u/Njoeyz1

How long was Isaac unconscious after Dannek shot him at the beginning of the game?

Did Isaac have access to the full video, and was Issac in denial when he went to the ishimura?.

The answer to both of these is yes. But it's the second one I want to briefly touch on. Dead space two never "retroactively" added in Issac's denial over Nicole's death by what was said at the team stage. I'm starting to hate that word as well now "retroactively" "retcon" "retro retcon"?

Anyway, in the original you get the hint Issac has already watched the full video, the fact he cuts it off just before that part, and when Kendra would have been able to see it. The thing the remake gives us to expand on this denial and why Issac would go, is their fall out. But the second game never retroactively did anything, it simply confirmed what was already shown in the first game - that Issac went there knowing she was dead, he just didn't want to accept it. Isaac's reactions when seeing Nicole (the hallucinations) through the game are very similar to how a lot of people have reacted, take James Hennessy in martyr seeing his dead brother outside of the sub under water, he was surprised to see his dead brother, but totally willing to open the sub door and kill himself to "let him in". But yes, Issac had access to the full video and watched it before he went to the ishimura. Him going out of denial was never retroactively added in two, and that's exactly what Kendra put to him at the end of the game, that was the whole reveal with what the levels spelled out.

To end, a little quote from Dr fancher to Bram about the hallucinations, to show how real they can seem, and also why unitologists do what they do and act the way they do under the markers influence, the actual object of their religion.

'Detective, I'm a lifelong atheist and skeptic, I know that what I saw was a hallucination but it' felt so real, so.......if I were a spiritual man, I'd be on my knees right now praying.'

Does a marker need a pedestal to transmit the instructions to people?

An interesting post came up in the other Reddit and it was about humanity making it out into the stars, and the question was asked 'was this the "moons" plan all along'?

My points already been made about the words of unitologists, they believe in a lie in the first place so them believing the markers were responsible for us, is no different from religious people claiming a god made us and everything. They will use their books etc for, same as unitologists. Then you have Dr Earl Serrano - a XENO ARCHIOLOGISTS, not an evolutionary biologist or any other such thing making his GUESSES.

Now people like to make out that martyr is off key with everything else (and I've already said that if this is the case, so is the OG game and the prequel comic, all having these "good" hallucinations) but martyr is the main place people get the whole evolution thing from. And a little off topic point here; 'catalyst is the best lore piece outside of the games!' yes only if it's backing up your own ideas. Earth gov is mentioned in catalyst - but 'oh that's a typo, they weren't in line with dead space 3'. Just thought I'd share that

But martyr is where the evolution part is discussed, and I've already encouraged people to read the conversation between Altman and Dr Groute Gouthe, who was himself - a biologist. But yes, I would suggest reading this exchange because Grote quite clearly thinks this is false. Grote Gouthe told Altman that if the marker was responsible for our evolution, then why is it still broadcasting the same signal, it doesn't need to be because we've already evolved to our current state?. And by the current state he means us as we are, which has been evolved for about 300,000 years.

If the marker caused our evolution, then why does no one know about them, even subconsciously? Again, martyr is the source for the whole "we have myths about the marker" statement, yet ONCE AGAIN I would refer people to Ada and Altmans discussion, and well as his with the town drunk, who - only has an oral tradition, not written, and even he stated that the Wheezer doesn't match the descriptions passed down anyway. I find this a bit crazy that people will claim a book is this and that, yet haven't read it or have read the book, looking for things to match their own head canon. And we never found the marker by some mysterious mentally induced signs, the marker itself let off a pulse, that we found. Adas words to Altman about the locals and their myths are another give away. She had been studying them for a year and she states to Altman that she had never seen them crossing their fingers before or talking about the devil's tail, and they won't talk to her about it, and that heir myths are rapidly changing, and this NEVER happens to cultures myths. This is a very clear sign that the locals myths were being altered by the markers signal when it was activated, not that they had been influenced over the generations due to the marker being there. The drunk states to Altman that NO ONE had actually seen any dead bodies wash up on the beaches, that it was all word of mouth. But not only this, but that the Wheezer never matched the description of the bodies anyway, not to mention this, if necromorphs were washing up on the beaches, then they would have started outbreaks, massive outbreaks yet none of that is true in the lore. I think I've shown there quite nicely that even in these cases, the marker was not affecting either people's minds of their genetics.

