SSR: System Shock Kickstarter

[6742270109a93icemann]

I think one of the strengths of the original, was the class-less design, where you could, more or less, play the way you wanted. It was a RPG in another, more direct way. To me, Shock 2 felt a bit sloppy, with the RPG elements. It felt like a step backwards. Where a lot of the emergent gameplay was based around what you poured your points into.

Well in SS1 your known only as the Hacker. To me that sets your class set in stone. Your a hacker. That was your career / side job. You didn't go to the gym pumping iron or going in military-esque organisations practicing your weapon skills. Hacking to earn cash is the only life you know. That's the life of a hacker (or the cyberpunk version to be more specific). You had the intelligence / knowledge to go in and change the source code of a artificial intelligence. That's a very specific type of person to be able to do that.

To compare - In SS2 your a nameless soldier. Blank slate. So it makes perfect sense that you can then mold that character to whatever was in your liking. In SS1 it's clearly defined who you are, and exactly the life that led you to where you are, so is a completely different situation. So if they in this reboot have for example the ability to beef up your strength stat and be able to carry heavy weapons due to that, I'd be saying that that is not very hacker-esque.

If the RPG leveling up only allows you to choose between hacking / hacker related abilities then no worries that's totally fine by me. Fits the hacker mentality perfectly. You could for example take what was done with Dishonored's leveling system and use something similar, but along hacking lines.

[6742270109e47Aurora]

My reaction was as harsh as it was because I expect every commercial remake to be inferior and take a shit on the original, and I'm not seeing exceptions here. Night Dive studios is asking $900,000 for something that appears to be a cash-grab no different from any other remake or reboot.

All the red flags of a badly 'modernised' remake and cash-grab are there in the demo;

• The title of the original entry in the franchise is recycled, it's called 'System Shock' now - but it's not System Shock.
• Style over substance; it showcased new graphics while there was barely any gameplay to speak of. If that's what they want to show off in a kickstarter demo, then you already know where their focus is and what kind of audience they're going for.
• Sluggish 'realistic' movement with slow animations for doing stuff. This is a bane in modern games.
• Overly dark areas and too much bloom and unnecessarily bright effects that are just an eyesore. Once again a staple of modern games; using bloom only because you can, and it's a cheap way to make graphics look 'updated'.
• Generic, forgettable orchestral score.

Yes it is pre-alpha, but I don't think the developers' priorities will change much from what's seen here. In my view Night Dive's heart is in the wrong place with this project.

[674227010a35eDKDArtagnan]

My reaction was as harsh as it was because I expect every commercial remake to be inferior and take a shit on the original, and I'm not seeing exceptions here. Night Dive studios is asking $900,000 for something that appears to be a cash-grab no different from any other remake or reboot.

All the red flags of a badly 'modernised' remake and cash-grab are there in the demo;

• The title of the original entry in the franchise is recycled, it's called 'System Shock' now - but it's not System Shock.
• Style over substance; it showcased new graphics while there was barely any gameplay to speak of. If that's what they want to show off in a kickstarter demo, then you already know where their focus is and what kind of audience they're going for.
• Sluggish 'realistic' movement with slow animations for doing stuff. This is a bane in modern games.
• Overly dark areas and too much bloom and unnecessarily bright effects that are just an eyesore. Once again a staple of modern games; using bloom only because you can, and it's a cheap way to make graphics look 'updated'.
• Generic, forgettable orchestral score.

Yes it is pre-alpha, but I don't think the developers' priorities will change much from what's seen here. In my view Night Dive's heart is in the wrong place with this project.

I'm curious.

Can you describe what a proper remake would look and play like?

[674227010a53bvoodoo47]

see the most highly rated posts over here.

[674227010aa47Aurora]

To me there is a difference between remastering, rebooting, and modernising a game. Remastering is to take the original and improve its quality while keeping its style and function intact. Rebooting is to take the same basic idea and create a new implementation of it. Modernising is to take the original and implement modern ideas that are contemporary. I don't object to remastering or rebooting a game if the final product looks and plays better to the original. Modernising is a different matter however; 'modern' is just what is modern, contemporary, and commonplace in today's games, and it's not necessarily good. Modern FPS games do not set a good standard and have numerous trends that are simply tedious.

