67311bd70bea9

67311bd70d225
1 Guest is here.
 

Topic: System Shock 1 Remake Reviews Read 5346 times  

67311bd70d96eicemann

67311bd70d9dc
Starting up a central thread for reviews of the System Shock 1 remake (due out today). So feel free to respond with any good ones you read or watch.

Starting things off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGQ4bs_1MRE
« Last Edit: 29. May 2023, 18:54:39 by icemann »
Acknowledged by: Hikari

67311bd70dcf5ZylonBane

67311bd70dd62
Now we can move it to the correct forum.

67311bd70e09dvoodoo47

67311bd70e0ef
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0i_MrpXNZ4

so yeah, positive reactions pretty much everywhere, despite the flaws and questionable decisions and changes. most people don't care that much, it seems.
« Last Edit: 01. June 2023, 14:25:44 by voodoo47 »

67311bd70e1bdZylonBane

67311bd70e20a
Most people really do have shockingly (har har) low standards, don't they.

I shouldn't be surprised, considering that Looking Glass and Arkane games never burned up the sales charts.

67311bd70eb16RoSoDude

67311bd70eb72
Under the Mayo didn't care for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrw9ODFdTzU

I left this comment on his not-exactly-a-review:

I think the remake paints the original game in a worse light than it deserves. NightDive has stayed true to things about the original game that ought to have been redesigned (boxy mazelike level design, simplistic enemy AI, free respawning, no objective tracking) while also obscuring or forgetting things about the original that made it great (clean and vibrant visual design that made areas look distinct, upbeat electronic music, snappy short puzzles, freeform movement), and also adding superfluous stuff like the recycling system which is super undercooked from a UI/UX standpoint and a balance standpoint as you already can find more resources than you need without it.

There are things about the original that worked that no longer work in the remake, but they're subtle things that you wouldn't know unless you played the original, so the flaws of the remake seem to stem from faithfulness to the original when this is not exactly the case.For example, figuring out where to go and what to do was EASIER in the original game despite the lack of objective tracking, as there was much less visual clutter and you could instantly scan a room to see what was there to pick up -- it's the same reason the RE4 Remake had to cover every important prop in yellow paint. This also made it easier to pick out landmarks as the level geometry wasn't obscured by busy details and high-contrast lighting. I'd also argue the audio logs were quicker and more to the point, and it was easier to look over their text while playing, vs. in the remake you have to stay in the media tab to read the text.

These map details also get in the way of the player physics, which was a big innovative element in the original game, letting you jump and bounce with simulated momentum, whereas the remake is much stiffer with your running and jumping. You could mantle a lot of surfaces in the original, where now you have to find a ladder which locks you into a restrictive climbing animation. You can find a set of rocket skates in System Shock, which were a joy to use in the original to speed around the map at turbo speed because it was designed as a 3D skatepark playground with straightaways and ramps, but the remake puts railings and posts all over for realism which further cramps your once expressive degree of player control. Prey's jetpack actually has its roots in System Shock's rocket skates and jet boots which also played into a Metroidvania element for unlocking new areas, but you wouldn't really get that feeling playing the remake.

The original game had even worse enemy AI, but the combat was actually more fun for a few key reasons. Firstly, blood from mutants and sparks from robots together with punchy sound effects made for really effective hit feedback -- a missed lead pipe swing would audibly whiff through the air while a hit on a mutant would let out a squelchy crunch vs. a metallic clang on a hard surface. In the remake you barely get the sense that you're damaging enemies, they hardly stagger, and the sounds are pitiful. What's more, the simplistic AI of the original didn't hurt the tension of combat, because you had to manually manage your weapons and character state much more explicitly. There were two states of crouch and an analog lean which had to be mastered alongside the basic movement (the original game didn't support mouselook) to effectively use cover. There were no hotkeys to reload or swap ammo types; you had to open your weapon interface panel, press the button to unload your current magazine, and then choose an ammo type to load. If you were already empty, then you'd have to remember to only click once as you were already unloaded, simulating tactical vs speed reloads. The reload was instant save for the time to mouse over to the weapon interface panel, so you could actually get faster at reloading as a player, and have the panel queued up in the same way a prepared combatant would have their reserve magazines at the ready. The same weapon interface panel was used to tune the energy settings of your laser weapons. Was it clunky at first? Yes, but mastering it was key to the depth and challenge of the combat. No one expected NightDive to keep this manual degree of control in the remake, but I had hoped they would have beefed up the other aspects of the challenge to make up for the streamlined interface and modern controls, particularly in the enemy behaviors. They're a little more sophisticated, but only just barely, and the combat isn't satisfying enough to make up for it.

