SSR System Shock Remake Feedback Request - Night Dive Studios

[66ee772d77adbundying]

One of the most memorable experiences of my childhood was playing shock2 in coop with my brother. Despite all the multiplayer glitches - we spam saved and loaded and reloaded and had to replay hours of the game, until we finally made it to the last cut scene. I know, the game is about being alone and isolated somwhere in space on a hostile ship with a fiendish AI as your only ally. But the fact is, the atmosphere is in no way negatively affected, by 'being there' whith a mate. Quite the contrary, it is manifold intensified by being able to share this experience.
Since then, trying to play the game solo never felt the same. I rarely made it past the first deck. On the other hand, playing it with my wife a couple of years ago was just as fun as it was with my brother back then. Even more so, now knowing every corner and any event, being more perceptive to see how the game effects the player. Watching my wife jumping up (in real life) when ambushed by spiders or hiding in some corner (in game) when hearing some hybrids lurking around. And the funny fact, as i learned shortly, is that my brother played SS2 with his girlfriend, long before me

I know there are people who, for whatever reasons, say SS series should be single-player only. But then again, noone forces them to play coop. Its not halo. For me there is only this one way to experience SS. So if you dont skip the coop mode - im in for SS1, SS2 & SS3. And i think there are lots of people thinking the same way.

I dont really care about hardware requirements (my home systems need upgrades anyway) nor about the release or prepurchase prices (i dont buy many video games nowadays). Make some cool supporter packs (maybe including an official shodun shirt and a printed 'Tri-op employee manual') and im willing to pay even more.
Btw, when does the crowd fundung start?

[66ee772d77cf1fox]

Main argument for "singleplayer only" is that all resources should go into its development alone. Developing a proper MP-mode needs a lot of expensive manhours which would not go into SP. Night Dive Studios does not seem like the kind of operation that has money to spare for doing both properly at the same time so SP-only it shall be, I would think.

[66ee772d77e46icemann]

As long as it's 75% of dev time put into singleplayer and 25% into multiplayer then bring it on. I'd love to see some multiplayer in there. Co-Op in particular would be great to see.

[66ee772d77fc8fox]

The only way I can see this work would be an entirely seperate crowdfunding for anything Multiplayer after funding of the SP has been fully secured. But as budgeting for huge projects go, the money will never be enough. It can (or must) always be used for this and that enhancement/refinement/testing/addition and there will always be unexpected problems to overcome etc, etc.. - doubly so if there are two teams. Having them to work together for some bits might create even more problems, depending on hard to control factors.
 
Maybe the best way to do a proper SS-MP would be doing it only after the SP is already 'feature complete' and only if it has received seperate funding (to be crowdfunded only when the SP is secured) . Or even after the SP has been completely finished and released.

[66ee772d78481Marvin]

Main argument for "singleplayer only" is that all resources should go into its development alone. Developing a proper MP-mode needs a lot of expensive manhours which would not go into SP. Night Dive Studios does not seem like the kind of operation that has money to spare for doing both properly at the same time so SP-only it shall be, I would think.

I agree, BUT: The dark engine was never meant to handle any kind of netcode, SS2's multiplayer mode was put together with duct tape in less than three months by one guy iirc. Relying on a tried and true engine with built-in netcode or coop support should make the whole endeavour a lot easier and save ressources resulting in a better multiplayer mode.

[66ee772d7859afox]

I guess the only people who can forsee the necessary amount of work and funding will be the Night Dive devs once the fundament of their game actually stands and they know what they have at their disposal.

[66ee772d78836ThiefsieFool]

The only way to really prevent the MP from being a drag on the main game is to make it some kind of expansion, it wouldn't be that hard since even if a lot of the team takes off to other projects after the game is finished, all you really need for SS2 style coop is to still have the programmers around, none of the assets really change and you just need some more spawn markers in the levels.

[66ee772d78ae2fox]

The only way to really prevent the MP from being a drag on the main game is to make it some kind of expansion, it wouldn't be that hard since even if a lot of the team takes off to other projects after the game is finished, all you really need for SS2 style coop is to still have the programmers around, none of the assets really change and you just need some more spawn markers in the levels.

