You can read and reply to posts and download all mods without registering.
We're an independent and non-profit fan-site. Find out more about us here.
SS2 is essentially Star Trek if all the humans were shitty and everything went horribly wrong. It seems to be implying that Star Treks version of the future is impossible because humans will be humans.
SS2 takes elements from pretty much everything that existed at that point. it's the most original unoriginal game I know - remember, zombies, monkeys and ninjas, on a spaceship.
SS2's future is a straight outgrowth of SS1's cyberpunk setting.
sarge945I think two seemingly opposite things can be true regarding the System Shock Remake. I look forward to playing it (when I have time), I did end up enjoying the backer beta, also I am not a fan about a lot of their choices and their direction. I think their choices in a lot of ways come down to taste, and in my opinion a lack of it. As many have stated, the core game is still great, but the shiny new exterior doesn't cut it. System Shock has always for me been about immersion through a realistic (as possible) depiction of the game world. This remake in many ways takes a different approach, it presents itself like a game that knows it is a game.. so to speak. I really do not like that direction and style.
The reason why I think it is a shame that they didn't listen to some of the people here, is that the community have shown great taste, attention to detail and understanding in how to fix, balance and mod things. I think SHTUP, SCP for Shock 2 shows that. It has been done with a measured and thoughtful approach, that I feel this remake lacks in some areas.
They didn't completely do a Red Dragon (compared to Mann's Manhunter), but they didn't do a The Thing either.
Edit:On another note, if they had to go make an interactive intro, and I know this would be a hell of a lot more expensive, wouldn't it have been interesting to make the whole intro interactive. From landing on Citadel Station, seeing the people alive going about their business, kind of like a mix between the Skyrim intro and the Deux Ex Human Revolution intro? Being taken from the flight deck to Diego's office and then down to medical? A massive undertaking, but that could have given an emotional punch to what happens later. As it stands now, I do not get a glimpse into the hacker's "life" or anything else (as some have said). Oh well.. just a thought.
Xkilljoy98Interesting how they went for a filmic color curve for the final post proccesed look. It makes the colors more muted. Sure that's how light behaves at brighter spots but it drains the life and feeling out of the scene. The backer beta seems bestversion of the new area but oldest version has its light sources sourcing light better.Hard to pick a favorite as the lighting bugs me in all of them. I think a lot is missed by adding the slight raise to the ceiling. It feels less like a forgotten corner of the station. The cubby shelves are definitely better in the later ones though.
Not only is it not really a straight outgrowth of SS1's setting, it's not even cyberpunk.Other than the Neural Interface (which seems to largely exist for gameplay reasons), none of the elements of cyberpunk are present. There's no semblance of "low life, high tech" which exemplifies the cyberpunk genre. There's no highly-technical concepts juxtaposed against a dystopian setting.The little we see of earth it seems mostly fine, a bit dull but not dystopian.The closest SS2 comes to exploring dystopian idea is the mission briefing text, which is vague and short lived and all explored within the first 30 minutes or so of gameplay. Then the game becomes a space sci-fi for the next 10-15 hours and life on earth is never really mentioned again outside of something that needs saving.If anything, society has improved since SS1 since there seems to be a functioning government with proper rule of law as opposed to corporate owned and controlled stations that essentially enforce their own will with rampant, potentially earth-destroying AI onboard.The crux of the reason why I don't consider SS2 cyberpunk at all is because the entire plot of the story is essentially based around circumstance. This isn't like SS1 where someone's greed threatened the earth directly because they wanted to delete some incriminating files. Instead, we have people investigating a distress signal, and essentially being mind controlled into making the rest of the plot happen. It could be argued that greed was a factor - it made WBD and Korenchkin skip their biohazard checks after all - but I doubt it would have made a lot of difference to the overall plot, since the influence of the many is extremely strong and seems to influence people almost immediately, even if they are not exposed to any toxins or annelids directly. This isn't a story about corporations having too much power (to the point of having their own armies and trying to dictate policy by force, like SS1) and the citizenry being essentially terrorised by them, which is the essence of what Cyberpunk is largely about.SS2 is, for the most part, a standard sci-fi horror story, not cyberpunk.Does it follow on from SS1? Vaguely. It was made to largely fit the setting. But there are plenty of elements missing or changed to the point where it could fit into a separate world, too. TriOptimum could be replaced by any generic greedy corporation with no bearing on SS1. The UNN can be replaced with any earth government. Nothing in the plot really ties into SS1 directly other than SHODAN (and plenty of people would argue that SHODAN is lazily hacked into the plot in a nonsensical way, since the grove wouldn't be able to travel that far in that amount of time anyway). If WBD was a generic "grizzled veteran" with a hatred of corporations, and TriOp wasn't in the game at all and was instead some other greedy corpo, it would change practically nothing about the plot or world.With how contrived some parts of SS2's plot are (humanity just happens to go to the same part of the universe where the grove crashed, Polito just happens to be careless and allow the AI from the data wafer