SSR The System Shock demo is OUT!

[6747b15c59e1dKolya]

As much as I enjoyed the demo - I could almost immediately feel that it was "too" close to the original, and that it held almost no surprises. Once I got past the fancy new look - I must be honest and say I just wasn't that excited about replaying the game, yet again, albeit with a fresh coat of paint.

I crave evolution - and exploration is only fun if you don't know what's coming. Well, that's how I feel about it.

Maybe you're actually hoping for SS3 then?

[6747b15c5a1f0DKDArtagnan]

Maybe you're actually hoping for SS3 then?

Oh, I'm looking forward to SS3 too. But I'm not very impressed by the work OtherSide have been doing with Underworld Ascendant.

No, SS1 was always my favorite Shock - and if there's a foundation I have faith in, it would be Citadel station.

With all that said, I would actually prefer a much more ambitious game than either SS remake or SS3 (I expect it to be on par with UA). I've always felt System Shock could be evolved much, much more than what they're talking about here.

Bioshock was a joke in terms of the Shock formula - and, to me, a clear devolution.

OtherSide don't seem like they have the same hunger and drive as some of the members once did.

Nightdive strike me as a bunch of geeky young'uns running on youthful passion more than design experience or insight. But I have to say I like what I've seen so far - and let's just say I think the gaming industry has belonged in the toilet for the past 10-15 years, so my expectations for a remake would never be high.

That's probably why I'm so happy with this Kickstarter - because the game looks genuinely good. I never expected genuinely good.

[6747b15c5a4a8fox]

I agree with most of you what you said, DKDArtagnan. Thing is that most of what we've seen of the SS1-remake so far was pretty faithful to the original. It's the changes that were suggested only recently that set off some alarms. But yeah, I said it a long time before: I don't really need a remake of SS1 and would be much happier with an original game set in the same universe. In that, I'd be happy to see them expand on the rpg-mechanics and all that. But calling it "System Shock", recreating the assets, using the same story but significantly altering it's formula not only feels a bit dishonest but also, at the same time, half-assed and over-ambitious to me. I'm not ruling out that it might work out in the end but as you've said:

Nightdive strike me as a bunch of geeky young'uns running on youthful passion more than design experience or insight.

The fact that no strong vision seems to exist (yet) does not inspire trust in me. I mean if you insist on altering the (obviously loved by many) original then you better have a damned good plan for it. Purist or not, you have to respect the original, meaning that it's not an appropriate playground for new design ideas, imo. There is some headroom for improvements and maybe the odd, carefully planned addition here and there but "it's a reboot, let's go crazy and see where the wind takes us" would be the very wrong attitude. Again, if you want that, create a new game.

[6747b15c5aa5eDKDArtagnan]

I agree with most of you what you said, DKDArtagnan. Thing is that most of what we've seen of the SS1-remake so far was pretty faithful to the original. It's the changes that were suggested only recently that set off some alarms. But yeah, I said it a long time before: I don't really need a remake of SS1 and would be much happier with an original game set in the same universe. In that, I'd be happy to see them expand on the rpg-mechanics and all that. But calling it "System Shock", recreating the assets, using the same story but significantly altering it's formula not only feels a bit dishonest but also, at the same time, half-assed and over-ambitious to me. I'm not ruling out that it might work out in the end but as you've said:
The fact that no strong vision seems to exist (yet) does not inspire trust in me. I mean if you insist on altering the (obviously loved by many) original then you better have a damned good plan for it. Purist or not, you have to respect the original, meaning that it's not an appropriate playground for new design ideas, imo.

I guess where I differ from some around here, is that I actually think Nightdive have the right to do with it as they please. They bought all the rights - and went through quite the process to achieve that.

It's not my System Shock - or OUR System Shock. It's THEIR System Shock.

Yes, I bought it back in 1994 - and I loved it. But that doesn't make it mine. I did no work and I didn't fund its development in any way. LG/ORIGIN/EA (?) did those things - and they opted not to keep the rights.

I'm the kind of guy who's almost obsessively aware of boundaries. I know what I'm entitled to and I know what I'm not entitled to - almost without thinking about it. Not sure why, but it's a very integral part of my personality. I think it's because I don't like other people telling me what to do - so I have to be able to explain to them exactly why they don't have that privilege

So, while I think it would be great if Nightdive did everything we all wanted them to do - which is, in itself, impossible - I don't think we have any kind of right to tell them they should.