Why does the marker need the pedestal? Yet it can alter the genetics of an entire planet to make humans????? Ehhh? And if it can actually alter human genetics, and create necromorphs, then why aren't humans just turning? Why have the recombinant at all, and why just dead bodies, if the marker can alter human genetics anyway? I'll give this (even though it links to another topic I've talked about).

*The only conclusion we can come to is that the ENTIRE ishimura crew was KILLED!!!!!!!! INFECTED!!!!!! and then REANIMATED!!! BY the marker.* Very clear order of events there right?

The markers, What's behind them and whatever their goal entails requires life, intelligent life to be able to carry out it's goal in that respect, our place in that goal is already predetermined. They've just taken advantage of this aspect of life/existence. That's as simple as it is. I don't need to explain away the magical proposition of a moon - somewhere in deep space taking aim at earth and throwing a curve ball marker at a planet light years away, wiping out the dinosaurs and then beginning our evolution. And I thought the moons were asleep anyway🤷. Or how this thing can alter our genetics in this way yet have none of those abilities later on. People will bang on about the lovecraftian cosmic horror nature of us being bred for consumption to feed our gods. I see the lovecraftian cosmic horror element of us just being a small species who so happened upon their extinction by something beyond our understanding. We weren't bred specifically for the "moons", whatever is behind the marker is simply taking advantage of the evolution of life, and corrupting it. Maybe the entity/s is/are a form a place that existed before the universe and see life/existence and it's promise as wrong, and are therefore corrupting it, and it's promise? Doing it out of spite or revenge. That's what I've gathered from the story, from the dialogue that concerned these things. There is nothing about the marker guiding our evolution apart from unitlogists, and people who aren't in the know making guesses, and to the unitologists it makes sense, that's their faith. And Serrano's words could be taken the same way as markovs in martyr, he states to Altman that what he has witnessed is the marker creating a new evolution of humanity, despite there not being one instance of the marker doing so. He is simply seeing the marker reanimating the courses and describing that.

So was the plan to have humanity expand out into the universe, to have us bloat our numbers and then feats? I'd definitely say nope, not from the markers end anyway (or more correctly what's behind them) it just took advantage of this trait of life, I mean shit, the black marker sat about for tens of millions of years before we found it. And evolution is a thing in dead space as the dinosaurs had to have evolved on our planet, and the marker wasn't about. A marker wouldn't need to be on the planet, we would have evolved, spread out into the galaxy, and happened across one sooner or later, and the outcome would have been the same. The cosmic horror to me is the fact that we as a species have greedily pushed itself to the brink, thinking that we are the only ones, when in fact we are nothing in the grand scheme of things, INDIFFERENTLY looked at by forces older and stranger than we can fathom, and we are next to powerless to do anything about it. I don't see and haven't seen any evidence that it's the markers that were responsible for our evolution.

And I'm going to do one thing here I don't usually do to make a point. The cut log from dead space two discusses our "good hallucinations" as being from whatever created us, as protection against the marker. Now the fact that here, it's not the marker that is responsible for us but another force, wasn't/isn't a surprise to me. I have believed this about the story for a lot of years now, well before hearing that log. Now certain parties will claim this was scrapped as an idea, but I'm again going to have to alert people to CONTEXT and DETAILS. The topic that was discussed, was about the framing of the hallucinations nature, *not changing the narrative as to the markers purpose and our origins.* That the life that was created is under attack by the markers. And that life isn't just humans, it means life in the universe. Again it's a bit of a chore to keep this going because I would be here for ages. But I hope you get the drift.

Did the marker guide our evolution? Are we cattle?

"The markers have always been tied to a proliferation arc. I think less about being cattle, and more about being catalysts".

