System Shock 2: Enhanced Edition Update & Community Participation

[681102121d4a5ZylonBane]

I can't see the fun in mindlessly mashing F5 every 2 seconds so I can immediately revert any mistakes I make with no consequence

I see you're still in denial that most people actually don't play like this.

[681102121d6a6voodoo47]

I'd also like to believe most people can control themselves to a certain degree.

[681102121d7e0ZylonBane]

Some people just have a stronger dorsolateral prefrontal cortex* than others.

[681102121dd92voodoo47]

speaking of brains, math me this - if I can betatest Medsci in one day, and that's about 10% of the game, how many days will I need to betatest the entire game just once?

[681102121e618sarge945]

well the game gets harder, and further decks take longer (with some exceptions). Rickenbacker for me at least takes bloody ages.

So I guess ramp up exponentially?

Given there's 9 "missions" (Eng/MedSci/Hydro/Ops/Rec/Command/Rick/Many/Shodan), I would guess some of the later ones will take you over a day, so maybe (3 * 1.5) + 6 which is 10.5 days.

That seems a bit long, though.

I see you're still in denial that most people actually don't play like this.

I literally see this all the time. Granted, most people aren't mashing f5 literally every 2 seconds (which is purposely a hyperbole I use to demonstrate the problem), but I repeatedly see that people are on average saving quite frequently (usually after each major fight at least), and are still missing out on a lot of the consequences of gameplay as a result.

Generally people will save before a challenge, and then reload repeatedly until they complete the challenge reasonably well.

But when you're beating every fight at 80% health it undermines the resource management systems that are so crucial to these sorts of games.

This is why so many people finish SS2 with tens of med hypos in their inventory. Because they have effectively deleted all the instances where they would really need them.

The same is true for nanites.

Don't tell me you've never had low HACK skills, saved right before attempting to open a crate, failed multiple times, then reloaded.

The problem isn't literally saving every 2 seconds, which most people don't do. The problem is that the way in which people save, and the frequency in which they do, largely undermines resource management in many games because you can repeat fights over and over again until you complete them efficiently, and you never have to play through your mistakes

Do me a favor and try GMDX on Hardcore mode (or, on the newest version, with the Save Restrictions gameplay modifer on any difficulty) and tell me afterwards with a straight face that the addition of save points weren't a direct improvement to the gameplay. Playing this way you will find yourself running low on medkits and biocells constantly, and your equipment being drained a lot of the time, and it's wonderful. You won't see your equipment "bubble up" and fill your inventory because you'll actually be using it to fix your mistakes, rather than reloading.

I feel like we've had this discussion before...

[681102121e837JDoran]

There is no perfect game save method. Quick-save, checkpoint, QBR, etc, they all have their advantages and disadvantages, but quick-saving is the most comfortable, of course, and probably the best of those available.

A no save-game mode would be interesting , where (just like in real life) if you die then it's game over. This would really ramp up the tension, and make your important decisions irreversible, and you'd have to be constantly on your toes and ready for anything. That would be a very intense experience. It would also be insufferably aggravating when, near the end of the game, you get killed in an encounter with a couple of respawning enemies. But anyone who wants to try this (in other games it's called 'an 'Ironman' run) is of course free to do so now, it doesn't need a new mod written to allow this. Just save the  game when you have to turn off the PC, and you're only allowed to reload that game-save once, the next time you continue playing the game.

[681102121e95cConcealed Commentator]

i think using super dooper™ qbrs as checkpoints without quickload/save would be perfect game save method  :v

also it would be a huge step perfectionizing one of the best games - even by very careful estimation i think at least 70% of all players are guilty of using save-spamming or whatever if its called.

[681102121eda9JDoran]

I really want to make a mod (I hope it's possible) that turns QBR into reusable save points, potentially also with a nanite cost.