That doesn't mean we can't make suggestions or that we can't bitch and moan. I just think there's a point where it becomes pretty unreasonable.

To me, they seem quite respectful - and I think the vision is quite clear. Obviously, they think that adding significantly to the mechanics will take extra development time - and, as such, I think adding that as stretch goals is reasonable.

That said, they might also just be trying to squeeze out an extra buck - but I guess I don't fret about such things.

Considering how the demo looks - which I would say is surprisingly close to a big-budget game like Bioshock - I think the budget is tiny. I can't fault them for being uncertain about what they can or can't get in there in time.

[6747b15c5abaafox]

Legal rights aside, I do believe they have a moral obligation to the original of the same name and its many fans. The original is part of my own biography so I do feel a bit emotionally connected to its fate. Out of that, I feel it's legitimate to voice my discomfort. I'm not demanding anything. (Also, I have not abandoned all hope for Night Dive yet.)

[6747b15c5aedfDKDArtagnan]

Legal rights aside, I do believe they have a moral obligation to the original of the same name and its many fans.

Moral obligation? To me, that's a concept originating from religion that no one can agree on, which makes it all but useless.

Pretty strong claim, especially for a computer game that has no effect on the original regardless, but ok.

Even if that was the case - there's no way they could ever please the fans. Some of the fans, sure, but definitely not all of the fans. Obviously not obsessive fans - like many around here.

From here, the only obligation they could possibly have is to stay true to their word - and do their best to keep whatever promises they're going to make. So far, that does not mean having all fans agree they're doing a great job.

I feel it's legitimate to voice my discomfort. I'm not demanding anything. (Also, I have not abandoned all hope for Night Dive yet.)

Just to re-iterate, I already agreed with this.

You definitely have every right to voice your opinion and concern.

[6747b15c5b448Schuler]

I guess where I differ from some around here, is that I actually think Nightdive have the right to do with it as they please. They bought all the rights - and went through quite the process to achieve that.

It's not my System Shock - or OUR System Shock. It's THEIR System Shock.

Yes, I bought it back in 1994 - and I loved it. But that doesn't make it mine. I did no work and I didn't fund its development in any way. LG/ORIGIN/EA (?) did those things - and they opted not to keep the rights.

I'm the kind of guy who's almost obsessively aware of boundaries. I know what I'm entitled to and I know what I'm not entitled to - almost without thinking about it. Not sure why, but it's a very integral part of my personality. I think it's because I don't like other people telling me what to do - so I have to be able to explain to them exactly why they don't have that privilege

So, while I think it would be great if Nightdive did everything we all wanted them to do - which is, in itself, impossible - I don't think we have any kind of right to tell them they should.

No, we don't.

Know what we do have, as consumers? We have a right to choose whether or not to buy a game, based on information gathered from reviews, trailers, and yes, demos. It's Night Dive's choice what to develop, and they chose to make a System Shock remake. And they did this partly because it had an established fanbase that was predisposed to buy the game and generate interest - otherwise, why keep the name? So now they're making a game and banking on us thinking "It's like System Shock, and I like System Shock so I'll buy it."

Therefore, it is completely reasonable to think deviating too much from what made the original a cult classic to begin with is a bad idea.

[6747b15c5b935DKDArtagnan]

No, we don't.

Know what we do have, as consumers? We have a right to choose whether or not to buy a game, based on information gathered from reviews, trailers, and yes, demos. It's Night Dive's choice what to develop, and they chose to make a System Shock remake. And they did this partly because it had an established fanbase that was predisposed to buy the game and generate interest - otherwise, why keep the name? So now they're making a game and banking on us thinking "It's like System Shock, and I like System Shock so I'll buy it."

Therefore, it is completely reasonable to think deviating too much from what made the original a cult classic to begin with is a bad idea.

Can you point out where they've given you any kind of guarentee that their new version of System Shock will live up to your concept of such a game?

They've made it EXTREMELY clear that they're going to do their best to keep to the spirit of the game - and to stay true to what THEY think people loved about System Shock.

Their best != something you will enjoy or agree with in any way. Those are two COMPLETELY different things.

