SSR System Shock Remake Feedback Request - Night Dive Studios

[67403d8662e5aMarvin]

Manual saving would be my preference as well - However, I have seen some good arguments for checkpoint saves merely as a tool to build tension and fear. What did you think about Alien: Isolation? Do you think it would have been as good if you could save at any moment? Maybe manual saving is a feature available in the first two difficulty levels but not the hardest level? Thoughts?

That's easy: If you're 12 years old and/or retarded, you might enjoy ruining your experience by save-scumming and probably need a checkpoint-only system to hold your hand. Everyone else can both use checkpoints AND decide when to save on her own. It's not a compulsory thing, no one forces you to use manual saves every two seconds. More choices = better game.

[67403d8663063Kolya]

I'm not sure. If the possibility is there to save and I have a difficult object at hand I might end up saving ... carefully. I think that checkpoints have their advantages. Actually I think in a game where you can save yourself in the chambers (which are a kind of internal checkpoint system) it would be best not to have any external save function at all.

[67403d8663340Join2]

Marvin: Don't criticize what you don't understand/have not given enough unbiased analytical time to. Checkpoint systems can have many, many benefits and next to no downsides, depending on the game type they are being applied to and methods used. It's not merely a case of save scumming or not save scumming. It goes far deeper than that.

I was curious what NightDive did with their Turok port in this regard, and looking up on it I am pleased to see they left the save stations + lives hybrid system intact and did not offer unlimited unrestricted manual saving. I may have to grab the game as the updates to controls and such look tempting.

 

More choices = better game

Nope, context applies. Games are defined by these things called rules, which intentionally restrict choices. For example you cannot reload when you are out of ammo, you have no choice but to use something else.
And forgive the patronizing, it isn't intended to be malicious.

[67403d866373fHikari]

I like the idea of augmented reality as a cyberspace overlay as it would give function to a lot of otherwise 'filler' locations in the station. After all the station is not just a physical location, but a nexus in which shodan has wormed everywhere.

Exploit the fact this is not just shodan's lair but also her body. I mean sure make some token efforts to make it feel like it is an outgrowth of normal employee networking, but this would be SHODAN unrestrained and given all the resources Citadel has or could easily get hold of inside of a few months.

To whoever came up with that concept. Kudos. After all we currently have thing like Ingress and other augmented reality things that have stuff dependant on location. Maybe have that tie into the node system so that the reason for a lockout is it detects an unauthorized employee trying to enter a given location (I suspect Diego downgraded the hacker's employee access clearance once the job was done) and with the local computer nodes destroyed and cameras broken the system is scrambled so enters failsafe mode, which assumes something bad has happened so encourages freeflow of traffic (like, say... to escape pods or at least another floor.)

Maybe a few lines to poke at the fact the hacker thought he left himself a back door in the system and SHODAN snuffed it out, or that the back door is the only reason she hasn't snuffed him out instantly ('I don't trust diego so I've strengthened my employee credentials and left a little automated daemon to call Triop to start digging. I'll either be dead or wish I had been if it calls out.') That would explain Rebecca and internal affairs knowing all about everything if diego wiped the local logs.

The only other plot hole I can think of off the top of my head is 'how beta grove got to tau ceti.' Given this is your chance at remaking history... I dunno.

Any story weirdness you guys want them to poke at?

Edit: What about customization? I'm a fan of how shock2 does things, but there are a couple shock2 mods that take the customizeability further. Are we just going to be restricted to implants or will the guns themselves be moddable?

...A level 2 modded laser rapier...

What? A guy can dream. 

[67403d86638e1Myagi]

Checkpoint(-only) hater here. It's a lame crutch. If a game is good it doesn't need to rely on that for tension, and SS1 certainly belonged to that category of games.

If it absolutely has to be added, I'd vote for it being optional. Considering SS1's elaborate game options screen it wouldn't be a stretch to add an option for allowing save anywhere or not.

[67403d8663ce1Marvin]

Marvin: Don't criticize what you don't understand/have not given enough unbiased analytical time to. Checkpoint systems can have many, many benefits and next to no downsides, depending on the game type they are being applied to and methods used. It's not merely a case of save scumming or not save scumming. It goes far deeper than that.

Then stick to checkpoints if you like it that way and are unabe to leave your fingers off the F5 key. Don't hold other people hostage to your tastes. Also, yeah, keep the patronizing to yourself next time. But seeing how I basically called you a retard before, I guess we're even.

[67403d86641e3icemann]

Excuse the replies to older posts, but I'm new to the thread. Only discovered it today.

"Level Editor & Mods: Mod support is another thing we'd love to include and would make a great stretch goal if we can determine the amount of work it will take to provide adequate tools to the community."

Well you could do what LGS did, and just release the level editing tools that you yourself (or Otherside) create in-order to build their own levels. Worked perfectly fine, despite the high learning curve. I don't see why that should need to be a stretch goal, when you'd not be hard coding levels into your games code.