The respawn chambers seem nonsensical and consequence-free in the remake. They weren't perfect in the original, but i think they were more defensible. For one, enemy respawning was much more aggressive. Though not on a random timer like in SS2, certain populations of enemies would respawn in large numbers when enough of them were killed, making it very likely that you had to deal with more enemies as you retraced your steps on dying and respawning. The respawing system truly shined in repeat playthroughs on the maximum Mission difficulty, which placed a global 7 hour timer on your run. Dying and respawning (as well as cheese strats like running to the healing bed and exploiting enemy AI around corners with low power ammo) was a big waste of time, which was crucial to optimize as you gathered resources and tackled objectives. The remake still features this mission timer difficulty setting, but few players will want to attempt it considering how much slower the gameplay is; your movement is more restricted, the cyberspace and puzzles take twice as long (the original puzzle mechanics were much better), and navigating the station and searching for items is that much more mentally taxing.

Obviously, the original game is dated and flawed, and it won't be everyone's cup of tea. But I think it actually has greater appeal and more solid design than the remake, which is faithful in content but not really in spirit. It pains me that people are attributing the flaws of the remake to the original, when in reality the latter had a more coherent vision.

Also there's no flechette machine gun in the remake, LAME
Acknowledged by: Maggot

67311bd70ec6dvoodoo47

67311bd70ecbb
and this (a bit too many positive reactions) is not necessarily a good thing - without at least some reviews pointing out the flaws in a slightly harsher manner, NDS may start to assume they can pull off whatever they think flies and get away with it. which will probably harm them, and everything else (*cough* SS2R *cough*) in the long run.

67311bd70ef6csarge945

67311bd70efd1
I like the remake overall, even if I think it's quite flawed. Please direct all your tomatoes this way.

67311bd70f0eavoodoo47

67311bd70f13c
no need, 7/10 is definitely not tomato-worthy. it pretty much means seven out of ten people will like it, and that's decent - but with a dozen or so things done differently, this could have been a 9/10 easily.

that's all I'm saying.

67311bd70f82dZylonBane

67311bd70f88a
You could mantle a lot of surfaces in the original
Yes, but no. The original System Shock has no concept of mantling. What it had was the ability to tag a texture as climbable. So in addition to putting that tag on ladder textures, they also added it to various climbable-looking surfaces like bundles of pipes and wires, yadda yadda.

67311bd70f9f3JosiahJack

67311bd70fa45
Sounds like SSR is a faulty Solid State Relay with 428 things wrong.  Hopefully someone can find the interface to mod it later.


I know those are lame puns but what can I say, I'm a dad.  :awesome:

67311bd70fd49sarge945

67311bd70fd99
Most people really do have shockingly (har har) low standards, don't they.

I shouldn't be surprised, considering that Looking Glass and Arkane games never burned up the sales charts.

Have you considered that maybe the game is actually pretty decent and despite the flaws which pretty much everyone agrees about, most people still consider it worth playing because it's still SS1 at it's core? Especially considering the GARBAGE that passes for videogames these days?

Obviously if you're extremely well versed with the original, your outlook might be different, but most people are not.

A flawed game with some stupid tacked on recycling mechanics and some questionable graphics design, but a solid core, will still be a massive improvement to whatever toxic sludge passes for gaming these days. Of course most people like it. I'm glad they do. Instead of the "super low standards", I hope this will actually raise people's standards a bit because it's WAY better than pretty much everything else on the market right now (and probably for the last 5 years or so). I consider most games, especially most AAA games, released in the last decade to be completely unplayable.

If even ONE person on the entire planet goes "wait, this is actually really good. I was told that what Bioshock replaces was unplayable and overly complicated, but this is fine, I might go check out more games like this", then I will consider it hugely worth it.
« Last Edit: 02. June 2023, 23:13:29 by sarge945 »

67311bd710282Chandlermaki

67311bd7102d7
A flawed game with some stupid tacked on recycling mechanics and some questionable graphics design, but a solid core, will still be a massive improvement to whatever toxic sludge passes for gaming these days. Of course most people like it. I'm glad they do. Instead of the "super low standards", I hope this will actually raise people's standards a bit because it's WAY better than pretty much everything else on the market right now (and probably for the last 5 years or so). I consider most games, especially most AAA games, released in the last decade to be completely unplayable.

If even ONE person on the entire planet goes "wait, this is actually really good. I was told that what Bioshock replaces was unplayable and overly complicated, but this is fine, I might go check out more games like this", then I will consider it hugely worth it.

Basically my thoughts as well. The game is pretty solid minus the obvious issues, and friends of mine that would never have been able to get into the original game are really enjoying this one. It's not ideal, but it's a lot better than I was expecting in a lot of ways.

I'm very curious to see where the mods for this go, too, especially considering how many are already popping up (thanks NV!)

67311bd7104f7sarge945

67311bd71054d
There's this weird death spiral where certain types of people expect things to be perfect. When they are just pretty good, they lament how it's horrible and everyone else is stupid for thinking it's pretty good.

