System Shock remake and System Shock 3

[674020b805ce5voodoo47]

I don't see how a console release automatically means it is going to be streamlined.

because this usually means console controls on the pc version, as this is cheaper than doing proper pc controls and then streamline those to fit the console release (see Fallout4, yuck). however, NightDive have specifically said they won't be pulling that kind of thing (for the SS1 remake, if for nothing else), so I'm not too worried - as I have said before, I believe that all the current Shock projects have received pretty much the best start that has been possible. that, of course, doesn't mean that things can't go wrong, but the start is as good as it gets.

[674020b8060c7RocketMan]

Hate me if you think I'm being narrow-minded but System Shock belongs on the PC with any console considerations being an afterthought at best.  I dread the thought of SS being changed in any way shape or form to accommodate consoles.

[674020b80624cvoodoo47]

yeah, this has already been mentioned somewhere - in an ideal world, a game would be built for the strongest platform first, and only then cut down as needed for the lesser ones*. unfortunately, this introduces additional costs and development time**, so things usually go the other way around - the game is built for the weakest platform, and then simply ported to the rest, usually with pretty much no changes or enhancements at all.



*I think Doom3 has been done this way, pc first, and then a simplified console port with smaller levels and whatnot.

**it's also a bit of PR problem, as most console gamers hate the thought of getting a cut down version of the game, so by prioritizing the pc release, you are potentially pissing off a fair number of buyers.

[674020b806381RocketMan]

Yeah and this is where corporate greed comes into play.  Can't piss off the console players!  They represent an estimated 18% of our projected sales!  That's unacceptable!  Design team... make this thing run on consoles too and communize the features as much as you can.

...and that's when the game goes down the drain.

It'd be the same deal for heavily console-favouring games too but in this case we're talking SS, which is not in that camp.

[674020b80653evoodoo47]

it's not as simple as just greed - it's all about the numbers. what will bring in more sales - targeting a very specific group of players by making the game hard and complex, or simplifying things down and so maximizing the potential buyer pool? people making these decisions usually have very little attachment to the final product, games, airplanes, medicine, whatever, as long as they can play it safe and minimize the chance of red numbers happening, they don't really care. in their eyes, a mediocre game that is guaranteed to bring in some profit because its genre is currently popular or because the brand is strong will always be better than attempting to create something great, but risking a complete failure in the process.

but here's the thing, playing it safe does not bring in the amazing - to make the amazing, you need to take risks, and that's something that doesn't look good on a powerpoint presentation. so not happening, as long as the usual kind of suits has control. luckily, this doesn't seem to be the case with NightDive and Otherside, or so it would seem so far - they are doing their homework on the source material, they are listening to the fans, and they do look like they want to do things right, pie charts with unhappy COD kiddies be damned.

funnily enough, this is pretty much how the Deadpool movie turned out to be such a success.

[674020b80661erocket_man]

Ok well you said it better than I would have but I still think greed is a factor.

[674020b80676cZylonBane]

Not wanting to go out of business is so greedy.

[674020b806953RocketMan]

A bit of an exaggeration since most video game companies are shooting way higher than just staying in business.  It's not like they aren't aware of the concessions they are making for the sake of margin.  Wanting to make a healthy profit isn't inherently a bad thing, especially if it's quite obvious that's your motivation for going into business.  It becomes a problem when you chase after profit at the expense of quality.  It also becomes a problem when you set a precedent of caring so much about the product you're making and then use that as leverage to sell the substandard product you've settled with, to the widest possible audience.  I'm speaking hypothetically at the moment but it can and does happen.  I'm no guru when it comes to the console vs PC market but you don't have to be in order to see why a company would want their game to support both, and how that might not be the smartest move, even if it's the most profitable one.

[674020b806a35RocketMan]

...but I'm being a bit grouchy and an unnecessary downer at the moment so I'll shut up now.

[674020b806e97icemann]

but here's the thing, playing it safe does not bring in the amazing - to make the amazing, you need to take risks, and that's something that doesn't look good on a powerpoint presentation. so not happening, as long as the usual kind of suits has control.

Well taking risks was what LGS was all about. Shame that it didn't = the results that they deserved. Generally game companies fit into 1 of 2 categories: Those that take risks and go for new game styles / unorthodox methods (ID Software up to Quake 2, Origin, Bullfrog, LGS etc) and those that copy everyone else or stick with established genres/game types that guarantee (on paper) good $$$ returns.

