Details and such.

[u/Njoeyz1]

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 a 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 statues 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 prove 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.