into the computer system, Shodan just happens to pick some random soldier to give implants to, etc) it's very clear that the Annelid story and the earth/UNN lore was written first, and then System Shock elements were grafted onto it to make it fit the setting.What exactly do you mean?From a purely "realistic" standpoint, the remake has far more industrial looking, highly detailed level areas, less ridiculous looking (although still ridiculous) enemies, more realistic lighting, and it could even be argued that even it's more annoying features (like the endless animations) are essentially realistic because yeah, in real life I would have to actually apply a patch to myself rather than have it magically work.I guess the big issue here is that a focus on realism clashes with the bombastic, over-the-top concepts and plot of the original game. You have what are essentially immortality machines, half-human robot cyborgs, ridiculous energy weapons, jetpack boots, a main character that is essentially a walking tank, and nonsensical maze-like level layouts, all juxtaposed against a semi-realistic looking setting. I can see how that might end up seeming very jarring and making the unrealistic elements look more videogamey. To me, that seems like the issue here, rather than strictly the art direction of the remake.I don't think arguing for "realism" is a good position to take, as a result. Instead I usually see realism used as a crutch to lazily justify why the game is good or bad, without providing actual argumentation. Generally the Remake's graphics and presentation are fine (except maybe for the pixelation on everything, which you definitely get used to as you play it more). I'm sure even the game's detractors can agree that the game overall looks decent for the most part, even if it's not to their particular taste. The issues lie with the gameplay changes, the bugs, and the weird decisions made elsewhere (like the first-person intro and whatever botched abortion passes for the final boss fight). Some parts of it (like the controller support) are flat out broken. THAT is what people should be complaining about or using to justify not liking the game. The realism argument never made sense to me - the main character just got resurrected from death and rebuilt from scratch and people are complaining that it's unrealistic that you can see your hand regenerate?True, I also with they had listened more. Although I have a few issues with SCP as well, I definitely can't fault it or any of it's creators for the astronomical amount of work and care that's been put into it.I haven't seen either of these, so can't comment.Honestly, no matter how well they did it, the interactive intro would have been a mistake regardless.They are constrained by the original game in this case. By definition, there's nothing you can do in the intro that will affect anything else in the game, because that would fundamentally change the gameplay. The only options they have to work with are the happy path where the hacker does everything they are supposed to, or an early exit where they don't and therefore get killed or otherwise end the game early. This can't possibly be satisfying, as any choices you're given will essentially be meaningless and the interactivity will be wasted. The best we could get is a largely linear path with a few failure options, and maybe a few gimmicks like characters who spout a few lines when frobbed (which would feel VERY videogamey). If you want to know how annoying a big long intro like this is (especially if it's unskippable), play Deus Ex Human Revolution. The first 20-30 minutes are essentially a long slog through unskippable barely-interactive gameplay that's so dull (especially on a second playthrough) that I see a lot of people not even bothering to replay the game because of how tedious it is.Meanwhile, making a first-person intro comes at a cost. They either have to have a silent protagonist, or not. They can't cut the intro in a way as to imply the character talking without showing it (which is what they did in the original and it worked great). Making the protagonist silent makes the scene really awkward and strange to watch (as it is now), and having the protagonist talk directly would likely alienate a lot of people and make them feel less connected to the hacker.I can't see any real benefit to having an interactive intro, and I can see a lot of drawbacks. It's a fundamentally bad idea.
I think an interactive start of the game absolutely could be done right. If you look at the start of Prey for example, that gives a great sense of the world and characters. It would need to be MUCH longer and bigger. 10-30 mins worth at the very least. Have them go out in the world briefly to test their skills in an environment.
I understand your pov and I agree with a few things, but disagree with others, I mean it is scifi horror, but it has some cyberpunk themes, in ways the original did and in the UNN, though most of the UNN stuff is in the short story
It is true that it start out as not a SS game, I think it works as a SS game, but I can understand not liking how things are tied in and feeling like things are more circumstantial, which may be true, but regardless I still think the game is good, even if not perfect. It isn't the same as SS1 and one could argue SS1 had more of it but I guess it depends on how you view it
Also I wouldn't call SS1's enemies, weapons, art, etc "ridiculous", just stylized.
The realism argument never made sense to me - the main character just got resurrected from death and rebuilt from scratch and people are complaining that it's unrealistic that you can see your hand regenerate?
The problem isn't realism, it's that the idea behind the cyborg conversion chambers was totally changed. Now they're Quantum Bio-Reconstruction machines I guess, where before they were autodoc restoration chambers that SHODAN repurposed to create cyborgs from corpses that her minions brought over. Having them clone/reconstruct you is SS2 lore retrofitted for the remake.
realism no, but it (kinda) has to make sense within the constraints of the (said) universe.
Loading...