That's what I mean when I say they have an obligation to do their best towards THAT goal.

Not YOUR version of that goal. Once you start thinking YOUR version should be THEIR version - you start being unreasonable.

There's no official definition of what made System Shock great, you see.

Ask a dozen fans - and you'll get a dozen different answers.

However, I'm willing to bet that if there's one thing all those dozen answers all agree upon and include - it will be in this new System Shock.

[6747b15c5bafaZanderat]

Actually, I quite liked it for what it was.  It is pre-alpha, after all.  Sure there is stuff that needs improving.   But based upon the demo, I feel NDS is going to do right by SS.

[6747b15c5c140icemann]

It's not my System Shock - or OUR System Shock. It's THEIR System Shock.

Yes and no. Nightdive had zero part in the making of either System Shock 1 or 2, but they own the IP. I'll bet if you asked this one to many people, you would get many answers. Note that I am not saying that your wrong, but I'm not saying that your right either. It's a Grey area.

To me System Shock 1 is Origin and Looking Glass Studios in as far as they made it. One may pay for, and therefore own a brand, but they did not make the products made prior to the purchase. Yes they own the name, but they didn't make it. Secondly going and just having the name "System Shock" rather than with a few words at the end is just dishonorable imo, when it's more a reboot. Though at the same time the levels are 1 to 1 recreations almost.

Why do you think everyone went crazy over the new Ghost Busters movie since it just used the name "Ghost Busters"? Though that movie is more a name-make (use of a brand name to sell a unrelated product).

If they want to go full reboot with System Shock 1 then why not completely redesign the levels? And if they wanted to go full gameplay change mode, then why not have it be a separate game entirely? Everyone would have been happy then. As Nightdive has no experience in making System Shock games to this point, the likelihood of them not truly understanding what it is that makes SS games so good, is very likely as they had no part in the original design process.

For good examples elsewhere, take a look at Fallout 4 compared to Fallout: New Vegas. One made by people who made prior games in the franchise (New Vegas by Obsidian, made up of former Black Isle employees who had made Fallout's 1 & 2) and Bethesda. It's another reason I am FAR MORE looking forward to System Shock 3 considering that Otherside is made up of many former Looking Glass Studios employees.

[6747b15c5c7cfDKDArtagnan]

Yes and no. Nightdive had zero part in the making of either System Shock 1 or 2, but they own the IP. I'll bet if you asked this one to many people, you would get many answers. Note that I am not saying that your wrong, but I'm not saying that your right either. It's a Grey area.

To me System Shock 1 is Origin and Looking Glass Studios in as far as they made it. One may pay for, and therefore own a brand, but they did not make the products made prior to the purchase. Yes they own the name, but they didn't make it. Secondly going and just having the name "System Shock" rather than with a few words at the end is just dishonorable imo, when it's more a reboot. Though at the same time the levels are 1 to 1 recreations almost.

If they want to go full reboot why not completely redesign the levels? And if they wanted to go full gameplay change mode, then why not have it be a separate game entirely? Everyone would have been happy then. As Nightdive has no experience in making System Shock games to this point, the likelihood of them not truly understanding what it is that makes SS games so good is very likely.

For good examples elsewhere, take a look at Fallout 4 compared to Fallout: New Vegas. One made by people who made prior games in the franchise (New Vegas by Obsidian, made up of former Black Isle employees) and Bethesda. Another reason I am FAR MORE looking forward to System Shock considering that Otherside is made up of many former Looking Glass Studios employees.

New Vegas? An overrated game by overrated developers. Now, I do like some parts of Obsidian games - but overall I think they're very underwhelming.

The mechanics were better in NV than in FO3 - but I have mods for that.

But the world and story were both dreary and boring - and the exploration was infinitely better in FO3.

I think Fallout 4 is vastly superior to New Vegas, also.

Anyway...

I don't know what you mean by "full reboot" - but that's your words, not theirs.

Again, they've clearly stated - more than once - that it's a remake but it's not going to be a 1:1 remake, and so you could arguably call it a reboot - albeit a faithful one - according to THEM.

It doesn't really matter who made what or owned it before - that's in the past.

If they say they're going to be faithful to the best of their ability, I have no reason to doubt that. But if they wanted to make something completely different - using the name - that would be their right. I would only have a problem with it if they tried to deceive me.