[674020b807038Kolya]

venturebeat.com - Warren Spector wants to mine new ’emergent gameplay’ from System Shock’s nostalgia
Wired.com - How System Shock Lured Warren Spector Back to Making Games

[674020b8072b1RocketMan]

One thing that worries me is the part where Warren talks about how SS1 was designed for hardcore gamers.  He correctly points out how crazy it was to bind every button on the keyboard (at least as a proactive strategy rather than a limitation) but then goes on to suggest that he doesn't want to cater to the hardcore gaming crowd as much.  I dunno what he thinks "hardcore gaming" means but I can't help but feel the opposite of that is "streamlined gaming", which we all heard Ken talking about when he was making Bioshock.  I hope they don't go from binding every key on the keyboard to some sort of ultra simplistic UI.  One thing I loved about both SS1 and SS2 was that the UI kind of resembled an airplane cockpit HUD or something.  It was busy, but quite functional and gave the player an early form of the shared authorship Warren is so keen on because you could have control over the world in a more personal way than just waiting for the game to decide when it was appropriate to use items in the world and how those items would behave.  Also, you were supposed to be a sort of cyborg yourself (in keeping with the "what is human" theme) so it makes sense that a cyber interface would have some sophistication to it and not treat the user like some baby who can't figure out how to manipulate his environment so those abilities are held hostage by the game devs.

Guess what else... everybody who played SS1 is now an old fart (sorry guys I'm in that group myself).  We grew up with DOS and Windows 3.1.  We're no stranger to having to do shit for ourselves.  There's a new generation out there now that knows nothing about that because they grew up with IPads in their hands.  I realize it would be selfish to just say fuck them they were born too late but you can't do the opposite and make some baby game with happy button controls and say to hell with the old generation.  The old generation is what kept the spirit of the game alive all these years and we are a bit more hardcore than the rest.  The devs should be able to relate because they're even older farts than we are lol.

[674020b807405fox]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the first time I heard the word "streamlining" in conjunction with games, it was from Spector when he talked about Invisible War.

[674020b8074e9RocketMan]

I never played that game.  It looked so much worse than the original from the get go, I never gave it a chance.

[674020b807636fox]

I, like many people, say it was not really a bad game in itself but compared to the first DX it was multiple steps back and it also didn't feel like it belonged in the same franchise. It was decidedly and deliberately simplified in many ways (universal ammo, the inventory-grid gone etc, etc.) because the original was deemed too hardcore. Basically what Bioshock is to SS but far less polished and without any real strenghts that could redeem it.

I was under the impression that Warren Spector and Harvey Smith felt a bit ashamed about being responsible for Invisible War. Reading these interviews leave me worried that history might repeat itself. Bioshock sold well, after all. Fortunately there are other people envolved too.

To me, Invisible War is the prime example of "streamlining" gone wrong.

[674020b807a44JDoran]

Hate me if you think I'm being narrow-minded but System Shock belongs on the PC with any console considerations being an afterthought at best.  I dread the thought of SS being changed in any way shape or form to accommodate consoles.

I prefer console gaming to PC gaming, and joypad control over keyboard and mouse, but yes, I agree with you in this case. A game with as much depth as this should be written for the PC first, and made to take advantage of the PC's hardware and controls. By all means port it to consoles later (lots of console only gamers would love a game this deep), and modify the controls and GUI to suite the host consoles, but first and foremost it should be designed purely for the PC.

[674020b807e2fJDoran]

yeah, this has already been mentioned somewhere - in an ideal world, a game would be built for the strongest platform first, and only then cut down as needed for the lesser ones*. unfortunately, this introduces additional costs and development time**, so things usually go the other way around - the game is built for the weakest platform, and then simply ported to the rest, usually with pretty much no changes or enhancements at all.



*I think Doom3 has been done this way, pc first, and then a simplified console port with smaller levels and whatnot.

**it's also a bit of PR problem, as most console gamers hate the thought of getting a cut down version of the game, so by prioritizing the pc release, you are potentially pissing off a fair number of buyers.

Yes, Doom 3 on the original XBox was the PC game, but with more load points in the levels, and some levels cut-down or truncated.

Deus Ex on the PS2 was better, as even though it too had more load points (to compensate for the PS2's relatively minuscule system RAM) and altered/cut-down levels, they improved some levels, plus added some improvements to the gameplay. Well, some were improvements, some were bad decisions, depending on your point of view - you now didn't need to remember passwords as the game typed them for you automatically, the inventory now didn't limit you by item size, and the automatically unlocked doors to which you had the nano-key. Whatever your feelings, though, it was at least great that you didn't now pick up every combat knife that you came across!

[674020b808131JDoran]

I, like many people, say it was not really a bad game in itself but compared to the first DX it was a major step back and it also didn't feel like it belonged in the same franchise. And it was definitely simplified in many ways (universal ammo, the inventory-grid gone etc, etc.). Basically what Bioshock is to SS but far less polished and without any real strenghts that could redeem it.

That's a good description. Invisible War is not a bad game, but it's not too good, and if you consider it as a Deus Ex game then it's awful. But treat it like a non-Deus Ex game and it's OK but nothing special.

[674020b80825dvoodoo47]

yeah, IW would be, just like Thief2014, better off with all the references to the original games removed - without them, they would be just mediocre games, and they would not receive all the minus points they've got because they spat on pretty much everything that made the originals great.


//hmm, pretty sure I've also seen a video where Spector and/or Smith admitted that they've screwed up magnificently with IW somewhere.

