SS2 Remake could be next

[6741d033e20b5ZylonBane]

I think EE fixed SS1's issues but I understand some wanting more

The issue with SS1 that SSR is fixing (theoretically) is making it palatable to modern non-retro gamers. Are you asserting that SSEE did that?

[6741d033e2471Xkilljoy98]

ZylonBane
Not for everyone no, but the only issues I had with the original was no mouselook, hard to customize controls, and not having a bit higher resolution as an option and EE did all of those things.

[6741d033e2774ZylonBane]

Not for everyone no, but the only issues I had with the original was...

You are not the target audience for the remake. The target audience is not long-time System Shock fans. The target audience is people who've never played System Shock before, and who are quite reasonably put off by its extremely dated graphics, clunky player movement, and objectively awful UI.

You know all this already, it shouldn't be necessary to restate it.

[6741d033e2a83Xkilljoy98]

ZylonBane
Yeah I am aware, I just wish fans of the original were taken into consideration more.

I mean they say the care about fans of the original but I figured if that were true then stuff like an original OST option would have been confirmed a long time ago

Also I first played SS1 in 2015 back when I was still in high school and wasn't even expecting to like it much when I first played it, so I figure at least some can play EE and enjoy it who never touched it before but I get that not everyone can or wants to try.

I've always been a fan of both older and newer games myself.

[6741d033e2fd8icemann]

ZylonBane
Yeah I am aware, I just wish fans of the original were taken into consideration more.

I mean they say the care about fans of the original but I figured if that were true then stuff like an original OST option would have been confirmed a long time ago

Also I first played SS1 in 2015 back when I was still in high school and wasn't even expecting to like it much when I first played it, so I figure at least some can play EE and enjoy it who never touched it before but I get that not everyone can or wants to try.

I've always been a fan of both older and newer games myself.

It's a slippery slope if a company focuses purely on the existing fanbase. If you look at the Fallout community back before Fallout 3 came out, there was a HUGE amount of hate directed at Bethesda over the decision to switch to a first person perspective over the prior games top down isometric view. But they were going for a different audience, and it paid off bigtime. In comparison if the games had stayed as they were (as originally was going to be the case with the "Van Buren" prototype that Black Isle had put together prior to the original version of Fallout 3 getting scraped) the game would very likely would have done far worser (financially) due to less mass market appeal.

So personally I don't see it as a problem if a developer aims more for the broader gaming public, as long as the overall feel of the game remains.

[6741d033e3489Xkilljoy98]

icemann
Of course, SS has never been the most popular so I am fine with them bringing in fans, if it gets more people to like SS then that is great.

And I understand fanbases having different opinions (including SS, such as fans differing opinions on stuff like the Remake, SS1, SS2, Bioshock, etc), which is all fine, as long as it is civil and not toxic/gatekeeping, and people can respect different tastes.

IK SS has gotten some new fans since the rereleases including myself, and if those didn't exist, IDK if I would even be here.

Lots of people have already played games like Bioshock, Prey, Etc so if more people try SS then I think that is good.

Plus if this were a sequel set elsewhere, I wouldn't mind, but for a remake there are certain changes that just confuse me why they made.

The biggest one being music, but other stuff too, like why cut certain weapons?, or why make it so dark (if the final game is brighter like that person says then this may be a moot point but if not I want to mention it), why change cyberspace's look, why change the designs of some of the enemies, etc?

Some changes I can look past, am split on, or am ok with, but all the ones I listed are one that I dislike and just wish that they didn't make any drastic art changes or cuts, or if nothing else at least keep the music.

Music is a big part of so many of my favorite games (like SS, Zelda, Sonic, Mario, Bioshock, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, RDR, etc) so to see it gone here just disappoints me.

As are other things like enemies, weapons, levels etc)

Story/Characters in the remake seems mostly the same with more convincing voice acting in places it wasn't before, though SHODAN sounds slightly off to me and I do prefer Diego's original voice.

Gameplay seems fine, I just wish all the same weapons and such were added.

I just want SS1 to resemble and feel like itself.

SS2 Remake if it does come, I hope still feels and resembles itself, though IK how frustrating that game can be at times, especially at the late game so some improvements could be done, it just depends on what is done.

[6741d033e3658JosiahJack]

> I just want SS1 to resemble and feel like itself.

This.


