Talk:Dead Space

Reception

Anyone else think it's kinda weird that there's a separate section for the critical reception ofmortl Komba

Isaac as a character in particular while the series over-all lacks a "Reception" section with a run-down of each game's reception with critics and fans? That seems like a fairly standard section to include in an article about a movie/album/Game/Series, etc. It would be fairly easy to implement, too. As simple as grabbing various reviews and retrospectives from legitimate sources and Metacritic. It's actually kinda strange this doesn't have one. I don't frequent this website enough to make me confident about doing it myself, but someone else might be more well-versed. 2601:87:4080:372:84D7:679C:1DA0:C7F6 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Dead Space (series)

The Dead Space (series) page is missing the iPhone version of the game. It features a brand new storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.167.64 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A page for Issac.

Does anyone else think this guy is moving toward being worthy of his own page? He is in three games (including ignition) and two of them are staring roles, and even in a comic as a small cameo in Extraction's comic. I think personally his suit is quite recognizable, I mean the three lights on his helmet are pretty well known I think in the gaming community, especially now that both main series games (which he stars in) are doing great reception wise.

Also, to back up my point, he has a cameo in Dante's Inferno, Skate 3, and Dragon Age II.76.116.228.175 (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so you all know: Isaac Clarke (note: it's currently a stub). —017Bluefield (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of the word sequel

It says Dead Space: Downfall is a sequel to Dead Space: Extraction. But Downfall was published in 2008 and Extraction in 2009. Maybe it is set later, but it won't make it a sequel, because Extraction didn't even exist. 80.98.146.68 (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Merging Isaac

Isaac currently has two references; this is not enough to establish significant notability. The article on Isaac does nothing but repeat plot information. However, I can reasonably see people linking or going to it, so it would probably best serve merged into this page and as a redirect. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge I say, unless some more significant sources can come to light. Until recently the majority of the sources were to fucking Wikia. Considering he didn't really have any characterisation until Dead Space 2 (and none since?) I can't imagine there're enough sources out there to support the article. Яehevkor ✉ 01:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, do you know how hard it is to work on this? You are right, there are not that much articles for notability but I try my best too. I'm a personal fan of the series and I have tried to keep this page secure with good sources and right information but most times its vandalized and things are taken away. And yes, some of the references were from Wikia because they are notable themselves. I am the the original creator of this page and I am stressing that this article does not get merged because it's useless than! And Isaac Clarke has gotten characterization since always in the original comics which some would know if your an actual fan of the series and subject. I will try to gain more articles in the time being and I am against merging the article. User talk:NackFinch 11:15, 29 January 2012.

Being a wiki, no Wikia can be a reliable source; anyone could come and edit it, sorry. You could always make a page in your userspace and build it up until it's ready (E.g. User:NackFinch/Isaac Clarke). Just remember plot information on it's own is not enough, and notability is derived from reliable sources like IGN making significant comments about a subject. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There's really nothing to discuss there. Isaac Clarke is failing all Wikipedia standards since beginning about half year ago, despite several months of warnings by me and the others. And note that my notability tags were simply deleted -repeatedly- by author of this article vandalizing his own article(!!). As were my attempts to salvage the article like that - also vandalized by NackFinch quickly afterwards (evidently obsessed with pushing Wikia as a "source" and such). I myself redirected it already more than once, only to see some silly people revert me for no reason every time. But now when I've got the attention of sensible people: see you space cowboy. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. Or just delete it, it doesn't add any valuable information. --Soetermans. T / C 20:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus about it, yet? No notability estabilished still, so I'll redirect again now. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead Space 3 Page

Shouldn't we make a Dead Space 3 article now that Dead Space 3 had been announced with trailers at E3? Lacon432 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead Space Severed DLC

Shouldn't there be a page/section on the DLC for Dead Space 2? It's a sequel to Extraction, and continues the storyline. - TidusTehSacrificer357 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dead Space (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130307124756/http://www.gamespot.com:80/news/ea-denies-dead-space-series-cancellation-6404823? to http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-denies-dead-space-series-cancellation-6404823?
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924144853/http://previews.teamxbox.com:80/xbox-360/1784/Dead-Space/p1/ to http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1784/Dead-Space/p1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014141253/http://mendingthewall.com/2011/02/14/the-two-voices-of-isaac-clarke/ to http://mendingthewall.com/2011/02/14/the-two-voices-of-isaac-clarke/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140519062352/http://www.ugo.com/games/isaac-clarke-dead-space-series to http://www.ugo.com/games/isaac-clarke-dead-space-series