Who believes in the material that the marker guides our evolution? Unitlogists, they believe that the marker was sent to guide our evolution, and then transform us. But unitlogists believe lies created to form a religion. Jacob Dannek positing that the markers created us isn't a reliable source of truth in the game is it really, given his faith and beliefs?

And this is where it gets annoying for me. The one place that the markers link to our evolution is dealt in any depth, is martyr, you know, the book that is out of whack with everything (much like the first game then). But if you read martyr, and listen to Altmans discussion with Dr Groute Gouthe, then you would know that the whole evolution thing, isn't true.

The marker was a catalyst, in our evolution, it never had a hand in changing us, but it led to the evolution of mammals - by the rapid extinction of the dinosaurs.

Where is the story of dead space? Is it in the media that we read, watch and play? Or cut logs and other elements that lay outside the media? Is it a mix of both? I've been delving into the lore of this game for many years now, and the only material I have used to form my assessment of the story; is the material. I haven't joined discords to mind storm the lore with others, dive into game files and look for cut logs and so on, I've simply taken in the material. I believe that that is where the story should be.

As to how I view retcons and so on? It's quite simple, if the wider material can explain the details so as it makes sense without too much of a stretch of belief, then there are no real retcons - from a story perspective, which is what you are taking in.

Why am I writing this? Well I've just seen something that has quite frankly irked me quite much. It's something I've covered a few times and something that I feel demonstrates what I've just described.

'when were the brethren moons introduced in dead space'. First and foremost, in what sense? The actual material, or outside of it in development? See the difference there? One is a question about the lore, the story, the other about outside processes. So what does the game say? To me, I've always stated since the first game, and there are details in the surrounding material that hint to what convergence and make us whole is. Ever heard this before 'the first games lore is a mess?' well if that's the case so is the prequel comic and martyr, because all give hints as to what make us whole means. But for the first game specifically?

'I would go so far as to say that in dead space one where convergence and the moons weren't introduced, there are elements that retroactively set up the moons'. Really? This is.......... absolutely amazing, like I don't know what to say here? Talk about giving yourself pat on the back about a detail you actively fought against. And you mean like the rancid moon poster? The unitologists writings and the meaning of life stuff 😏 (little nod there)? Or how about......the statures in the unitologists quarters (that were used in the remake) that show (retroactively mind...) a moon entwined in a marker? A detailed I've put forward loads of times and being a hint of the moons, which got met with words of Devs etc and that I was wrong. However, in the story itself, that is where the moons are introduced, right? Or how about martyr? Where Altman asked if the real meaning of convergence was......the joining of many bodies into one? Or how about Natalia deshionov in the prequel comic, who gave herself to the nexus saying "make me whole".

My problem here is exactly what I've always had a problem with. "You are wrong". Same person/people "oh by the way, I would also go as far as to say". This is what happens when your knowledge of the material catches up with your supposed knowledge of it, and are more interested in outside sources to help you properly be someone else wrong.

So when are the moons introduced in dead space? I would say in the story, since the first game, with further hints given in the early expanded material. Is the first dead space game a "mess of story elements"? Well they obviously had a cohesive enough story that the moons introduction in the first game isn't a shoehorn in the slightest, it's actually (given the details we see) just........look, there they are.

So where should we look for the story? The material, or outside of it? Another post to follow about the markers role in evolution.

How did they form? The prevailing explanation is that 'the marker signal turned them'. On the face of it that would seem like the explanation right? However in my view this isn't what happened, what happened is exactly what I've talked about for ages, infection.

​

The Wheezer was formed from the body of a sailor who had been out drinking with the town drunk a couple of days before the marker was discovered. But how did he get turned? For this you would have to look at what happened with the marker. The marker was discovered after a gravimetric anomaly was noted at the chicxulub crater. This would be an event that would cause gravity waves to be expelled by the marker, and if i were to take a guess, that disturbance has caused the surrounding material the marker was encased in to crack. Why would this be an important note? Well let's look at Dead Space three and it's ending. We see a convergence event in action, and it's a very violent event with markers from the planet being flung into space as a result. This (to me) is how the black marker got to earth. It wasn't created inside the "moon" and then flung at a targeted planet, the markers flung up by a convergence event, can make it into space and drift out into the cosmos. And what do we see all over the place as well? Corruption. It's not hard to imagine that corruption has travelled along with the marker (simply stuck to it) and any other accompanying debris. In my view, when the marker has let off this grevametric anomaly, the surrounding material has cracked, and this corruption has spread into the surrounding area.This is what Altman brought aboard the test site in secret, which became the necromorph tissue "puddle".