SS2 is masterful.  A remake would be unnecessary comparatively to the first.  If one were to remake it, it would be daunting; an attempt to outdo a bar set so high and thereby bound to fail.

All remaining efforts should go into System Shock 3, though I'm doubtful at this point that anything could embody a tone and mood that would enrapture me in such a way again as to inspire the way these works of art have.  My love for tinkering, code, space, science, engineering, robotics, have a crossroads here.  I don't know that games nowadays could do that again, maybe not for me but others.  That's where focus should be made.

[6741d033e3a22icemann]

I just want SS1 to resemble and feel like itself.

I'm with you and totally agree with you of that being what I want as well. Trick is that remakes (unlike remasters) do go in completely different directions sometimes, with varying results. Prey (2017) is COMPLETELY different to it's original incarnation, and all the better for it, but then Silent Hill has had a few awful remakes of past games. So it varies wildly.

As I've said numerous times, I'm just going to wait till it's done and out and then I'll judge it then.

[6741d033e3c6bRoSoDude]

Prey (2017) was not a remake in any sense of the word. It was a totally unrelated game that Bethesda slapped the old IP onto.

[6741d033e3d8cPacmikey]

.

[6741d033e3ef4ZylonBane]

The Last of Us wasn't remade, it was remastered.

Games like SH2, RE4, Dead Space, etc. get spruced up and re-released because they were popular and made tons of money. SS2 is a cult classic that did not make a ton of money. I very much doubt the investment required to remake SS2, to the architectural fidelity of games like Prey or Soma, would be matched by its sales.

The only reason Night Dive can manage a remake of SS1 is because SS1 is a simpler game, with MUCH simpler level design, which they're pretty much duplicating as-is.

[6741d033e41eeChandlermaki]

The Last of Us wasn't remade, it was remastered.

The Last of Us was remade. It's pretty much 1:1 with the original but on TLoU2's engine with entirely new assets etc.

[6741d033e431aZylonBane]

Then maybe we should be using a different word for "System Shock 2 remake" then, because the upcoming SS2 Enhanced Edition (with community mods) will also be pretty much 1:1 with the original but in a different engine and with new assets.

When I see people hoping for an SS2 remake, I assume they're wanting a version of SS2 with the environments brought up to a modern level, not just the old blocky environments with better textures.

[6741d033e461cChandlermaki]

Then maybe we should be using a different word for "System Shock 2 remake" then, because the upcoming SS2 Enhanced Edition (with community mods) will also be pretty much 1:1 with the original but in a different engine and with new assets.

They remade the entire game. It's a remake. Don't know what to tell you.

Those two things aren't the same and I have a feeling that you know that. KEX running on top of existing code with some community mods and new enemy models is a far cry from a ground up rewrite from a AAA studio. Don't get me wrong, I think it was a dumb choice for a remake and a complete waste of time. 

[6741d033e48bdicemann]

The Last of Us was remade. It's pretty much 1:1 with the original but on TLoU2's engine with entirely new assets etc.

Thats a remaster. If it's 1:1 with the original, then thats a remaster. Where as remake is when it's completely different visually. It may be an upgrade in dimensions (eg 2D to 3D, or from 8 bit to 16).

[6741d033e4994Pacmikey]

.

[6741d033e4c21Chandlermaki]

Thats a remaster. If it's 1:1 with the original, then thats a remaster. Where as remake is when it's completely different visually. It may be an upgrade in dimensions (eg 2D to 3D, or from 8 bit to 16).

That... is not what remake means my guy. Just because it's a stupid and pointless remake, doesn't mean it's not a remake. And... it actually is a pretty substantial visual upgrade, including all cutscenes being rendered in-engine now at higher fidelity than the original's pre renders could even manage.

It's a totally new game that just happens to be designed as close to the original as possible. If FF7 remake came out with modern visuals but left the gameplay exactly the same, absolutely nobody would argue it was a "remaster."

[6741d033e4d8aicemann]

One correction to my earlier post. If its to a completely new game engine - Remake - Yes.

If its a complete re-creation code wise from scratch even if it visually looks the same - Yes remake. Considering that I've made a few of those myself (remakes coded from scratch but look the same as the games their based on and play the same) and called them remakes, so would make me a hypocrite if I were to now call it anything else.