You are full of wrong. I've heard truly terrible voice acting in video games, and SS1 doesn't even come close to the bottom of the barrel. The actors, for the most part, sound like exactly what they're supposed to be-- someone recording a message into a microphone.

I'd consider re-recording SS1's logs to be a waste of money. If they go the Kickstarter route, it should be a stretch goal at best.

I completely second this post. My god, if you consider SS1's voice acting to be bad then you've not played/or heard much of 90s gaming. ESPECIALLY on the console end of the scale.

Simon Belmont - "Die monster. You don't belong in this world"
Dracula - "What is a man? A miserable pile of secrets"
Dracula - "But enough talk. Have at you".

Listen to the Sega Saturn and Playstation 1 versions of the above scene. Then talk to me about SS1's voice acting :p. Never thought I'd be making a Castlevania reference in a SS1 thread .

I really liked the voice acting in SS1 personally. Whoever voiced Abe Ghiran was my personal favorite. But more than anything else, many of the voice actors sounded like everyday people, and that was the point. Everyday people thrown in to a hell hole situation.

[67403d866469dJoin2]

Then stick to checkpoints if you like it that way and are unabe to leave your fingers off the F5 key.

Checkpoint(-only) hater here. It's a lame crutch

Come back when you can into game design.

[67403d8665915voodoo47]

Manual saving would be my preference as well - However, I have seen some good arguments for checkpoint saves merely as a tool to build tension and fear. What did you think about Alien: Isolation? Do you think it would have been as good if you could save at any moment? Maybe manual saving is a feature available in the first two difficulty levels but not the hardest level? Thoughts?

hmmm. if someone's thing is to reload a save every three seconds, I say why not let them? also, while not being able to save can put a bit of desirable pressure on the player, this carries the risk of him losing a fair chunk of progress if things go wrong, and that is always extremely annoying (and remember, unless you are completely changing the levels, there will be a fair bit of platforming - combine that with falling damage and no saves and you'll have people flipping tables in seconds). I think this should only be considered for a potential iron man mode/difficulty. or you could do what Soldier of Fortune 1 did - basically a set of pre-defined difficulties, which could be edited and modified by the player (so for example, the hard difficulty had tough enemies, less ammo, limited carrying capacity and no saves by default, but you could go into details, and change the number of saves to infinite, essentially playing on hard but without limited saving).

anyway, I guess I could imagine a mechanic that would allow the player to harvest  some sort of "save charge" in the cyberspace, that would, once available in a proper amount, allow him to make a manual save in the real world, a cyber copy/backup of sorts, basically "a save that would not break immersion". I'm not sure whether I would actually like to see this in a SS1 remake though - remember, I'm a bit on the conservative side.

We're working very hard on the UI, in all honesty it's probably going to be the most challenging part of development - rest assured we're avoiding anything that even remotely resembles Fallout 4's "UI" - yikes.

agreed, it will be tough to modernize it while not making it feel out of place. anyway, I think it's safe to say you guys are on a good path.

[67403d8665c96Marvin]

Come back when you can into game design.

Come back when you can differentiate facts from opinion, your own included.

[67403d8665fedOlfred]

Quicksaves are like chocolate on a diet.
Even if you intend to be rigid, at one point or another you can't resist the temptation anymore.

Sure, there are people with an iron strong will, but it's simply safer if there is no chocolate in the first place.

(chocolate might be exchanged with any other tempting deliciousness that doesn't do well for a diet, if you just aren't the chocolate type)

[67403d8666127voodoo47]

it's pretty much impossible to stop someone determined to cheat - he'll find a way. also, watching SS2 lets plays on youtube, save abuse is very rare, so I tend to believe a regular player would not do this. and again, even if so, why not let them? if someone wants to spoil his own game, ok, his choice.

also, lets try to keep personal differences out of this topic.

[67403d866643fMarvin]

Sure, there are people with an iron strong will, but it's simply safer if there is no chocolate in the first place.

Now do the safety vs. freedom debate.

[67403d8666801Join2]

Quicksaves are like chocolate on a diet.
Even if you intend to be rigid, at one point or another you can't resist the temptation anymore.

Sure, there are people with an iron strong will, but it's simply safer if there is no chocolate in the first place.

(chocolate might be exchanged with any other tempting deliciousness that doesn't do well for a diet, if you just aren't the chocolate type)

Checkpoints are the diet. A carefully planned set of rules for best optimal food consumption, designed by an expert. It's tough, but the results are numerous and worth it, especially in a survival horror.

And yeah, It's like System Shock giving you infinite ammo for the pistol. "Oh but you don't have to use it all the time". So what is the optimal frequency that one should use it for best results? That is for the game designer to decide through ammo placement, then finalized through rigorous testing. A player on their first few playthroughs doesn't get that foresight. 

