degraded part of the remake discussion

[674f551a1133bOlfred]

I'm always astonished how people can be so agitated about game mechanics which are designed in a specific way purely for gameplay reasons. Fussing about how unrealistic it is and so on.
But on the other hand don't mind all the other unrealistic stuff.

[674f551a1153dvoodoo47]

it's called selective perception. again, a very human thing to do.

[674f551a116d7fox]

Some people tend to analyse things on a macro level, some prefer to look at things more on a micro level. Both are necessary for any kind of development and problem solving.

If someone get can't enjoy an otherwise great movie anymore because there's been a tiny inconsistency in some scene (I know someone like that) than that's micro level thinking taken to an obsessive level. Just like the angry but intelligent idealist who wouldn't understand that his grand vision is not realistic is usually displaying macro level thinking to the extreme.

[674f551a11a68ThiefsieFool]

Well that's simple, would the game be better if it was slightly more or slightly less realistic while holding on to its themes? Usually it's the former, but this only applies to games that have a veneer of realism to begin with (shock1/2 aren't supposed to be computer simulations or fantasy worlds or dreams as far as I know)
I don't like the 'it's all unrealistic' argument very much since it can be used like this http://wccftech.com/bethesdas-pete-hines-infuriates-fallout-4-fans-not-interested-in-discussing-how-realistic-things-are/

[674f551a11d8efox]

Usually it's the former, but this only applies to games that have a veneer of realism to begin with (shock1/2 aren't supposed to be computer simulations or fantasy worlds or dreams as far as I know)

Not so sure about that. I think they did consciously aim for simulated worlds with U7, UU, SS1 and DX  especially when Spector had a say in things. But of course without losing the game in the process. It's got to strike a balance and if realism stands in the way of fun, it's got to take the backseat. That's a quite subjective call to make though. The existance of little details like a camera light is not standing in the way of fun and should be included if possible. If anything they lend depht to the game.

[674f551a12124Join2]

Not so sure about that. I think they did consciously aim for simulated worlds with U7, UU, SS1 and DX  especially when Spector had a say in things. But of course without losing the game in the process. It's got to strike a balance and if realism stands in the way of fun, it's got to take the backseat. That's a quite subjective call to make though. The existance of little details like a camera light is not standing in the way of fun and should be included if possible. If anything they lend depht to the game.

Nailed it.

Edit: although I'm not sure if Spector was any more or less an advocate for simulation that the others. Spector was the producer - he didn't even work in the same building as LGS on the likes on Underworld anyhow.

[674f551a12503icemann]

For me it all depends on what the player/protagonist could do in the original version.

I'm all for suspension of disbelief, but if it goes against that of the original in this regard then I'm not a huge fan.

As I've said, the hacker of SS1 (original) was heavily based off the common way hackers were portrayed in 80s fictions style cyberpunk. So stuff like Shadowrun, Neuromancer etc, in which those who pursued that "profession" did that at the expense of other more athletic pursuits. Often this setting dealt with "Mega corps" controlling basically everything, government being non-existant, and that hackers often were called on for jobs for data theft/retrieval, backed up by buffed up mercs.

Contrast that to today and besides the Shadowrun Returns games as well as Satelite Reign, you don't really see that style/setting anymore. Hence why I'm betting there's the change in the players abilities.

And before someone says Deus Ex, that's quite different to 80s style.

To put it into SS2 terms, or in classes - your hacker was your weakest class in terms of melee combat but excelled in anything technical and may have alright - average shooting skills.

Either way, it's 2016 not 1994. So meh, just consider me an old man who looks at cyberpunk, when something is called that, to be in that sort of way, as that is how it was portrayed in both books and video games early on. And as SS1 had it in that way, that's the way I want it kept.

If you were to ask me if SS2 is cyberpunk or not, I would say sort of. The whole mega corp stuff was down played a fair bit as Triop was a shadow of their former selves, and you now had military organizations (which I assume were government controlled) having a larger presence. SS2 to me is more of the Deus Ex style, when compared to the first game (which was straight out total cyberpunk in feel and setting). Hacking was much reduced as well. Yes you still do it often, but you don't go off into "cyberspace" anywhere NEAR the extent that you did in the first game. Much more of a mini-game in the second game.

With all of that said though, I would like to see more gameplay videos. And PLEASE let it be something other than the medical level. For one thing, I'd like to see how cyberspace is handled in this one. If it's changed to SS2 style I'll be screaming bloody murder :p.

[674f551a12608Join2]

SS1 was definitely retro cyberpunk, and SS2 and DX was a more modern/realistic take on Cyberpunk. It looks like the remake is blending the two styles, especially if cyberspace hacking is to remain.

[674f551a12738icemann]

Definitely. At this stage it's wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too early to be making final judgements. So take my comments with a grain of salt (no pun intended).

[674f551a12bcdZylonBane]

For one thing, I'd like to see how cyberspace is handled in this one.

I think doing a straight port of SS1's cyberspace would be a mistake. I never liked how here I am playing an FPS, then "Surprise! Now you're playing clunky half-assed Descent!" This transition will be even worse today. In the original SS1 there was less of a leap between the two modes because they both required lots of keys to control, but now FPS controls have been massively simplified, while Descent-style controls are still pretty complicated.

Simplifying it to a more linear Panzer Dragoon-esque kind of affair might be an improvement. It's not like there are any branching paths in SS1 cyberspace anyway.

[674f551a130a2Nameless Voice]

Not so sure about that. I think they did consciously aim for simulated worlds with U7, UU, SS1 and DX

You misunderstood TF's post here.
He wasn't saying that System Shock wasn't designed as a simulated world.  He was saying that System Shock isn't supposed to take place inside a simulated world in-story.  That is, Citadel is supposed to be a real location in that world, not a computer simulation of one that the hacker is playing.

What TF is saying is that System Shock (and most media) is set in a universe which is Like Reality Unless Noted.  They have their unreal elements (science fiction technology, or fantasy magic, or whatever), but the basic rules of the universe are supposed to be the same apart from those noted exceptions.

Outside of those exceptions, in most cases creators should strive to keep the rest of their setting as close to reality as possible, though there can be exceptions if that realism comes at a cost to something that is more important (e.g. gameplay.)

In brief: if you can make things more realistic for little cost, then that's usually what you should do.

In the case of the cameras, the question becomes if they want the cameras to be easily visible, and if that is of enough importance to "overrule" the importance of realism.


Since that Fallout 4 "ghoul in a fridge" quest was mentioned:
Things also need to be evaluated and weighed against each other.  In a game set in a volcano, is having that setting be fun more important than having the toxic fumes realistically kill the player in moments?  Almost certainly.  Is having a quirky side-quest with a boy in a fridge worth completely breaking players' suspension of disbelief because it's so far from reality?  I'd say no.

Also, when breaking those rules of realism, the setting always needs to be internally consistent, no matter what.  If a ghoul-boy can survive in a fridge with no food or air for 200 years, then why are there ghoul farmers? Why can ghouls drown? etc.

(Sorry, I've wandered more into the theoretical here.)

[674f551a134cefox]

You misunderstood TF's post here.
He wasn't saying that System Shock wasn't designed as a simulated world.  He was saying that System Shock isn't supposed to take place inside a simulated world in-story.  That is, Citadel is supposed to be a real location in that world, not a computer simulation of one that the hacker is playing.

Oh, I think you're right...