Probably true if you want to keep it to the bare minimum (which still has to be playtested and all) but I doubt that this would satisfy anyone except the most, uh, 'neglect-proof' MP-fans.

[66ee772d78e1eRocketMan]

It's a risk assessment:

Is the benefit of an improved multiplayer experience worth the risk of making a less perfect single-player game? 

Since these are yet unquantifiable entities, it's hard to know for sure but I'd say SS3 has its work cut out for it, considering how discerning THIS crowd is and considering how high the bar was set by SS1 and 2.  The team has been out of the loop for decades and now has the task of putting together the best game in the series yet.  I wouldn't belabor them with the additional burden of MP until after they've succeeded at that task.  I certainly have far more confidence in a more polished MP, EVEN IF they leave it till the end.  How could it be any worse than SS2?

[66ee772d7923dNameless Voice]

Building in multiplayer after the fact really isn't an efficient way to work, though.

If you want a game to support multiplayer, it has to be coded with multiplayer in mind from the beginning, otherwise it's just going to be far more work redesigning everything to work with netcode.

If there's something that will majorly affect your software architecture, you want to have it planned in from the start and everything designed around it, so that you'll make the appropriate decisions when they occur, rather than having to go back and change things afterwards.


The situation might be slightly different when using a preexisting engine like Unity or UE4, though, which should already have the foundations of multiplayer in their architecture.

[66ee772d7933fRocketMan]

You're absolutely right.  I just don't know how much attention it would detract and what grief (if any) that would cause the dev team.  It'd really suck if they got hung up on MP and weren't getting SP work done.

[66ee772d79433fox]

Yes, you are right but starting development of SP and MP at the same time should be completely off the table for the above reasons. Well, unless they pull off a crowdfunding of Star Citizen-proportions but how likely is that?

[66ee772d7964cJoin2]

It should be as in the original game: no multiplayer, period. The multiplayer feature in SS2 was quite clearly a business decision and as Levine himself said, its existence hurt the singleplayer. It hurt the true vision. Never once did I think that System Shock, Underworld, Arx, Deus Ex or any of them could benefit from multiplayer in a meaningful way aside from sales figures. Sure it'd add something, other modes are always cool, but to what cost? these are singleplayer experiences at their core. Highly complex ones that demand absolute developer focus, otherwise we end up with less than perfection, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YLMk1E41kE

[66ee772d79a98ZylonBane]

Since then, trying to play the game solo never felt the same. I rarely made it past the first deck. On the other hand, playing it with my wife a couple of years ago was just as fun as it was with my brother back then.

What this all means is that you're not actually a System Shock fan. What you are is a fan of social, cooperative gaming, who just happens to have settled on SS2 as the conduit for that predilection.

[66ee772d79d5dRocketMan]

It should be as in the original game: no multiplayer, period.

After they finish making the game, why would you care if they wanted to add multiplayer to it?

[66ee772d7a211Join2]

After they finish making the game, why would you care if they wanted to add multiplayer to it?

See the work of Shock 2 modders for the past 17 years. You can always keep expanding upon and refining your vision. But if there must be multiplayer, post-release is fine. I'd prefer instead they just release an SDK, then those that desire it can add multiplayer themselves, while other modders that believe in the core experience can continue where the devs left off.

Either way, any work/resources put into multi is work not done on singleplayer that potentially could have. Multiplayer is always a distraction from singleplayer if sp is the core experience, and vice-versa. I honestly do have conflicting feelings though because many great games offer both modes that I enjoyed, but you know full well these are singleplayer experiences and that's where their heart should be. Wouldn't you have wanted a better System shock 2 singleplayer in exchange for its multiplayer feature?

And if we're just making a multiplayer purely for the sales figures and survival/growth of NightDive/OtherSide I'd prefer that portion of the budget be given back to the publisher to put into marketing instead, because marketing is everything between success and failure. Recent years have shown us/me people will swallow figurative dogshit if it is marketed as the next best thing, has a social buzz around it or just looks pretty.