Hardcore gamers are part of that group, which is why every game made for them always fails to sell. It's not because the "normies" don't buy them, it's because the people they are intended for snoot up their nose and say "ehh, I mean it's got RPG mechanics, which I like, but it only has 6 stats instead of 7, this is dumbed down casul shit"

Prey is also pretty flawed, especially the second half, but all the people that hate it now are diehard System Shock fans and "oldschool gamers" who say it's basically "dumbed down trash for babies", everyone else seems to think it's pretty alright. It also didn't sell very well, although that's for a multitude of reasons.

67311bd710675Nameless Voice

67311bd7106ce
Who are these diehard Shock fans who hate Prey?

At worst, people say it's a fairly good game, but a bit forgettable and doesn't quite live up to its potential.

67311bd7108b8sarge945

67311bd710906
Who are these diehard Shock fans who hate Prey?

Go on RPGCodex or any "hardcore" imsim forum
67311bd710d5d
Prey is also pretty flawed, especially the second half, but all the people that hate it now are diehard System Shock fans and "oldschool gamers" who say it's basically "dumbed down trash for babies", everyone else seems to think it's pretty alright. It also didn't sell very well, although that's for a multitude of reasons.

I love most of Prey (2017), it's a great game that came close to being one of the all time classics. What it does well, it does extremely well. But the story just fades away half-way through the game, the enemies don't come across as threatening, the enemies don't wander far from their spawning points or feel like they are in any way alive, the live humans are utterly unconvincing (and the way the humans are seemingly able to move from one place to another (when the story demands it) but don't get killed or injured b y the aliens even when seemingly unarmed, just takes you out of the  game) - seriously, the security guards in the original Half-Life have more life and personality, the game has little randomization (a real killer of replayability), the game has scripted (and so utterly predictable) enemy spawning (meaning that after a couple of times of playing through the games you can predict what enemies you will find and where they will be, whenever you enter/re-enter a level, and so on. And I hate the hacking mini-game.

A sequel to the game could have been amazing. But sadly it sold badly, so it's very unlikely.

67311bd710e01icemann

67311bd710e54
I absolutely love Prey. A game I go back to replay every few years.

67311bd7111caZylonBane

67311bd71121d
the enemies don't come across as threatening
Lolwut. You're telling us you didn't shit yourself the first time you encountered a weaver, telepath, or technopath?

the security guards in the original Half-Life have more life and personality,
The security guards in Half-Life usually drop dead within a minute of the player meeting them. Most of the living humans you encounter in Prey are part of the plot, so it pretty much has to keep them safely away from everything "interesting".

the game has little randomization (a real killer of replayability)
Most games don't have randomization. Deus Ex doesn't have any randomization. Are you saying Deus Ex has no replayability?

67311bd711390sarge945

67311bd7113dd
My main issues with Prey are that it gives the player WAY too many options (which contradict each other) and falls apart in the second half when the difficulty falls off a cliff and the story becomes a mostly linear slog.

The first encounter with technopaths (unlocking the main elevator) is ballbustingly difficult and is a hard brick wall for a lot of new players.

But after that point, they don't really introduce new threats other than higher levels of the existing enemies, and the Nightmare (which is extremely underwhelming as an enemy), meanwhile the player is absolutely showered in Neuromods they should have a pretty good build going by then, and the AI simply can't keep up.

The second half is also largely spent doing linear segments and being locked inside certain parts of the station, going from point A to point B, without many immersive sim elements other than the occasional hack door for a few extra resources. The second half of the game feels a lot more like a linear story-driven game and less like an immersive sim where you can explore the world and go to different places as you wish.

It sort of reminds me of the worst levels in Deus Ex.
« Last Edit: 06. June 2023, 15:51:37 by sarge945 »

67311bd711566Pacmikey

67311bd7115bc
My biggest issue with Prey is that the pistol doesn't even point to the center of the screen! It's such a GLARING and easy fix why didn't they just spend 5 minutes rotating it?



Also the aesthetic is lame, I'm sick of retro-futurism The Jetsons 1950-60s quirkiness. And yes the game wasn't scary, like at all. Just look at the spacesuits, or ALEX

67311bd711889Nameless Voice

67311bd7118dc
Kind of amused at people on Reddit being so angry at my making a mod to enable texture filtering that they had to make a whole thread attacking the very idea of anyone being unhappy with the pixellated look.


My biggest issue with Prey is that the pistol doesn't even point to the center of the screen! It's such a GLARING and easy fix why didn't they just spend 5 minutes rotating it?

The way game protagonists hold their guns is always unrealistic.  If you held your gun off to the side and at an angle to point towards the centre of the screen like that, you'd need to constantly adjust the angle based on the distance to your target.

67311bd711b3cZylonBane

67311bd711b8b
And yes the game wasn't scary, like at all. Just look at the spacesuits
Space suits are supposed to be scary?
1 Guest is here.
I was wondering why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.
Contact SMF 2.0.19 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies
FEEP
67311bd714e27