As far as I can see - they're being 100% honest in terms of what they're trying to do - and the early demo only supports that, from where I'm sitting.

However, if YOU think they're being dishonest or deceitful - you obviously shouldn't support them. I simply can't see how.

[6747b15c5cdb0Zanderat]

Yes and no. Nightdive had zero part in the making of either System Shock 1 or 2, but they own the IP. I'll bet if you asked this one to many people, you would get many answers. Note that I am not saying that your wrong, but I'm not saying that your right either. It's a Grey area.

To me System Shock 1 is Origin and Looking Glass Studios in as far as they made it. One may pay for, and therefore own a brand, but they did not make the products made prior to the purchase. Yes they own the name, but they didn't make it. Secondly going and just having the name "System Shock" rather than with a few words at the end is just dishonorable imo, when it's more a reboot. Though at the same time the levels are 1 to 1 recreations almost.

Why do you think everyone went crazy over the new Ghost Busters movie since it just used the name "Ghost Busters"? Though that movie is more a name-make (use of a brand name to sell a unrelated product).

If they want to go full reboot with System Shock 1 then why not completely redesign the levels? And if they wanted to go full gameplay change mode, then why not have it be a separate game entirely? Everyone would have been happy then. As Nightdive has no experience in making System Shock games to this point, the likelihood of them not truly understanding what it is that makes SS games so good, is very likely.

For good examples elsewhere, take a look at Fallout 4 compared to Fallout: New Vegas. One made by people who made prior games in the franchise (New Vegas by Obsidian, made up of former Black Isle employees who had made Fallout's 1 & 2) and Bethesda. It's another reason I am FAR MORE looking forward to System Shock 3 considering that Otherside is made up of many former Looking Glass Studios employees.

Ok.  You do know that Chris Avellone joined the Night Dive team and that they are consulting with Otherside (Warren S. and Paul N., specifically). 

http://www.pcgamesn.com/system-shock-kickstarter
http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/28/12054010/system-shock-kickstarter-chris-avellone

[6747b15c5d4e9icemann]

However, if YOU think they're being dishonest or deceitful - you obviously shouldn't support them. I simply can't see how.

Whilst that is how I feel, at the same time I want to support the overall System Shock games as a whole. I want to see more System Shock games. Nightdive is not Bethesda. Beth can make a lesser game and still make zillions from it and so therefore make more games. If this did not do so well, then that could be it (besides System Shock 3). I want more SS games.

Doesn't mean I can't voice about what I don't like :p.

Ok.  You do know that Chris Avellone joined the Night Dive team and that they are consulting with Otherside (Warren S. and Paul N., specifically). 

Yes. I do read the other threads here :p. That was mentioned a few days ago, which I commented on at the time.

[6747b15c5d85bZanderat]

Whilst that is how I feel, at the same time I want to support the overall System Shock games as a whole. I want to see more System Shock games. Nightdive is not Bethesda. Beth can make a lesser game and still make zillions from it and so therefore make more games. If this did not do so well, then that could be it (besides System Shock 3). I want more SS games.

Doesn't mean I can't voice about what I don't like :p.

Yes. I do read the other threads here :p. That was mentioned a few days ago, which I commented on at the time.

So, I  am not sure that I understand your point about Obsidian making FNV?  Is NDS supposed to be Bethesda and Otherside Obsidian?  I am not sure that is valid.

[6747b15c5db9bDKDArtagnan]

Whilst that is how I feel, at the same time I want to support the overall System Shock games as a whole. I want to see more System Shock games. Nightdive is not Bethesda. Beth can make a lesser game and still make zillions from it and so therefore make more games. If this did not do so well, then that could be it (besides System Shock 3). I want more SS games.

Doesn't mean I can't voice about what I don't like :p.

Yes. I do read the other threads here :p. That was mentioned a few days ago, which I commented on at the time.

Could you point out the dishonest and deceitful part of their campaign and the demo?

[6747b15c5de4aicemann]

So, I  am not sure that I understand your point about Obsidian making FNV?  Is NDS supposed to be Bethesda and Otherside Obsidian?  I am not sure that is valid.