In the case of the sailor, he could have died falling into the polluted water, drowned perhaps, and then become entangled in this corruption. And the necro fish? Two options here for me, again the water was heavily polluted with very little live fish in it (and we only see one necro fish). A dead fish could have become entangled in this corruption and been infected, or - much like feeders, the fish has fed upon this corruption sheet, and turned into a necromorph. I don't see anyway the marker signal alone was responsible, because there should have been way more necro fish given how polluted the water was, and other necromorphs, but there weren't. And not one dead person on land was turned at the event either.

​

And this leads quite nicely to the whole "the marker evolved humans over time, the natives had myths about the marker". This is wrong, and is evident in the material. Ada, who had been in the region for about a year, studying the locals and their culture, had told Altman that she had never seen them cross their fingers and talk about the tail of the devil before, and that their myths were changing, and rapidly, and that never happens in a culture. The boy from the village that was with Altman also states that he had only ever seen the crossing of fingers as a sign of good luck, nothing to do with the devil's tail. So this actively tells us that the marker had no effect on the populace before this event. 'but what about the washed up bodies legends'?? Again, the devil is in the details. The town drunk *who told Altman about this* stated that no one had actually seen the washed up bodies before, it was all word of mouth and not only that, but the Wheezer didn't match the descriptions of the myths anyway.

​

This is clear evidence that not only did the marker not have an effect on the populace in the past (evolution or otherwise, and Altman had found no records of any other disturbances as far back as they went). But that the marker signal hadn't been involved in creating washed up necromorphs in the past either, so no marker signal doing anything really.

​

There is no evidence the marker was the subject of any local myths, or was responsible for any past necromorphs that "washed up". This to me just reinforces my theory that the Wheezer and necro fish were the result of infection by corruption that came along with the marker. Not the marker signal itself. And I hope I've provided the relevant info to reinforce this idea.

What was Mercer's motives during the game, and what was he fascinated with?

​

It's been put forward that Mercer's work involved studying the signal, and that's what Nicole was following in his research. I'm not going to deal with Nicole just now, but Mercer was not studying the signal. His fascination was about the transformation itself. Even before the outbreak happened, Mercer was intent on achieving oneness with the marker and living forever - that was his driving force during the outbreak. And when the outbreak happened, Mercer's drive was amplified by the marker signals effects on his brain. He thought he was special, chosen (sound familiar to loads in the series?) to carry out convergence, and make himself immortal enacting convergence, which was what he wanted for himself (see a pattern?). All of his work throughout the game is studying the recombinant microbe - the corruption. He was infecting people with the corruption/necromorph tissue and observing the effects, going so far as to alter the DNA of it himself (this is what he was refering to when he states he gleaned new techniques and such from the marker). And this is how he ultimately created the hunter - direct injection into the brain. Now in the original, he killed Brent Harris inserting the corruption into his brain, in the remake, Harris is still alive when he is infected surgically. I mean this does make sense in the context of the remakes handling of what he was doing. He wanted to observe the change, to understand it. It was Keyne who was more interested in the signal and what it was doing to people, and this is evident in the OG with mercer saying '*Keyne is busying himself with marker, as if that matters now*'. Mercer was studying the infection and transformation into necromorphs, he was obsessed with it, and this is what Nicole was following in her search for a cure, his work on the genetic side of things, his observations of the transformation - which he wanted to undergo himself.

​

Mercer was not studying the marker signal. His "communication" with the marker, was his own internal monologue. HE felt special, HE felt as if it was speaking to him and guiding him. There is a presence in the marker signal, but it's not having conversation with people. Mercer was driven by his own ambition, and thought he was talking to god.

