It's the best survival-horror I ever played. Everything there fits nearly perfect. I didn't believe that DS2 would beI'm a fan of Dead Space. It's the best survival-horror I ever played. Everything there fits nearly perfect. I didn't believe that DS2 would be scary, I thought it'll be a stupid shooter. Well I was wrong. For that time. And now DS3. The example how money greed make a great franchise die. I'll tell why.
The scenario. I don't like where they took the story, but it's their franchise and they decide where the story goes, so no ranting about it. It's epic and Hollywood-like. Nothing special.
Human enemies. Not only because they are dumb as hell, but because it changes the "death" experience. In original DS we saw, heard (audiologs) and read (text logs) people's deaths and sufferings. If you are a mentally normal human (and if you bothered reading the logs, of course) then it will terrify you. Isaac didn't kill people in 1st title, killed 2 in 2nd title because he had no choice. And now an army of unitologists and a completely new character Danik. On Ishimura we read logs about that mad unitologist Mercer, then at the end of the game, we see him killing a guy tied to a chair. And WHO THE HELL IS DANIK?! Ok, next.
The monsters. They have so much armor on them, that all the embarrassing mutations of human body are covered. The monsters aren't scary. And they ARE a lot faster. Previously the sprinted to you. Now they group their body, cover their head with claws and slide to you as if the floor was covered with butter. DS taught us that one well-placed necromorph is scarier then a dozen running in your face. And now they don't stalk the corridors. They are always in the vents. Making them smarter and giving them cheater-spawning-behind-your-back ability are not the same. Their appearance is predictable. If on your way from point A to point B a couple of coffins or vents didn't provide you a necro, then they sure will on your way back to point A. I really respect Visceral for the brave things they did before. They were criticized for lurkers being baby-necromorphs. Then they added the Pack and those tiny explosive babies to DS2. That was brave. Now we have the same mobs, but those are just Dogs and Starved people?! That is a huge step towards the casual player and by that I mean those of age from 12 to 16. For Gods sake the game isn't even PEGI 18+!!!
The single player design. Now this is not even funny. I'll try to make my point. In DS1 there are 3 of us. Kendra and Hammond are not engineers and Kendra is protected by Hammond at first (makes sense), so we fix the ship alone. As we see they are having a hard time as we do. In DS2 we've been in stasis for 3 years. We know no one here. Who can help us fighting and fixing things? Ellie (pilot and a woman) and crazy Stross. So we're alone. OK, makes sense.
In DS3 there are 5 ppl, warming their butts there while I fetch like an errand boy. Norman and Carver are military men, for God sake! And all the time: OHMYGODWHATISTHAT and were alone and they are still in group. This must be luck. We meet up. Yay. The second later: OHNOEVERYBODYTAKECOVER. We're separated. I'm alone. And they are still in a group! Come on!!! And so on, until you see credits.
Next. Isaac. He was cool in DS1. He remains silent, but everything he does and all his thoughts are of the one who holds the controller. At the end we see him exhausted. It's almost rewarding. Same in DS2. In DS3 he's running everywhere like he's immortal. I can't feel like trying to survive when Isaac says "it's probably swarmed with necromorphs but the resources are worth looking!". And no more Nicole...yeah, he's done with the guilt, but...in a log in the first room he claims he lost he's soul in those events, when Norman explains their mission Isaac says "No! I'm done with that! Find someone else...". We believe him, cuz we've been there. And he goes there without fear or hesitation like superhero. But that's not a big problem among those I stated first.
It's not the whole list. Plasma cutter is indeed worthless. And you go through the dark corridor and there is a locked door with a stupid sign "Co-op"...yeeeah, so atmospheric! The settings aren't scary...at all. The rooms and corridors are similar to each other. And they are twice bigger, for co-op of course, and the size of these settings ruin the whole isolation claustrophobic atmosphere.
The idea of body temperature was great! That would be a great survival element, but no! Visceral are too afraid to make the game challenging except throwing a ton of annoying enemies at us.
Technically dead space 3 is a good game,if we forget for a time that it is Dead Space.I don't regret the money I paid. Btw,I pirated the first two,completed them and bought then.I'm thankful to visceral for what they've done so far, but DS3 is a game for kids. This is my personal opinion.… Full Review »