Modernising System Shock is self-contradictory, because System Shock as a game is so different from the average modern FPS. It is such a far stretch that one could consider 'System Shock' and 'modern FPS' as two different genres altogether. It was a game made in a different time and a completely different mindset, and for a different audience. It's arguably 'old' because nothing similar has been released in a decade or two, but this doesn't mean it needs to be modernised. System Shock is its own genre and it has its own philosophy, and I feel that by implementing modern ideas, they're taking away from System Shock and drowning it into a sea of generic modern shooters, where it will not stand out.

By modern ideas, I mean mostly the things I already mentioned. I will list them again:

• Realistic slow movement and clunky animations. Perhaps someone thinks this makes a game feel immersive, but I feel the opposite; it makes it feel contrived, besides of course making the gameplay annoying.
• A minimalist HUD that no longer displays much information aside from health. Again, if this is for 'immersion', I disagree strongly. Even if the original HUD was slightly obtrusive, it made me feel much more immersed as a hacker who sees various information displayed in his/her vision and hits buttons to customise it to his/her liking. Let me see the weapon status, object description, and minimap on the HUD; that's what I got the neural implants for in the first place.
• Overly flashy and often too dark, too high-contrast graphics, with too strong shaders. This is in contrast with the original art style which had softer colours and lighting. While not technically detailed, it was friendlier for the eyes and was more interesting to look at with all the colours and nuanced details in the textures. I wish 'good art style' and 'detail' were not equated with 'excessive shaders' and 'more polygons'. Realistic graphics with 'realistic' shaders just takes away from the original art style and drowns it into a sea of other realism garbage. I believe you can have better graphics even if you tone down the shaders and overbright lighting a bit, and focus more on the colours and details of the environment - even if that means it's going to be 'photo-unrealistic'.
• Orchestral music. Must everything these days feel like a dramatic Hollywood film that tries to be really deep and greater than life? I liked System Shock as the funky, colourful cyberpunk fantasy it originally presented itself as. Why make it into another Alien: Isolation?

In short, a 'good' remake in my book would highlight and build upon what made the original's gameplay and art style interesting, things which by definition make it different from most modern games. The original was far from perfect, owing to the lack of mouselook and having a billion different keys for standing, crouching, etc. and having an obtrusive HUD. However modernising it by adding clunky animations and removing everything from the HUD isn't making it better. What would have made it better is simplifying the movement controls while still letting the player move around and perform actions swiftly, and perhaps shrinking the HUD a little bit so you can still see the information but it won't get in the way. You get the idea.

[674227010b640DKDArtagnan]

To me there is a difference between remastering, rebooting, and modernising a game. Remastering is to take the original and improve its quality while keeping its style and function intact. Rebooting is to take the same basic idea and create a new implementation of it. Modernising is to take the original and implement modern ideas that are contemporary. I don't object to remastering or rebooting a game if the final product looks and plays better to the original. Modernising is a different matter however; 'modern' is just what is modern, contemporary, and commonplace in today's games, and it's not necessarily good. Modern FPS games do not set a good standard and have numerous trends that are simply tedious.

Modernising System Shock is self-contradictory, because System Shock as a game is so different from the average modern FPS. It is such a far stretch that one could consider 'System Shock' and 'modern FPS' as two different genres altogether. It was a game made in a different time and a completely different mindset, and for a different audience. It's arguably 'old' because nothing similar has been released in a decade or two, but this doesn't mean it needs to be modernised. System Shock is its own genre and it has its own philosophy, and I feel that by implementing modern ideas, they're taking away from System Shock and drowning it into a sea of generic modern shooters, where it will not stand out.