​

This (to me) is perfectly shown in martyr and Groute Gouthe. The whole "there was a story line for a good force helping people against the marker" is misunderstanding and just wrong. Also this isn't present in martyr, and I've stated this loads of times. When Groute Gouthe injects himself with the recombinant, he has a hallucination of his grandmother. His grandmother tells him that he's made a mistake, and that this mistake will kill everyone. But more important to my point, is that she tells him that she is his OWN MIND, it's Grote Gouthe, alerting..... Grote Gouthe about what he's just done and that everyone is going to die. Clawing through the marker signals disruption of his brain, is his own mind telling him that he's just injected the microbe, that he just created and sat there in a syringe. It wasn't a good spirit or guide. This is also echoed in aftermath with stross, he had been experimenting on the corpse, it becomes a necromorph and his hallucination states "it's your fault Dr, they will all die because of you". Why does he state that the marker tricked him? Because like some at the black marker site, they saw the marker as guiding humans to the next step in their evolution, this is what stross thought he was doing, helping create the next step in human evolution. He saw people being turned into monsters, but that the codes he saw could be applied to create a better outcome, which it didn't and wouldn't have any way.

The notion that the marker guides evolution, is a human one, it comes about because of what the marker is "seen" to do, and what's on its surface with the code. The marker itself isn't tricking anyone into thinking it's that, or that it's a source of energy either, or that the pedestal is protection, these are theories and so on that get instilled by the hosts themselves because of what they see in the markers, and the disruption of the marker signal just feeds these theories and observations. Nicole to the "marker". 'oh my god, why do you look like her?'. The "marker" 'why do you look like you?'

​

So getting back to Mercer, he already wanted convergence and to transform, the markers afflictions just made them worse. He was researching the transformation process, not the marker signal.

I assume this person is referring to Nathan McNeil. He was infected first. His arm was pinned by a necromorph blade at the wrist. When he died he turned. He was infected first. And as seen in catalyst, slashers can kill, infect and create slashers. Nathan McNeil wasn't turned by the marker signal after he died. He is as infected by the blade, died, and the marker signal allowed the recombinant to do its things - the marker was responsible for reanimation.

​

Why AGAIN am I mentioning this? Because the notion that the marker signal is responsible for changing dead flesh, WITHOUT infection first is not shown in the material, at least not before deep cover.

​

Also it was put across that Kendra hinted at the marker being responsible for necromorphs. Well yes, the marker is responsible, just the same as the recombinant. The marker is responsible for the reanimation of the necromorph, the recombinant is what works off of this. But that doesn't mean that the marker turns dead bodies.

​

*Easy explanation here of the process shown time and again. Dead cell. Recombinant attacks the cell, uses it's material, and divides. The recombinant also has viral-like properties, that allow it to take parts of itself, and infect dead cells - thus tuning the cell into a corrupted cell as well. These cells are what uses the markers energy to consume and divide. You see this in real time with the captain. That is how necromorphs are formed, this is the process the log in the original game was describing with the drs. The other thing that has been consistent from the start, has been where, how and how long you've been infected for, that determines how long the transformation takes. Into what? Could be specific genetics.*

​

How much more evidence do you need? And no, cut logs and other sources are not canon to me, to actual material is, that's where the story lies. There are reasons things are cut, so making any use of them is silly. There is not ONE mainline outbreak, that occurs just by the marker signal turning dead bodies. There are dead bodies laying right outside the marker chamber in the second game, been laying there for hours. There are dead bodies from the colonies, that have been laying here for two hundred years. The bodies from the union square suicide on aegis seven, were around the marker signal for about three weeks, and not a single body turned??????

The titan station outbreak, never happened until unitlogists disrupted the recombinant labs in the mines, causing infection and outbreak.

​

And man, this is a good one.