"figurative dogshit"

To clarify, I was referring to a lot of home entertainment these days, the content of the products/art and the value they hold, but there's a notable degree of subjectivity there even though many, many objective arguments can be made, so here's an old classic, an infallible objective example of eating shit up if presented shiny: https://imgur.com/gallery/Q3Adj3d

Funnily and ironically enough, that final segment ("LITERALLY JUST A PILE OF GARBAGE! MAYBE THERE WILL BE A GAME INSIDE!") is not far from what Kickstarter is. Give businesses your money and hope they won't produce shit! And its not like actual investment either, you don't have any stakes in the company even if you laid down big bucks, just the hope that the game isn't a letdown. If it is, the company is not legally obligated to hand out refunds.

"HONEY, WHERE'S MY CREDIT CARD!?"

[66ee772d7a3c9Nameless Voice]

I do find it a little sad that so few games do proper cooperative PvE multiplayer, but that said I'd rather see SS3 have a great singleplayer than waste effort on a multiplayer that could dilute the singleplayer experience.

Like I said before, if they want to do multiplayer properly, it would have to be planned from the ground up, rather than trying to glue it on afterwards - but that would mean less time to make the singleplayer experience as good as it can be.
Plus, I've never actually seen a heavily story-driven, atmosphere-based game work in multiplayer.  The people jumping up and down and hitting everything with a wrench during the cutscenes just take away from the atmosphere, and there's always a feeling that you need to rush and don't have time to stop and carefully examine things when someone else is waiting for you.

(Edit: I split the ensuing conversation about co-op PvE games into a new thread.)

[66ee772d7a546voodoo47]

I think what (pretty much) everybody is trying to say is that any extras (MP, oculus rift, whatever) are fine, as long as they have no negative impact on quality of the single player game.

[66ee772d7a8b4Kolya]

What this all means is that you're not actually a System Shock fan. What you are is a fan of social, cooperative gaming, who just happens to have settled on SS2 as the conduit for that predilection.

SS2 does have a multiplayer mode, so being a fan of social cooperative gaming and being a System Shock fan are obviously not mutually exclusive.
You're just voicing your dislike for multiplayer mode and stating it as a fact. And even though I know all the reasons for this dislike and partially share them, you're way overshooting, by trying to dictate how SS2 should be enjoyed and who can call themselves a fan.
It's one thing to inform people that SS2 was designed as a single player game, as we do in the MP guide. That still leaves the choice to them. But if someone still wants to play MP that should be fine. It is definitely no reason to exclude them.

[66ee772d7aa14Hikari]

Can anyone think of ground we haven't covered in case NightDive decides to buzz by again or has been lurking?

[66ee772d7ab03fox]

In terms of funding: don't count too much on crowdfunding. It seems to me as if some serious fatigue has set in already. Too many broken promises, etc, etc..

[66ee772d7abf2Kolya]

If you find a crowdfunding platform that accepts Paypal you might still be able to tap into the European crowd. Since most of us don't have credit cards we've been largely cut off from Kickstarter projects.

[66ee772d7ae70Hikari]

Perfect Dark also has the fantastic counter-op mode, where player one plays the game as normal, and player two tries to stop player one, but playing an in-game enemy (and player two can choose to change which enemy (s)he controls, in case (s)he is too far from player one). Perfect Dark does so many great things that even today you rarely, if ever, see in other games.

See if System Shock were to have a multiplayer element I would want it to have that. Player One is Hacker. Player's two through whatever get to control an enemy out of whatever's on the level.

Depending on how enemy v enemy damage is handled that could also serve as a form of co-op if your friends decide to be helpful and start attacking other enemies.


* * *

Crowdfunding. Wait what? Nobody takes paypal? Any ideas on why?

[66ee772d7b1b1fox]

Crowdfunding. Wait what? Nobody takes paypal? Any ideas on why?

Because PayPal takes too many liberties with the money. They sometimes freeze transactions or entire accounts for making themselves some more profit "security checks". Might also have to do with the uncertain legal situation regarding liabilities of crowdfunding which lead PayPal to put guidelines in place that don't work for most crowdfunding-platforms.

https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/lifecycle/crowdfunding/