By modern ideas, I mean mostly the things I already mentioned. I will list them again:

• Realistic slow movement and clunky animations. Perhaps someone thinks this makes a game feel immersive, but I feel the opposite; it makes it feel contrived, besides of course making the gameplay annoying.
• A minimalist HUD that no longer displays much information aside from health. Again, if this is for 'immersion', I disagree strongly. Even if the original HUD was slightly obtrusive, it made me feel much more immersed as a hacker who sees various information displayed in his/her vision and hits buttons to customise it to his/her liking. Let me see the weapon status, object description, and minimap on the HUD; that's what I got the neural implants for in the first place.
• Overly flashy and often too dark, too high-contrast graphics, with too strong shaders. This is in contrast with the original art style which had softer colours and lighting. While not technically detailed, it was friendlier for the eyes and was more interesting to look at with all the colours and nuanced details in the textures. I wish 'good art style' and 'detail' were not equated with 'excessive shaders' and 'more polygons'. Realistic graphics with 'realistic' shaders just takes away from the original art style and drowns it into a sea of other realism garbage. I believe you can have better graphics even if you tone down the shaders and overbright lighting a bit, and focus more on the colours and details of the environment - even if that means it's going to be 'photo-unrealistic'.
• Orchestral music. Must everything these days feel like a dramatic Hollywood film that tries to be really deep and greater than life? I liked System Shock as the funky, colourful cyberpunk fantasy it originally presented itself as. Why make it into another Alien: Isolation?

In short, a 'good' remake in my book would highlight and build upon what made the original's gameplay and art style interesting, things which by definition make it different from most modern games. The original was far from perfect, owing to the lack of mouselook and having a billion different keys for standing, crouching, etc. and having an obtrusive HUD. However modernising it by adding clunky animations and removing everything from the HUD isn't making it better. What would have made it better is simplifying the movement controls while still letting the player move around and perform actions swiftly, and perhaps shrinking the HUD a little bit so you can still see the information but it won't get in the way. You get the idea.

AFAIK, they're not strictly calling it a "modern" System Shock - but a remake and/or reboot. There's no official or set-in-stone definition of what that means, so I think the first step towards being fair and reasonable is to understand that we're all going to differ when it comes to what this game should be.

Seems to me they're quite open when it comes to the extent of changes - albeit with the intention of preserving everything they think is important about SS.

Anyway, my own take when it comes to modernising System Shock simply means bringing the production values to modern standards - within the boundaries of the team and budget involved. Beyond that, I'd say modern FPS controls are EXTREMELY established across the board, whether we're talking about Bioshock Infinite, Deus Ex: Human Revolution or Call of Duty.

Sure, there's some variety within these control schemes - but they all assume the standard mouselook/WASD control layout - and IIRC they all include very similar ways to crouch, sprint and jump. Using Q/E for leaning is also the most common approach in my experience.

I don't know why you think slow movement and clunky animations are modern features. That would depend on genre and execution. Some modern games like Alien Isolation are slow and have "forced" elaborate animations - and other games like the recent Doom are much faster with the emphasis on speed.

The HUD is very obviously a work-in-progress - and I can't agree that the original low-res HUD helped immersion because of its size - but rather the concept. Quite the contrary. The game was supposed to be set in the future - and I can give you my personal guarentee that if we're ever going to wear that kind of "headset" - the visual aids will NOT take up 50% of the screen and be quite that busy with information overload. That's just a ludicrous picture of a realistic and immersive UI from the future, if you ask me.

As for overly flashy, I don't really agree. The original System Shock was seriously inhibited by technology - and we have no way of knowing what it would look like if it was made by the same team today. To me, it clearly looks vastly superior to the 1994 version at any rate - but I concede some of the smoke effects are a bit too obviously for show. That said, it's still early days.

As for the music, I actually agree with you. Personally, I would prefer a fully ambient soundtrack - and I think the original SS soundtrack is incredibly overrated. It was almost universally terrible in my opinion.

But, with all that said, I still don't think you've answered my question.

You've pointed out things that you think are terrible - but you haven't given me YOUR version of what would work.

I could obviously just assume you want the opposite?

Unrealistic fast movement and slick animations
A HUD that blocks half the screen
Dreary bright visuals

That doesn't seem to be what you really want though.

Could you elaborate about what YOU consider a realistic version of a modern System Shock?

[674227010badficemann]

110% agree with Aurora on this one.

Can you describe what a proper remake would look and play like?

A proper remake retains the overall feel gameplay wise of the original + follows a similar style. It also retains a similar atmosphere. Music should be similar.

Good examples:

* Dune 2000 (remake of Dune 2)
* Metroid Zero Mission (remake of Metroid 1)
* Resident Evil - Gamecube version (remake of the PS1 version of the game)

[674227010be17DKDArtagnan]

110% agree with Aurora on this one.