Oh yes, adding a suitable death-to-resurrection-via-a-QBR-booth penalty (rather than a generally too-minimal 10 nanites or whatever) might make QBR's seem less like a Deus Ex Machine solution (and yes, I realise the hypocrisy of my criticising QBRs for seeming too contrived and unrealistic, in a game where you have the always available meta solution of game-saving/loading  ). I don't think a nanite only cost would be enough, though. Perhaps if the QBR also strips you of a percentage of one or more ammo types, or when you respawn in a QBR then your health is very low. Something to make the time after QBR-respawning problematic, to make the whole QBR experience to not seem like a magic solution.

https://www.systemshock.org/index.php?topic=11727.0

Merging it with the Super Duper QBRs , that Tiphares4 linked to, might be really good, so you can always respawn at a QBR, even if it's on a lower deck, provided you can meet the cost of the QBR resurrection.

I can't see the fun in mindlessly mashing F5 every 2 seconds so I can immediately revert any mistakes I make with no consequence, but hey, I guess I'm not a "true" gamer because I don't like free saving.

I overuse the quick-save key, and I imagine most people do to (in any action game with a quick-save option). It's human nature, I suppose, to take easy, painless precautions. In SS2 I tend to auto-save before and after most combat (unless it's utterly trivial), hacking, when research has finished, entering a new load area, etc.

It does lower the tension, and therefore arguably the enjoyment or at least the reality of the experience, but human weakness, etc.  If there was an option when selecting a new game that allowed you to turn of quick/manual save and loading, and instead only use QBRs, and maybe another option that would disable saving except that the game would automatically save when you entered a new load area (which of course you could load at will), and with the latter option you could chose to either allow or disable (super duper) QBRs, then that might be something I might like to try.

[681102121eec6ZylonBane]

It's always funny when the people with no self-regulation assert that everyone else is like them. I guess it provides them some small comfort in their shame.

[681102121f177sarge945]

It's always funny when the people with no self-regulation assert that everyone else is like them. I guess it provides them some small comfort in their shame.

Unless you're willing to post your own gameplay to prove it, I (and many others here, mind you) aren't going to believe that we're somehow some strange minority that can't help ourselves.

When an action is easy to perform, people are going to perform it. All throughout the PC gaming landscape people use quicksave constantly. To the point that whenever a game releases without quicksaving people complain about it.

Most likely you DO save too much, but you've convinced yourself that it's not a problem because you've never actually had to play through your mistakes so you don't know what that feels like.

Tell me, last time you played through the cargo bays (the hardest part of the early game by far), how many times did you save? How many times did you load those saves by choice (rather than dying and being forced to reload or use a qbr)

[681102121f387Null1233]

This is similar to the concept of "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game."  People tend toward choices with the most guaranteed success, lowest friction, and lowest risk despite it often being less fun within games.  It's just human nature and good game design includes preventing the player from making these choices instead of more interesting and more fun ones.

Said another way, most players will not choose to fail, even if failure creates unique scenarios and is fun.  If players can avoid failure by simply pressing a quicksave hotkey and sometimes a quickload hotkey they will do it.  Not letting yourself do this is an arbitrary restriction you have put on yourself, I think it makes the game more fun but you should not need to restrict yourself.  The game should just not let you make the unfun decision in the first place.  Generally save systems need friction, and SS2's save system has none.

[681102121f956Clandestine collaborator]

i think super duper qbrs combined with deactivating quickload/save would make the game's saving system very similiar to say: super metroid, which is considered as one of the pinnacles of gaming...

Merging it with the Super Duper QBRs , [...] might be really good, so you can always respawn at a QBR, even if it's on a lower deck, provided you can meet the cost of

imo it is one of the last blockers/obstacles unleashing ss2's true potential....... what will happen if this is addressed?

I see you're still in denial that most people actually don't play like this.

I literally see this all the time. Granted, most people aren't mashing f5 literally every 2 seconds

There is certainly strong enough evidence that most people actually play like this

by very careful estimation [...] at least 70% of all players

and this is only estimated number, imagine the dark figures being even higher. I'm imagining 80% of the players mashing & scumming save & reload buttons like mad.

[681102121fce5ZylonBane]

Unless you're willing to post your own gameplay to prove it, I (and many others here, mind you)

Lol, "many" others. Like two others. You just can't help exaggerating.

All throughout the PC gaming landscape people use quicksave constantly. To the point that whenever a game releases without quicksaving people complain about it.