In the original game, there is a log found at the pedestal. You find the same log in the remake. In the remake, there are entries in the log. These entries form a timeline of events. The first one is, *the description of the marker project being set up*. The second one is, *the team describing how they have created the marker, and deciphered the symbols and created what they called the recombinant*. The next set talks about *how there has been a localised outbreak that they have contained for the time being, with two drs being infected*. They then go on to describe the *change process and the outbreak happening in real time*. Just to deal with a major point here. How can you have a localised "infection" if the marker signal is causing the outbreak? It's a signal? Plus the drs were clearly described as being infected in the first place, infected with what? The recombinant perhaps, the one they just created? Pretty much the same event that happened in martyr.

​

The remake, takes this log, and changes it. The log is not from the red marker test site anymore, it's from the ishimura colony, and it describes two people turning, I can't even remember the details to be fair, but the whole build up, the marker being created and the deciphering of the marker symbols and the subsequent infection of two drs is gone, retconned. Now this wouldn't be so bad, if there were ample examples of the marker signal turning dead bodies, but there isn't, not in the three games before it, or even the extended media. It seems this whole deep dive into the extended media to gel the story together, was all wind, and is more the result of consultation with this fan panel, a fan panel of confused fans that have contributed with head canon. It ignores everything before it. However, I'm the remake, they had Nicole looking for a cure? A cure for what? The marker signal? And why was kyne so obsessed with infection?

​

Anyway this isn't a rant about other stuff, it was specific to the marker signal. McNeil was infected first, that's why he turned. Extraction does not show the marker signal turning anyone, it shows what has been shown before, the marker signal working in conjunction with the recombinant, I mean hell, that's how mercer created the hunter. He didn't kill bent Harris, and air him in front of the marker to trim did he? And he was going to take necromorph specimens with him to earth as well as the marker, why would he do that, and claim they would spread the markers glory? Infection maybe?

How did the marker found on earth guide evolution?

Ok I get that DS3 is a bit loopy on the lore but I really enjoyed that initial chapter outbreak that occurs when Danik's forces invade where Isaac was living. However, was replaying an old save lately and it got me thinking,

Wouldn't this Marker cause a Convergence event while Isaac escapes to Tau Volantis? We know the Marker needs its makers to be absorbed (which we can assume is the colony's group of researchers / remnants of EarthGov) and there has to be enough biomass.

Probably overlooking some plot inconsistency but Danik does say he 'liberates the Markers', anywho if anyone got an explanation that I forgot, let me know!

Just coming off of a post, and wanted to throw his out there. How could the aegis seven marker makers not have been absorbed? I mean not only do we find out they were in the middle of an outbreak through a log, but scenario five was also in effect. Everyone killed, no one was allowed to leave. So how come the consensus among fans is "the red markers makers were long gone". Then there is this. They got the means to create the markers from Altmans notes as well as the data they had collected. but Altman died decades before the red markers were made, so who were the makers, considering Issac is called a maker, yet he was more of an architect - like Altman, I mean how did Isaac make a marker? Does anyone know anything about this?

I understand why Xbox took the stance they did on exclusives - console sales. If you are trying to survive, you have to adapt. I view exclusives from the perspective of the console space, I have a ps5 base and a series X and I've always viewed their exclusives as being different, there is no gears type game on playstation, and there is no last of type game on Xbox (I hope that makes sense in the context of what I'm trying to say). That's the reason I have both consoles, to me it was worth it. Sure those consoles and their features are also reasons, and ones that again show *competition* at work, but those games, are the main reason. I haven't sat there and said to myself 'why hasn't Sony brought the last of us to xbox, I mean in my mind why would they? Or the same for halo on playstation; it defeats the purpose of not just competition, but the reasoning behind me buying multiple consoles, I mean why buy the other if I can get the same game on both? Will it just fall back on the power of the console in the end? And how many different devices do you have out there? I believe that was the way it was going for Xbox, but (again to me) this would just make me ask myself 'why not buy a pc if I'm going to go down the whole power route?'

If exclusives really don't matter and it's just about the machine you play on, why would I stay with a console?

The console space has been a thing for as long as it has for reasons that should be obvious to everyone who has been in the console space for any period of time, and I don't think I would be doing anything unique in highlighting what those things are, but the one thing that has always been at the forefront has been exclusives, altered beast, Starfox, Alex the kid, eternal darkness, and many many others, all a part of a consoles ecosystem that's helps to push that system.