A proper remake retains the overall feel gameplay wise of the original + follows a similar style. It also retains a similar atmosphere. Music should be similar.

Good examples:

* Dune 2000 (remake of Dune 2)
* Metroid Zero Mission (remake of Metroid 1)

That's not really very precise, though.

Apart from the music, I think this demo is extremely indicative of being exactly like you describe a proper remake should be.

As for Dune 2000 - I found it very underwhelming. That felt more like a remaster than anything else, but these concepts are sort of fluid and interchangeable.

[674227010c025Aurora]

But, with all that said, I still don't think you've answered my question.

You've pointed out things that you think are terrible - but you haven't given me YOUR version of what would work.

I could obviously just assume you want the opposite?

Unrealistic fast movement and slick animations
A HUD that blocks half the screen
Dreary bright visuals

That doesn't seem to be what you really want though.

Could you elaborate about what YOU consider a realistic version of a modern System Shock?

I did say what I thought would be good. I will repeat myself:

Swift and responsive movement. I don't care if it's 'unrealistic', I'm playing a game not a walking simulator. It's the future and my character has cyber implants and stuff anyway, if I have to make a case for 'realism' (I'd rather not, of course).

A HUD that still shows most of the information but doesn't obstruct the whole screen. This is possible with a bit of redesigning and higher resolutions. Why do you think I want the HUD to cover half the screen when I specifically listed this as a flaw myself, anyway?

Not 'dreary bright visuals'. I thought the remake had too much contrast, as in dark areas where you cannot see shit, and then on the other hand really bright details and lights with dreadful bloom effects that blind you, alongside with shiny shaders etc. What I want is not 'dreary and bright' but 'soft and colourful'.

[674227010c5b0DKDArtagnan]

I did say what I thought would be good. I will repeat myself:

Swift and responsive movement. I don't care if it's 'unrealistic', I'm playing a game not a walking simulator. It's the future and my character has cyber implants and stuff anyway, if I have to make a case for 'realism' (I'd rather not, of course).

A HUD that still shows most of the information but doesn't obstruct the whole screen. This is possible with a bit of redesigning and higher resolutions. Why do you think I want the HUD to cover half the screen when I specifically listed this as a flaw myself, anyway?

Not 'dreary bright visuals'. I thought the remake had too much contrast, as in dark areas where you cannot see shit, and then on the other hand really bright details and lights with dreadful bloom effects that blind you. What I want is not 'dreary and bright' but 'soft and colourful'.

Fair enough, it's just that your points amount to what I consider quite modest issues.

As for your HUD comments, you said the original was "slightly obtrusive" (quite the understatement) and you fully supported the amount of information displayed in the original - and that it was more immersive. I'm saying I don't follow - that's all.

Personally, I think not being able to "see shit" in certain areas is vital to what I think System Shock was always trying to do - which is to make the player feel isolated and uneasy. So, to me, that's a significant improvement.

But if these are your core problems with the game, I'm having a hard time correlating them with this:

All the red flags of a badly 'modernised' remake and cash-grab

As in, you seem to be exaggerating quite significantly based on a very early demo that's obviously here as a proof-of-concept and marketing device.

Which is fair enough, and I could be wrong.

Obviously, I think the remake looks good - and the team strikes me as genuinely dedicated to preserving the core of the original game. Definitely not a straight-up cash-grab from where I'm sitting - and considering the kind of budget most modern FPS games are running with, this game looks positively amazing considering the early stage of development.

That said, to each his own, and all that.

[674227010d7a1Learonys]

• Realistic slow movement and clunky animations. Perhaps someone thinks this makes a game feel immersive, but I feel the opposite; it makes it feel contrived, besides of course making the gameplay annoying.

You do know that the demo has a Sprint button, right, just like the original had a sprint function? If i would compare these with each other, yes, the original is faster, but the demo is not nearly as slow as call it out to be, if you just press the sprint button.
Off course, this sprint is still too slow if you have to backtrack through different levels which already have all the enemies wiped out, so you don't need to worry about bumping into enemies, which is what the "Turbo Motion Booster System" (rollerblades) is for, which is not incorporated in the reboot yet.
Therefore, this is an unfair comparison, and people that complain about it most likely haven't found the sprint button yet.