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

user box for Dead Space

Code	Result
{{Template:UBX/Dead Space}}	This user is a fan of the Dead Space series.	Usage

Editor-1 (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dead Space (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-denies-dead-space-series-cancellation-6404823
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/deadspace/similar.html?mode=versions
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/deadspace/similar.html?mode=versions
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091202154519/http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/action/deadspace/similar.html?mode=versions to http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/action/deadspace/similar.html?mode=versions
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/deadspaceextraction/similar.html?mode=versions
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1784/Dead-Space/p1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100729001453/http://www.primotechnology.com/2008/02/21/ea-branches-into-comics-with-dead-space-graphic-novels/ to http://www.primotechnology.com/2008/02/21/ea-branches-into-comics-with-dead-space-graphic-novels/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Logo

Which logo is better for the article? thumb|Black background thumb|White backround — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan4 metal (talk • contribs)

• Please note that non-free images cannot be used on talk pages, so I've had to comment these images out. Further, the white background image which is over at Commons is clearly a copyright problem - there is no way the embellishments on the text keep it in the public domain. The outside/glow around the letters make the black image otherwise better. --Masem (t) 20:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dead Space Logo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Mainly a WP:SMALLDETAILS debate. Longstanding practice on DIFFCAPS (Ice c/Cube, Iron m/Maiden especially) was cited to establish that sentence case vs. title case is generally enough to distinguish the titles of two articles. There is no reason presented by the opposition against this other than personal preference. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Dead Space (franchise) → Dead Space – The franchise is the clear primary topic for "Dead Space" in caps, with it and its games getting far more views than Dead Space (film). Link to pageviews. (Dead Space 2 gets approx. 425 page views daily, Dead Space 3 about 500). It is also likely that many of the views for the 1991 film are actually looking for the animated video game films such as Dead Space: Downfall making it even less of a prominent target for pageviews than the franchise. Either way it is the predominant thing people are searching for. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose As the scientific terms (the physiology and mechanical versions) have long standing precedence for the term, in the same manner that the Half-Life series is not primary due to the scientific terms having more precedence there. --Masem (t) 14:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Masem: Per WP:DIFFCAPS (established Wikipedia policy) the scientific terms would be called Dead space which is why I clarified in the nom that it was for the upper-case version only. Dead space would still be disambiguated. In the case of Half-life that is also frankly the same, but I suppose being a compound word it would be more easy to confuse. With Dead Space it is impossible to confuse the lower-case and proper noun versions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• support this is also consistent with the cases of Ice Cube vs Ice Cube as well as Iron maiden vs Iron Maiden, both of which are mentioned at WP:DIFFCAPS. It also should be noted that a request to move Test Drive (series) to Test Drive succeeded for the same reason.--65.92.163.109 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Masem that scientific terms have long standing precedence when it comes to deciding article titles. Except in this case, none of the related scientific terms that contains "dead space" appear to be taking precedence over the other as the primary topic for dead space on Wikipedia, unlike half-life. In other words, each page about a specific scientific term still needs another word to disambiguate and are not typically known as just "dead space". As for the pageview counts, Zxcvbnm has already provided the evidence. Haleth (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe the details are too small for WP:SMALLDETAILS to apply here; the fact that the IP typed Ice Cube vs Ice Cube, when I believe they meant to type Ice cube vs Ice Cube, demonstrates why. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  That extremely meta argument aside, WP:SMALLDETAILS is Wikipedia policy, what you personally think notwithstanding. Different capitalization of the 2nd word in a 2 word title is a clear example given. Just like saying you believe a page is notable, despite its failure of WP:GNG will result in it being deleted, saying you don't think it should apply doesn't make it any less of a policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that my mistyping of Ice cube is not a valid reason to overrule existing policy and I would argue that this page should be moved to match the existing policy. Also, if there someone that has an issue with the policy they should be trying to get it changed instead of trying to make this page a exception.--65.92.163.109 (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't say that every small detail is enough to disambiguate an article; it says small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics. It is valid to argue that the details are too small to distinguish the topics. BilledMammal (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously it doesn’t but one of the main examples at WP:SMALLDETAILS, Ice Cube vs Ice cube, appears to be directly analogous to what would be Dead Space vs Dead space if this move successful. Based on that I don’t see the argument that the policy in question doesn’t apply to this page as valid. I would also like to note that my IP recently changed and that I am the same person that posted from 65.92.163.109 address.--65.92.163.128 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support with dab hatnote. The pageviews argument is compelling enough. As to DIFFCAPS, I read that policy with a degree of subjectivity, as I do with many of our policies which use vague wording such as usually sufficient and would note that the policy is only worth what consensus we can find here. While I personally feel that the difference is probably borderline too small for somebody lazy like myself who may not always reach for the shift key, I don't see a compelling argument that the scientific term (and much less the movie) are topics which are on more readers' minds than the franchise, and I also feel that anybody searching for those specific items will be dedicated enough to click the hatnote and find what they are looking for. ASUKITE 18:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Plasma Cutter merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Plasma Cutter (Dead Space) article has little information in the way of appearances and developmental history, with the only significant dev info piece being relevant solely to Dead Space (2023 video game). The only real reception of the item is entirely related to series gameplay. PerWikipedia:NOPAGE, subjects that are relevant to each other are better discussed together so as to give a better understanding of the subject as a whole. The Dead Space article gives an overview of series gameplay which helps to better put into perspective why the Plasma Cutter has been as renowned as it has. Plasma Cutter being merged here would also not be UNDUE, as the weapon has only two major SIGCOV sources that are not purely VALNET fluff, which both basically boil down "It's cool, iconic, and gameplay-wise an effective weapon", which can easily be slotted in either to series-wide reception (Given it's iconicity within the franchise) or in gameplay, where it can be merged in brief. Irregardless though, I don't see enough coverage really justifying a split, and as a standalone page it suffers from not being discussed within the wider Dead Space subject. It's a case like Mario power-ups; they're iconic, but they're so synonymous with how the series' gameplay works that they're better discussed with it than separated from it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. If the Plasma Cutter is such an "iconic" part of the franchise, then it should really stay in the franchise article. It has no relevance outside of the franchise. OceanHok (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Support - This was a wikia-grade unnecessary split. Unlike wikias, Wikipedia has WP:MERGEREASON to follow, which this strongly fails. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as creator - This is clearly motivated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT and little else, especially the statement about it boiling down to a single sentence and dismissing the rest of the article. It's disingenuous to bring up VALNET as a reason to merge when its notability is not actually based on Valnet sites in the slightest. The page is standalone notable with numerous reliable sources specifically discussing the gun, WP:NOPAGE is therefore void in this case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  No, it's motivated by MERGEREASON. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  There is no part of MERGEREASON actually valid here. 1) Duplicate - It is not exactly the same subject as another page. 2) Overlap - It has enough independent reception as a gameplay aspect to not overlap with Isaac or the Dead Space series. 3) Short text - Obviously not. 4) Insufficient notability - It passes WP:GNG easily. 5) Context - It fully explains the context of what the weapon is and where it is used in the lede. Almost anyone can understand what the article is about.