"it's pretty much impossible to stop someone determined to cheat"

It's not about cheating, its about designing a optimal survival horror experience and challenge, which is impossible through unlimited manual saving for the above reasons: the design, the "ammo placement" is simply not there. And if it is there with both checkpoints and manual saves on offer then you can't expect the player to abide by the checkpoints when they should ideally be shit scared about what's around each corner. They are going to save to save their bacon.

[67403d86669d2ZylonBane]

If a game can be broken with save-scumming, the problem is the game. Limited saves in a Shock game shouldn't even be considered except as some optional challenge mode.

[67403d8666e6cKolya]

I guess I could imagine a mechanic that would allow the player to harvest  some sort of "save charge" in the cyberspace, that would, once available in a proper amount, allow him to make a manual save in the real world, a cyber copy/backup of sorts, basically "a save that would not break immersion".

Oooh, I like that idea! 

[67403d8666f7cvoodoo47]

I'm thinking it could do good in that optional "enhanced gameplay mode" I've already mentioned.

[67403d8667306Join2]

If a game can be broken with save-scumming, the problem is the game.

All games with unlimited saving is broken to some degree in terms of challenge. Designing game systems and encounters to compensate for a lack of rules in this regard is patching over the problem and potentially making other things worse in the process rather than addressing it at its core.

Additionally, in a simulated survival horror especially you should fear for your life, the only way to truly do that is through limited saves (or even zero, but that can be too punishing)  as there is guaranteed, designed consequences for death. Survival horror scenario aside, failure should always be guaranteed to result in consequences in a game. Winning and losing (and rules that define it all) is at the heart of the concept.

except as some optional challenge mode

It would definitely be for best this way. The masses fail to grasp the basics of what a game actually is by definition and forcing these all-important rules on them would result in mass outcry.
Of course it's all only important if your "game" values a fair, rule-defined challenge, otherwise sure, put the rules in the hands of the players who know nothing about the game they are to experience by giving them unlimited saving.

[67403d8667573Hikari]

I'm in the 'save wherever you want' camp. Both current shock games are like that, why mess with tradition?

That said, I wouldn't mind, even if it's like the easy settings, there are a set of checkpoints you get to that act as 'oh crap I'm glad that's there because I haven't saved any in this deck' or 'I saved right as the thing was killing me.'

I like the idea of whenever you reset a conversion booth or die it automatically makes a quicksave in a separate set of files from the manual saves.

Honestly why are we having this argument? What's got everyone in such a snit fit? All of you know that if they went to checkpont saving not only would the press but you yourselves would skewer them for making it 'not true to the original.'

[67403d86698c2Join2]

I'm in the 'save wherever you want' camp. Both current shock games are like that, why mess with tradition?

Because this is a remake, and the intention is seemingly to take that magnificent art and make it "better", which should always be the approach.
Also, unlimited saving is messing with game tradition itself. About the only place I accept it is in massive open world games like Elder Scrolls because it's extremely difficult to handle from a design POV, and even then I think special cases should have limitations, such as dungeons and combat.

Honestly why are we having this argument? What's got everyone in such a snit fit? All of you know that if they went to checkpont saving not only would the press but you yourselves would skewer them for making it 'not true to the original.'

Speak for yourself. If executed well I would be singing their praises.

Anyway, I'm going idle until the discussion moves on because the thread could easily become too narrowly focused when there should be varied discussion which could be beneficial for the game. The fact that NightDive are considering an optional mode along these lines and embraced it in one of their ports is all I needed to hear.

[67403d8669dbeZylonBane]

The masses fail to grasp the basics of what a game actually is by definition and forcing these all-important rules on them would result in mass outcry.

Just so you know, I'm rolling my eyes at you as hard as I can.

[67403d8669f0bJoin2]

That's nice to know, ZylonBane.

Moving along...

[67403d866a074Hikari]

I'm with Join Uss on moving on so this doesn't basically consume the thread. Will make a separate thread so we can argue on save styles.

Any other huge things that we need to get out in the open?

[67403d866b713icemann]

Throwing another voice behind the saving anywhere camp.

It was in System Shock 1 & 2 and I've never heard a single person complain about it being in those games ever. Not read a single post. So why remove it? Increases tension? That's artificial.

Dead Space 3 got rid of manual saves and went completely check point. Is it better than the second game? Nope. Made it no better. Let people play the game the way they want. That's the Triop way.

If you don't like manual saves, then don't save and just rely on the autosaves. That's the beauty of choice. Especially in hub-type level games manual saves just go hand in hand with it as it lets you approach the game the way you choose to, go where you want to go (where you have access to) etc, do goals in whatever order, explore to your hearts content, all without the fear of losing all that progress due to an untimely death / power black out / having to get off your PC for whatever reason.

On a side note - On the otherside forums there's not been much arguing on this issue. Majority of people have been in the pro-manual saves camp.