• A minimalist HUD that no longer displays much information aside from health. Again, if this is for 'immersion', I disagree strongly. Even if the original HUD was slightly obtrusive, it made me feel much more immersed as a hacker who sees various information displayed in his/her vision and hits buttons to customise it to his/her liking. Let me see the weapon status, object description, and minimap on the HUD; that's what I got the neural implants for in the first place.

Again, an unfair comparison. This demo has so much missing that we can't even properly judge the HUD yet. The Biological Systems monitor had two or three different versions in the original, each of them expanded on the already existing features. The demo only has one version so far, and it's barely functional. This, and other things is still to be expanded on, just wait this one out.

• Overly flashy and often too dark, too high-contrast graphics, with too strong shaders. This is in contrast with the original art style which had softer colours and lighting. While not technically detailed, it was friendlier for the eyes and was more interesting to look at with all the colours and nuanced details in the textures. I wish 'good art style' and 'detail' were not equated with 'excessive shaders' and 'more polygons'. Realistic graphics with 'realistic' shaders just takes away from the original art style and drowns it into a sea of other realism garbage. I believe you can have better graphics even if you tone down the shaders and overbright lighting a bit, and focus more on the colours and details of the environment - even if that means it's going to be 'photo-unrealistic'.
• Orchestral music. Must everything these days feel like a dramatic Hollywood film that tries to be really deep and greater than life? I liked System Shock as the funky, colourful cyberpunk fantasy it originally presented itself as. Why make it into another Alien: Isolation?

Yup. But let's be honest here, without all the filters, flashy lights and bloom it suddendly would be a lot more apparent how pixelated the station looks. There's a reason why all these filters were put on max * 10 for the very first showcase with screenshots from polygon, to then get toned down to simply max in the pre-alpha demo. The option to disable these effects isn't there yet just because they didn't have the time for it.
The graphics only look good from a distance. Improve the texture size by a lot, make them a bit less glossy and you've got something which doesn't need insane amounts of bloom to look good.

[674227010d8e2DKDArtagnan]

Biggest problem with the visuals seems to be the deliberate omission of standard texture filtering. Strange choice when they're so intent on modernising the visuals.

[674227010db45Myagi]

RPG stretch goal == $0 from me

There are plenty of changes that I wouldn't have any problem with or even would love to see, and I like the overall visuals, but changing the fundamental type of game experience is a no-no. It's already bad enough with introducing items that take more than 1 inventory slot (aka inventory tetris).

Add more implants, more software versions, more puzzles, more quests, a nice little spacewalk, enhance enemies with interesting patrol routes and sensory system ala SS2/Thief, fun physics based interactions, mod support. The are so many things that could be added while not changing the fundamental type of game, but for the love of shodan leave RPG to SS2 (and probably SS3).

It makes more sense for a remake to add things that weren't technically possible over 20 years ago, but that fit the game without changing what the game is (especially when there already was a sequel that scratched that particular itch). Use the funding to put 20 years of Moore's law into interactions that enrichen the experience and world, but don't change the game type. Physics, lighting and AI were extremly limited back then, so go do more fun things with that.

[674227010dee3Marvin]

I don't get the hate for the "RPG" stuff. They're explicitly not calling it "System Shock Remastered" because they don't want to make the same game. So you're either adamantly against any change/see no point in it, in which case - rejoice! - you can simply replay SS1, SS1 Enhanced, wait for Citadel, or wait for a possible source code release (that's what I'm going to do) or you think that RPG elements cannot be properly implemented in a SS1-type game, to which I say "bullshit".

SS1 already made problem solving very equipment-dependent - look at how different the autobomb maze on the bridge plays out if you do or do not have a Mind stim, the Skorpion rifle, and/or a logic probe. Stats and skills would simply add another layer on top which, if carefully balanced and well implemented, would simply make the game more varied and more fun in replays.

[674227010e082Myagi]

This might come as a shock to you, but not everyone likes RPG (or even some that do can still recognize that not every darn game needs to be one). I'm one of them. There are plenty of RPGs, there's even one in the shock universe already, and likely another one coming. SS1 wasn't one and doesn't need to be turned into one either.