  I certainly don't see why the Plasma Cutter can't *also* be mentioned as part of the gameplay overview of the series on that page, but it's important to distinguish that from it *requiring* the context of the main page to be understood as a gameplay element. That's untrue; your average person can comprehend what a gun is, and articles on fictional weapons are an accepted class of articles on Wikipedia, such as the Lasso of Truth, an iconic weapon of Wonder Woman, Iron Man's armor, etc. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  There's massive overlap, little of substance, and virtually nothing that doesn't easily fit into the respective game articles. Sergecross73 msg me 04:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree entirely with the "little of substance" accusation. Articles such as this and this demonstrate very large amounts of critical analysis, or as one might say, "substance", that doesn't necessarily overlap. There's no way I'd ever make the article if I believed it had no substance, so I strongly feel that the article is being pre-judged. Journalists definitely didn't spend days of their life writing full articles about this gun because it was totally unimportant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support. Artificially inflated "sigcov" does not do the subject good on its demonstrated notability. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  What part about it is "artificially inflated"? When throwing out an accusation of that magnitude it kind of need some sort of basic evidence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd advise not casting Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS. I act solely based on merge principles and because I feel this topic is better off merged, not because I dislike the subject. IDONTLIKEIT would be a rationale reserved for if I had no argument at all other than disliking the topic. While you're trying to argue the Plasma Cutter's separately notable, what content isn't already in the Dead Space article that would make merging difficult? I feel you're blowing the two SIGCOV sources out of proportion, and remember that just because there's SIGCOV doesn't mean NOPAGE doesn't apply; what matters is if a parent topic can just as easily cover the topic without the need for a separate article. The other articles you mention, bar Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF issues, are also about significantly larger subjects than the Plasma Cutter; comparing many, many decades old objects synonymous with the most iconic characters in the world with a video game weapon in a semi-niche horror franchise that's barely been around for two decades isn't really comparable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Nothing anyone has said is remotely approaching ILIKEIT territory. It's inappropriate to try to invoke it baselessly like that. ILIKEIT applies when people say things like "Merge - its not even that good of a gun" or "Merge - because Dead Space sucks". Not when people make good-faith merge suggestions. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose/Keep – I was very skeptical as someone unfamiliar with the franchise, but the sources surprised me. There's a good range of sources here to show notability. I also can't imagine merging this subject into a franchise article, because it's such a miniscule part of it and would easily run foul of UNDUE there. I think it does stand best on its own. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support The weapon is described in the reception within the scope of the game, and doesn't give any indication of its importance outside of it. What's salvageable can easily be merged into here. I agree with Poke's assertions, and also feel the opposing claim of this being driven by WP:IDONTLIKEIT are in bad faith and aren't justified.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  It absolutely indicates its importance, stating that "The Plasma Cutter's design and function have been praised by critics, and it is regarded as one of the most iconic video game weapons of all time." However the idea that something must be entirely independent of its source material to be a separate page is vastly overreaching. All that is needed is for there to not be an obvious WP:OVERLAP and while that may be true about the game's other guns, this one is specifically notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Merge I am leaning towards merging, but I think a better target would be Isaac Clarke. While I am aware that the plasma cutter isn't exclusive to Isaac (the only game I played is Extraction with a different protagonist after all), but he is definitely by far the most notable user and it isn't close. It's like how we redirect Buster sword to Cloud Strife instead of Final Fantasy VII despite Zack Fair also using it (and himself even being a notable character). I am unsure if Plasma Cutter is notable, but even if it is, I feel like the reader is better served by having this being a part of a bigger, relevant article. Looking at the reception sources, every reception source mentions Isaac, and Kotaku even discusses the Plasma Cutter with respect to how it informs his character. The fact that the article's reception is almost half Valnet also gives me pause. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm unopposed if this turns out to be the majority merge target, but it does conflict with the pre-proposed merge target; thoughts from other merge voters like @Kung Fu Man @Go D. Usopp @Sergecross73 @OceanHok? Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm fine with either target. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  This seems like a much more sensible article for this subject to me too. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm fine with either, but leaning towards Clarke being the target.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  That's not the greatest example to use, given that Buster Sword is independently notable as well. Just because an article does not exist yet as it does here, doesn't mean that it was redirected for overlap, that's misleading. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  I will also note that Valnet is perfectly allowed as reception. It's not considered an unreliable source, just situational when comes to notability. If it was unreliable, I'd have left it out. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but the fact that in terms of non-Valnet SIGCOV (With Valnet solely being something used as buffer material in Reception) we have so few sources so easily summarized in a few sentences within the context of bigger subjects is very telling. There's just not much to be said about the Cutter independently of another subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's clearly not a matter of reliability, it's the fact that there would be only five sources without Valnet, which is very low for a topic that has higher expectations to clear WP:GNG. We don't treat WP:THREE equally with a fictional element versus a video game, because one is more easily covered in a parent topic than the other (and often is adequately covered). It begs the question, what is there to say about the Plasma Cutter? The development section is just saying changes (and lack of changes) made in the Dead Space remake. The Appearances section is only four sentences, nothing suggesting in-universe importance that we would need an article to cover. These could very easily be covered in Isaac's appearances section (one sentence already is). Meanwhile, the reception section, at least the first two paragraphs, fit very comfortably into Isaac's article. The stuff specifically about the Plasma Cutter can be added to the series page. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  Also, it just occurred to me that you misunderstood what I said on Buster sword. I didn't provide an opinion on whether it is notable or not, I brought up Buster sword exclusively as an example of where the redirect should go. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.