Obsidian - Otherside
Bethesda - Night Dive

[6747b15c5df49fox]

Let's judge them by their actions and statements. Remember Invisible War! (I wanna spray paint that all over their front door.)

[6747b15c5e16aZanderat]

Obsidian - Otherside
Bethesda - Night Dive

Ya.  Given the current structure, not so much.

[6747b15c5e5faJoin2]

New Vegas? An overrated game by overrated developers. Now, I do like some parts of Obsidian games - but overall I think they're very underwhelming.

But the world and story were both dreary and boring - and the exploration was infinitely better in FO3.

I think Fallout 4 is vastly superior to New Vegas, also.

 

[6747b15c5eb95icemann]

New Vegas? An overrated game by overrated developers. Now, I do like some parts of Obsidian games - but overall I think they're very underwhelming.

The mechanics were better in NV than in FO3 - but I have mods for that.

But the world and story were both dreary and boring - and the exploration was infinitely better in FO3.

I think Fallout 4 is vastly superior to New Vegas, also.

You've likely not played Fallout's 1 & 2, which is the core of my similarity example. 90% of what you do in Fallout 4 is exploring and doing up your settlements. 10% questing (and no I don't count the annoying settlement defense quests within that 10%).

New Vegas (Obsidian) - Very much in the style of 1 & 2. Just from a first person view point. Otherwise very much the same in every other sense. Play it how you want, diversify your character all you want. Want to play as an evil character? Go for it.
Fallout 4 (Bethesda) - Turned into a FPS (and Minecraft with the settlements) well and truly. Quest hubs gone almost entirely (save for a scattered few), role playing removed, skill system removed, karma system removed, shades of grey elements present in Fallouts 1-NV gone. Your a good guy in it and have no choice about it. Don't like it? Tough.

Why am I using this example against the SS Reboot? The changes in game mechanics and style of game just as what occurred between New Vegas and Fallout 4.

Otherside - Has staff that helped make System Shock 1 & 2. Knows what makes it tick, helped design it, built it. Understands it.
Night Dive - Prior to this reboot, has not made a System Shock game before (not counting the enhanced edition).

Either way, as I've said, I still plan on playing it. So who knows I could be wrong, but that is my current feeling of it. I hope they prove me wrong. I hope this turns out to be an awesome game. Truly do.

[6747b15c5ed16ZylonBane]

Just substitute in any random Donkey Kong D'Artagnan posts.

[6747b15c5f440DKDArtagnan]

You've likely not played Fallout's 1 & 2, which is the core of my similarity example. 90% of what you do in Fallout 4 is exploring and doing up your settlements. 10% questing (and no I don't count the annoying settlement defense quests within that 10%).

I've played all Fallout games - including Tactics and BoS.

No, I hardly spent any time in Fallout 4 doing settlement stuff, as I found it pointless and boring. I spent 95% of my time doing a combination of exploration, fighting and questing - and I loved every minute of it.

New Vegas (Obsidian) - Very much in the style of 1 & 2. Just from a first person view point. Otherwise very much the same in every other sense. Play it how you want, diversify your character all you want. Want to play as an evil character? Go for it.
Fallout 4 (Bethesda) - Turned into a FPS (and Minecraft with the settlements) well and truly. Quest hubs gone almost entirely (save for a scattered few), role playing removed, skill system removed, karma system removed, shades of grey elements present in Fallouts 1-NV gone. Your a good guy in it and have no choice about it. Don't like it? Tough.

Ehm, no. First of all, the combat system is completely different, mechanics are completely different and the world building was completely different.

Even on Hardcore + Hardest - the game was a pushover for 80% of the game. Mechanics, while slightly improved from FO3 - remained poor and the world building was a bad joke. Exploration was boring - and everything looked brown. The cowboy western style aggravating and dreary.

Like all Obsidian games - with the possible exception of Dungeon Siege 3 (a franchise they also ruined), it was clunky, buggy and extremely lacking in terms of polish.

As for your exaggeration of what FO4 was about - that tells me you were biased against it all the way back to the Fallout 3 announcement by Bethesda.

I can't take that too seriously, sorry.

Why am I using this example against the SS Reboot? The changes in game mechanics and style of game just as what occurred between New Vegas and Fallout 4.

That's pretty extreme - even for a grumpy purist. It's reaching for a pattern where there is none.