[674227010e36fMarvin]

This might come as a shock to you, but not everyone likes RPG (or even some that do can still recognize that not every darn game needs to be one). I'm one of them. There are plenty of RPGs, there's even one in the shock universe already, and likely another one coming. SS1 wasn't one and doesn't need to be turned into one either.

You think System Shock 2 is a RPG? 

[674227010e709ZylonBane]

You think System Shock 2 is a RPG? 

It is.

[674227010ebcdThiefsieFool]

We really need an answer on whether the the new RPG-enhanced game will be its own mode or not.
If not then I subscribe to Myagi/NV's position for keeping the game's style intact.
I get a feeling here that both studios that are participating in the revival of the System Shock IP are itching to make a new System Shock game, I would prefer that we get a faithful update of SS1 out of the way first and then expansions to the System Shock universe, both ventures should be successful and there's no reason to try and cram the two together.
Just a note here that the campaign is at $383,113 after less than a day, it looks pretty likely that the RPG stretch goal will be hit.


I did talk at some point for adding new elements like vending machines, that's purely because SS1 already had unused textures included in the game for an "ammo vendor" and a "health vendor", but I envisioned those more as devices that let you trade ammo for another type of ammo / a drug patch for another type of patch, something that wouldn't encumber the game with a currency or too many other extraneous elements.

[674227010ef42icemann]

You think System Shock 2 is a RPG? 

Hell yeah it is. SS1 wasn't really. You never level up, or upgrade stats of any sort and you don't have any skills that advance over time (beyond the players ability at playing the game). I'd call the first one more of a straight up survival horror with FPS elements.

SS1 - Not a RPG
SS2 - Definitely a RPG

And for the record I would be very happy if the HUD took up half the screen as it did in the original, because that's how it was. And you could switch it off if you wanted (via the fullscreen icon). Add to that, that it ties in with the story (you did get a neural interface placed inside your head, so it's only natural that your vision would be "enhanced" with robot-like visuals).

I love my RPGs (currently playing Witcher 3) but I never for a second want every game I play to be one, and don't think that changing classic games into RPGs that weren't to begin with does them any benefit either.

[674227010f08eZylonBane]

I just hope they don't turn it into "Bioshock in space". Which, from the look and feel of it so far, I can't entirely rule out.

[674227010f345Marvin]

It is.

No, it isn't. SS2 has zero player agency, we talked about this before. If stats and skills made a game into an RPG, there wouldn't be any other genres left. To quote Chris Avellone:

"System Shock 2 was almost a role-playing game. Almost. They had the character stuff down, the skill stuff down, but you never really made a choice, in my opinion. The ending was set; your path was set. If, at one point, there was a moment where you could've made one decision that changed the ending, that would've made it a barebones role-playing game, and a good one."

Or myself:

The story is completely railroaded, there's little use to attributes and skills outside of combat or combat-like situations, there is no interactive world-building, no NPC interactions, no factions to ally with, no choices and consequences, nothing.

[674227010f58bicemann]

At times like this we need the opposite of an acknowledge button. Lack of end choices does not make negate something from being a RPG. By that definition all JRPGs (bar a few here and there) aren't RPGs. That's just silly.

There is far more than goes into whether something is or isn't that just that.

[674227010f94dMarvin]

At times like this we need the opposite of an acknowledge button.

Please define what RPG means to you and then tell me how System Shock 2 and Fallout 1 belong to the very same genre. If you think SS2 is a RPG, you haven't played a lot of them.

Lack of end choices does not make negate something from being a RPG. By that definition all JRPGs (bar a few here and there) aren't RPGs. That's just silly.

Correct. That's why they are called JRPGs and not RPGs.

[674227010fcf1icemann]

Hell yeah it is. SS1 wasn't really. You never level up, or upgrade stats of any sort and you don't have any skills that advance over time (beyond the players ability at playing the game). I'd call the first one more of a straight up survival horror with FPS elements.

To quote myself. For all the things I said SS1 lacked, SS2 has. To be more accurate, SS2 and Fallout have skills and stats that you improve via points of one kind or another.