This is like claiming that people must deploy the airbags on their cars all the time, because they complain when someone makes a car without airbags. The whole point of quicksave is that it lets you save when YOU want to save, instead of relying on checkpoints.

Most likely you DO save too much, but you've convinced yourself that it's not a problem because you've never actually had to play through your mistakes so you don't know what that feels like.

Ooh, now we're to the projection part. "I'm not the one who's convinced myself everyone abuses quicksave. He's the one who's convinced himself that he doesn't!"

Tell me, last time you played through the cargo bays (the hardest part of the early game by far), how many times did you save?

I couldn't tell you, because I literally don't think about quicksaving unless I get into a situation where I might get one-shot by a surprise attack and have to replay a significant portion of the level. Mostly I just, y'know, get immersed in the game and forget that quicksaving is even a thing.

I've watched dozens of let's plays of SS2, and I've literally never seen one where the player compulsively hammered quicksave. Often they don't quicksave at all, ever, and just make hard saves occasionally when they're about to try something dangerous.

[681102121ff90tiphares4]

Something to make the time after QBR-respawning problematic, to make the whole QBR experience to not seem like a magic solution.

how about "all aquired inventory items have to be looted from player's corpse after qbr resurrection" ?

[68110212201d0WhyHelloThere]

how about "all aquired inventory items have to be looted from player's corpse after qbr resurrection" ?

So, basically make it so you're dead meat the moment you get in combat until you travel who-knows-how-far to your corpse? I'm all for rewarding survival, but that seems really intense, although it can work in some cases (the Minecraft mod Gravestones, or just Minecraft in general, comes to mind).

[681102122041btiphares4]

that seems really intense

Oh yes..  but to mitigate impact make the player's health full when materializing in qbr chamber after successful resurrection.

Also: players can mitigate further by strategically placing redundant weapons, ammo, etc. next to qbrs or somewhere else. It would add a whole new gameplay loop & tie everything nicely together + perfectly mitigate the (imo) lack of (objective-based/mission related) inter-deck backtracking in the base game.

[681102122053evoodoo47]

this is one of those ideas that look ok on paper, but in real life game they are terrible.

"lets have the player unload a single slug from the jammed gun each time they kill a shotgun hybrid, that ought to be fun, right?"

[68110212207f2WhyHelloThere]

Oh yes..  but to mitigate impact make the player's health full when materializing in qbr chamber after successful resurrection.

Also: players can mitigate further by strategically placing redundant weapons, ammo, etc. next to qbrs or somewhere else. It would add a whole new gameplay loop & tie everything nicely together + perfectly mitigate the (imo) lack of (objective-based/mission related) inter-deck backtracking in the base game.

The tricky thing is, with a situation like this, you're not gonna recognize how to properly engage with it until you're replaying the game, or at least start to get good at it. But when a game's systems are frustrating and unfun the first time, you don't want to get good at it - meaning a more negative perception of the game overall.

Gabe Newell once said that game developers can be considered "experimental psychologists," and this is a perfect example of that. If the game is too frustrating, there's no psychological drive to learn how to do it, but rather just to get it over with.

[68110212208dcvoodoo47]

"ain't nobody got time for that" ALT+L

[68110212209b8WhyHelloThere]

...Yeah, pretty much.

[6811021220b0fJoin2]

Oh look, it's this argument again. Death to unrestricted saving and sever the tongue of the heretics that support it!

[6811021220d90ZylonBane]

this is one of those ideas that look ok on paper, but in real life game they are terrible.

It doesn't even look ok on paper, because it could very easily lead to infinite death loops if there are enemies around your corpse. Or your corpse might fall somewhere inaccessible.

Situations like this are acceptable in something like Minecraft where even if you lose everything you can always just craft more gear. But in SS2, with its brutally restricted resource economy, losing everything would be catastrophic.

[6811021220e8cnotaavatar]

I hate when a fun setting like insane difficulty is locked behind save point related stuff. I don't need my games to act as a nanny

[68110212210b2tiphares4]

with its brutally restricted resource economy, losing everything would be catastrophic.

i would volunteer to test it out i think, if such mod exists, i would do it.

i would get in, make a run & get out as fast as i can. i'm one of the people qualified enough for this anyways :l


and i don't need games acting as a nanny too :l