We know next to nothing about the final game at this point. Let's not pretend otherwise to force something we want to be true - to be true.

Otherside - Has staff that helped make System Shock 1 & 2. Knows what makes it tick, helped design it, built it. Understands it.
Night Dive - Prior to this reboot, has not made a System Shock game before (not counting the enhanced edition).

That's right, we don't know anything about Nightdive's ability to create a game - except what we see from the demo - and the fact that they're obviously huge fans of System Shock - just like you are.

Not sure why you think you're more qualified than Nightdive to talk about what's right for the game. AFAIK, they're way ahead of you in terms of creating something System Shock related.

Either way, as I've said, I still plan on playing it. So who knows I could be wrong, but that is my current feeling of it. I hope they prove me wrong. I hope this turns out to be an awesome game. Truly do.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, but I certainly hope you get some enjoyment out of it - even if you're hellbent on seeing monsters where they don't exist.

[6747b15c5f858Zanderat]

Otherside - Has staff that helped make System Shock 1 & 2. Knows what makes it tick, helped design it, built it. Understands it.
Night Dive - Prior to this reboot, has not made a System Shock game before (not counting the enhanced edition).

Except that NDS has hired Chris Avellone to assist and Warren S.  and Paul N. are actively consulting on it.  (But I do agree about FNV vs. FO4.  FO4 was a major letdown. If I wanted to play Minecraft or Sims I would just play those.  I don't need them polluting the FO series.)

[6747b15c6007dicemann]

As for your exaggeration of what FO4 was about - that tells me you were biased against it all the way back to the Fallout 3 announcement by Bethesda.

I can't take that too seriously, sorry.

That's pretty extreme - even for a grumpy purist. It's reaching for a pattern where there is none.

We know next to nothing about the final game at this point. Let's not pretend otherwise to force something we want to be true - to be true.

That's right, we don't know anything about Nightdive's ability to create a game - except what we see from the demo - and the fact that they're obviously huge fans of System Shock - just like you are.

Not sure why you think you're more qualified than Nightdive to talk about what's right for the game. AFAIK, they're way ahead of you in terms of creating something System Shock related.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, but I certainly hope you get some enjoyment out of it - even if you're hellbent on seeing monsters where they don't exist.

For the record I was absolutely OVER THE MOON when I watched Bethesda's E3 video last year for Fallout 4. The game looked fantastic (and that bit stayed true, so props to Beth on that aspect) and I was even excited about the settlement stuff. And was very excited about their DLC plans. I was somewhat worried about the removal of the skill system and the switch to a 100% perk screen, but was hopeful that it would be used to good effect in the game as a whole as it was done in games prior.

I went into the game excited. So I'm sorry but your completely wrong on that. Prior to playing the game, I eagerly followed RPS articles on the game where they tried to play the game a certain way. Great reads those.

What I got, had some excellent bits:
* The intro is quite good, despite the lack of Ron Perlman in there.
* The settlement stuff is fun to an extent.
* The S.P.E.C.I.A.L 1950s style TV commercials that occasionally come up when you enter the game are fantastic. I ABSOLUTELY love those.
* The weapon and armor mod systems are excellent. Shame you can't get much in the way of additional mods via select sources (eg having some only available via a quest or choice in how to deal with a situation).
* The Silver Shroud optional quest line is fantastic. The singular case in the game where get to friggin roleplay. Grrrr. Great while it lasts.

And some bad:
* The stuff already mentioned
* The DLC other than Far Harbor has been abysmal when compared to that of both Fallout's 3 and New Vegas. Each of the those 2 games had DLC that added huge new areas to play in, continuations of the main story (Fallout 3). Beth at E3 promised extensive DLC. What we got is small addon style stuff.
* Power Armor you now get to use with no training at all. Fair enough if you play as the male character he was in the military so that makes sense, but not if you play as a female. Settlement people can also happily jump into them as they please. No training at all.
* Perks have next to no effect on dialog, except only in rare occasions. Another case of removal of RPG related things.

I don't for a second consider myself more qualified than Night Dive. Where did I ever say that I was? Wrong again. All I am doing is expressing an opinion as everyone is welcome to do, including yourself. If that makes me a "grumpy purist" then so be it. Could care less on labels.