[674020b808440Join2]

Why is Spector seemingly pushing so hard for emergent gameplay in SS3? System Shock is meant to be somewhat restrictive and scripted. Will we be able to talk to the monsters now? He's recently said "every game I've worked on has offered more and more player empowerment and choices with each subsequent installment", which is true to some extent, but I don't see how you're going to top Deus Ex in that regard by using System Shock, nor why you should even try to come remotely close. The original System Shock did away with friendly NPCs, RPG systems, magic and the like, which was central to the player telling his/her own story in Ultima Underworld. Usually I'm one to crave complexity but I don't see where high levels of roleplaying comes into the System Shock experience beyond what the first two games already did. Being stuck on a space station, everyone dead or converted to cyborgs, with a benevolent AI that has all the power is not a concept ripe with player empowerment opportunities.

[674020b8088affox]

Why is Spector seemingly pushing so hard for emergent gameplay in SS3? System Shock is meant to be somewhat restrictive and scripted. Will we be able to talk to the monsters now? He's recently said "every game I've worked on has offered more and more player empowerment and choices with each subsequent installment", which is true to some extent, but I don't see how you're going to top Deus Ex in that regard by using System Shock, nor why you should even try to come remotely close. The original System Shock did away with friendly NPCs, RPG systems, magic and the like, which was central to the player telling his/her own story in Ultima Underworld. Usually I'm one to crave complexity but I don't see where high levels of roleplaying comes into the System Shock experience beyond what the first two games already did. Being stuck on a space station, everyone dead or converted to cyborgs, with a benevolent AI that has all the power is not a concept ripe with player empowerment opportunities.

While it's true that SS was not about finding alternate pathways, being able to talk your way out of situations, choosing factions (etc.), all this doesn't fall under the category 'emergent gameplay' as I think he defines it. It does belong under the umbrella of "player empowerment" but those elements are the intentional parts, specifically implemented to offer another route. The emergent part comes from the simulation-aspects of the game's world (including enemy AI) and refers to possibilities that the designers didn't think of. More of that in SS (or almost any game) would be great, in my opinion. That is exactly the reason why I am so keen on deeper world simulation.

It's not necessarily in rivalry with scripted story-events but it has to be managed cleverly.

[674020b808b9cJoin2]

Sure, more simulated systems would be very welcome, but given the System Shock setting there's not great potential for emergent gameplay & player empowerment, it's more kill or be killed. Using the environment and interaction of game systems in clever ways to accomplish that is about as far as it goes.

The emergent part comes from the simulation-aspects of the game's world (including enemy AI) and refers to possibilities that the designers didn't think of

Yeah, as I said in a previous post: emergent possibilities that also include bugs, game balance destruction and script breaking, some of which can break the illusory/pseudo-simulation rather than enhance it. It's only a good thing if the results are positive and consistent with the intended design/game world. Ideally a game studio's testers will pick up on most emergent possibilities beforehand to filter the good from the bad, so in reality not much emergence trickles through to be discovered by the player, especially with the likes of System Shock. It's impossible to accurately answer, but what exactly in System Shock 1 has been done by the players that was both positive and not intended by the developers? I'm guessing not much. The LAM climbing in Deus Ex that Spector uses as some golden example of emergent gameplay can be used to break the story (bypass plot points), gameplay (bypass challenges) and simulation (jumping on tiny wall mines defies the laws of physics, and a broken story simply is a simulation fallen apart). I see very little positive about this emergence except "options are fun even if they break everything!". I prefer to call it an emergent bug in need of eradication than emergent gameplay and painting it in some positive light. Don't get me wrong I love the player empowerment available in these games, but emergent gameplay is merely a double-edged side effect. The genius of LGS design, to me at least, is not in emergent potential but everything else about the design.
I'll write up some examples of the genius soon, because I'm tired of this unjustified emergent gameplay boner. Deus Ex was not a great game because you could LAM climb, it was a great game in spite of that. Yes, all the many systems allow the player to do cool things, but most of it was intended. If LAM climbing is the best example of emergent gameplay you've got it isn't a very strong case.

[674020b808ca2fox]

You may be surprised - that's the beauty of it!

[674020b808e10Join2]

I've experienced it first-hand. In GMDX I improved object physics by having them move when taking damage (originally objects were static to certain forces in Deus Ex - whacking a medkit with a crowbar yielded no results for example). I also added throw damage to objects, so as another example you could throw your GEP gun at people and it would do a little damage and make the NPC play a pain animation rather than the object simply bouncing off. These two new simulated effects interacted in a cool unintended way when I was testing: I went to throw my crowbar at an NPC, only the NPC was shooting at me and one of the bullets hit the weapon mid-air, knocking it away and saving himself from a flying weapon to the head. It was cool and a fine example of positive emergence. I didn't foresee it happening (even if it was an obvious possibility in hindsight) but such interactions are not the primary reasons I fell in love with LG design in the first place, although they do contribute.