The console space needs not just competition, but healthy competition. It's fine having your chosen platform, and staying with it and whilst I own both the Sony and Xbox machines, Xbox is my favoured platform for other reasons, but I enjoy my playstation very much, and enjoy the fact that I can pick up the controller and enter into a different ecosystem and play games that are different from what I enjoy on my Xbox. That's great for me, it's like going between two "different worlds". And the games are forefront there. To me Xbox very much has great exclusives console sellers (not talking into account game enjoyment is a slider and very much subjective), the problem they've had is one of decisiveness and polish. The games that faltered did so because they did not have the polish they should have had, I mean look at what we've seen from the new forza horizon game, that is the type of polish you want from your games, that type of attention paid on them. In my view that is what has let down Xbox the most (and games are the only thing I'm discussing here) the actual games themselves have been great in my view, I think infinite is the best halo game to date, after four (that's my subjective opinion), I absolutely love Forza Motorsport, hellblade two was such a refreshing game that I tried an hour on gamepass and bought it right away. South of midnight was such a great surprise, from the story to the gameplay to the soundtrack. I have my own tastes in gaming so I'm not going to big up games I haven't played or won't, but there are games I'm trying to get into like star field and outer worlds, but from the games I've played the only thing I've noticed is the quality control. If Xbox had no great games I wouldn't have one.

So given all of this, where do exclusives stand in my view? I absolutely believe that your brand needs its assets, Xbox, just like Nintendo and PlayStation NEEDS it's exclusives, if they make it just about the machine, they will fail, because you could buy the cheaper competition (or multiple of them), play the Xbox games on the most powerful along with their exclusives, and have the other for their exclusives, I mean having the most powerful console is cool and all, but if that's all there is, for me anyway it isn't enough to stick with it, and I could just go down the pc route if I really wanted that. In my view Xbox has great exclusives and they need to keep them that way. Releasing the likes of Forza and fable on the competition simply degrades your platforms appeal, and gives those who like the whole console war angle a bigger reason to shout 'why buy Xbox, when you can get everything on playstation'. That has, and will continue to do damage to Xbox. Xbox needs to sort out the quality control of their franchises, but they need them, especially now. If you want to relaunch your brand, then at least give people a reason to want it, and also give those who are invested in the system, a reason to keep being invested, instead of off-loading your assets to the competition to bring back in cash, cash you could have gotten by making sure your games launched in optimal condition in the first place.

My bottom line. Xbox needs to Keep their core exclusives (invest in new ips as well). They can make games like doom etc multiplatform, they can also make games like south of midnight timed exclusives. But releasing Forza and fable on your competition sends out only one message to me, and would be a massive mistake. What is your opinion on this?

In my own opinion, this question is easy to answer.

Dead space 3. Main game modes, i.e Impossible for one, Zealot for two, and hardcore for three, and impossible for the remake. Dead space 3 on hardcore mode was the hardest play through in my opinion. And I say this as someone who did these modes in the games using basically the same weapons. Line gun, plasma cutter for the first game. Line gun, plasma cutter and javelin for the second and a line gun force gun combo, a plasma cutter/rivet gun combo and javelin gun load out for the third. That was a punishing mode coming off of two. The remake replaced the original in second place, and the second game on Zealot was the easiest. The hardest thing for me about the first and especially the remake is the tentacle drags, there are hard parts later as well, but that's the killer part. Hardcore on three was a learning curve for sure.

But the hardest mode in the series, or should I say the hardest challenge? was doing impossible mode on three like hardcore. So one life, if you die, you have to start again. No new game plus or carry overs. Just played like hardcore. The enemies are tougher for a start and bits you didn't fear before suddenly become a concern in this mode. That is the hardest play through that you can do in dead space IMHO, and that's not counting the side quests (which I didn't do for time reasons). I know people claim you can create op weapons in the third game and breeze through it. I haven't witnessed that live. If you feel like a new challenge, that's the one. And no co-op either. As far as I'm concerned, if you want the suspense and fear in three, play it solo. But go for impossible nee game, one life or start again just like hardcore.