If same game engine but just better models, textures, bug fixes - Thats a remaster. Otherwise that would make the SHTUP mod for SS2 a remake which it clearly is not.

[6741d033e5166voodoo47]

this is what I use.

-source port: the good stuff, you have the source, you make it run on new pcs, ZDoom for example.
-engine clone: you take all the resources, load them with a new engine, and recreate all the functionality so it would be as close to the original as possible (painstakingly, one might add). Citadel would go here, BloodCM as well, and HL: Source too (though they had the luxury of having the all the source code so nothing painstaking happened there, probably).
-remaster: functionally the same as the original (plus stuff like updated controls and  UI), but with new resources (and/or engine), like Homeworld remastered.
-remake: a new author's vision of the original. most stuff is preserved (game type, setting), but a lot of things are done in a way the new dev sees fit. Black Mesa, and System Shock 2017 (2018, most likely).
-reboot: we move even further, only very basic stuff is preserved, like a one man army marine vs demons. Doom4.

so for example, SS2EE would be an engine clone (with enhancements). if TLOU is running on a new engine, and using all new resources, then I would call it a remaster.

also lol at the 2017/2018 SSR bit.

[6741d033e5582Chandlermaki]

this is what I use.so for example, SS2EE would be an engine clone (with enhancements). if TLOU is running on a new engine, and using all new resources, then I would call it a remaster.

also lol at the 2017/2018 SSR bit.

TLOU Part 1 isn’t like Homeworld remastered. It is an entirely new game that attempts to faithfully remake the original. HWR is the original games codebase with some stuff thrown on top. I don’t understand what the hang up is here with this weird semantic argument.

It’s straight up not a remaster. If they took the actual original game code and improved upon it, made new textures etc, it would be. But that’s not what happened. It’s a new game made entirely from scratch.

[6741d033e5709voodoo47]

original source code = source port. no amount of new textures and models are going to change it into something else. sorry.

if you faithfully recreate a game bit by bit (same mechanics, same levels, same AI placements etc), then you are a remaster in my book.

[6741d033e5a2fBerathraben]

Isn't the Last of Us that is being done now for PS 5 a near 1:1 remake?  With all new assets being made, etc.  Maybe including some mechanical refinements like prone and some of the improvements to combat that we saw in the LOU 2. Better controls, etc.
But the one done for PS 4 was a remaster of the PS 3 game. Where everything was already made and they might have redone some of the resolutions and facial animations, and made some other improvements. But as far as I know it still used the original engine, code base, AI, etc. However, I think the LOU engines are ones that they continued to expand on for each iteration. The remaster work for the LOU (PS4) was expanded on to become the engine build used in the LOU 2. likewise, the work done on the LOU remake (PS5), will be expanded on to make the LOU 3.  All kind of sharing some of the same code base anyway.

I think sometimes the two can overlap at times where there is a bit of both going on.
Take the SS 2 EE as an example. Where it is incorporating some QOL fixes which sort of falls under remaster but the new assets being made for the enemy and character art somewhat fall under remake territory. But the game it self is still utilizing most of the original work, AI, engine, code base, etc.

[6741d033e5e5dBerathraben]

voodoo47
Hmmm, you see, I always thought of a game made in complete new engine with all new assets, AI, some new code base, etc. A remake. Even though in the case of the LOU a lot of the code base for mechanics and asset rigging was probably re used and expanded on and refined.

Where as a remaster was where the original work and engine was still utilized in it's original form with improvements to varying degrees. Some do more some less.

At this point the line between all these terms seems to be blurry anyhow. Where a remaster and remake can be almost the same things with different levels of work being done.

And then add EE into the mix. Where some change more than others.

The terms get tossed around so much that I think they get used to describe either or very often.
I have seen ground up remakes get labelled as remasters and EE expected to be ground up remakes, etc.

Who needs labels at this point when they just make everything so confusing because the terms often get used almost arbitrarily.
And depending on who is using the term they seem to mean different things.

[6741d033e5fedvoodoo47]

yes, overlap definitely can happen. but still, we have roughly five categories, would be nice if we could agree upon what is what (probably not, but oh well).

words are kind of important - for example, Homeworld Remastered and Black Mesa absolutely aren't in the same group. which one you want to call a remaster, and which one would be a remake?

we sort of need labels to be able to communicate effectively. but I guess you can always refer to a particular game to explain what exactly do you mean.