EA developing System Shock 3

"chainbreaker" <noone.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>Xocyll wrote:
>> "chainbreaker" <noone.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> looked up from reading the entrails
>> of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>> Xocyll wrote:
>>>>> I'd buy a remake of the original System Shock done with modern
>>>>> graphics/interface.
>>>>
>>>> Hell yeah.
>>>>
>>>> Actually there are quite a few games i'd buy again with updated
>>>> graphics.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure how I feel about it being done by EA though - not exactly a
>>>> good track record there.
>>>>
>>>> Xocyll
>>>
>>> I can't really think of that many, and most of the ones I can think
>>> of are flight/driving sims. One game in the CRPG mold I would like
>>> to see done in modern fashion, though, is Sentinel Worlds/Future
>>> Magic, if you remember it--always loved that game, but maybe the
>>> concept wouldn't work redone, dunno.
>>
>> Don't recall that one.
>>
>
>It's sort of reminiscent of Starflight/StarCon2 in a way, except that it has
>a much more developed planetside story. Which sort of begs the question,
>what happened to all those great sci-fi/space opera RPGs? Back in the day
>there were quite a number of very good ones.

I'm guessing it's due in part to the simplification of computers.

When you actually needed to know about computers to use one, the space
opera/sc-fi games appealed to a good chunk of computer users.
Now with windows and the "I don't want to know anything about computers"
types, the portion of computer users that want games like that (while
probably the same number) are a tiny portion of the whole and are deemed
not worth developing for.

Maybe one of those eastern european developers will make one - just hope
they get a native english speaker to help with the dialogs.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

I agree with what Werner is stating here. There were no real RPG elements to
SS1, implants were not based on EXP points (aka nanites). I don't even think
Specter was involved w/SS2 was he? SS1 had better game/level design than SS2
(maybe because it was the first thinking man's FPS). SS2, while good, never
grabbed me the way the original SS1 did.

On another note, has anyone ever completed SS1 on the highest difficulty
setting? On the highest difficulty you only had a limited number of hours to
finish the game (which I've never come across in any other game).

--
Doug
"Werner Spahl" <spahl.DeleteThis@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0608161628030.18512@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Xocyll wrote:
>
>
> That might have worked once well in SS1, as stated here, but if intended
> failed miserably IMHO in SS2 because they repeated that trick too often.
> Also there were some NPCs seen from far, near the end if I remember right.
> Imagine the terror of witnessing them being slaughtered in front of your
> eyes instead of finding just another set of corpses with log files nearby!
> Even if that was done intentional, in my eyes that dimishes the value of
> SS2 much. Sometimes I think that a lot of SS1 fans can't accept the faults
> of SS2 and only praise it so much because they know SS1. I don't ...
>
> --
> Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
> "The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

I'll bet more people would pick SS1 as a masterpiece than would EVER pick
Bloodlines...

--
Doug
"Werner Spahl" <spahl.RemoveThis@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0608170357450.13773@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Hank the Rapper wrote:
>
>> So everybody is wrong and you are right? Or could it be that they
>> accepted
>> the faults of SS2, but those fault didn't ruin the game for them. Like
>> you
>> don't accept the faults of Bloodlines and claim it as the best game ever.
>
> There is still the difference for me that this faults were just bugs while
> most of you agree that the faults of SS2 were design decisions. So how can
> this still be a "masterpiece" then? Well, everyone has different taste !
>
> --
> Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
> "The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

You're trying to judge System Shock 1 by today's standards? Are you that
stupid? Do you realize the game only required something like 4 to 8
MEGABYTES of RAM to run? I'd like to see you do anything even one-quarter as
good w/the hardware limitations that faced the designers of SS1. They had to
code DIRECTLY to the VGA hardware. Have you ever coded anything that wrote
directly to VGA hardware? Ever heard the term blitting? Ever done it in x86
assembly?

--
Doug
"Werner Spahl" <spahl.TakeThisOut@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0608170400400.13773@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Xocyll wrote:
>
>
> I believed that the first time and it was great. But they just overused
> it. Reading this thread it seems to me they tried to reproduce a great
> situation in SS1 but overdid it.
>
>> And all the quests could be completed successfully?
>
> AFAIK yes. Sometimes a reward would be missing or a special option like
> using persuasion or intimidation would not work though.
>
> --
> Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
> "The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

Maybe we don't feel that the design decisions you have picked upon are
faults at all. I completed SS2 three times and had no problem with the
breaking weaponry or spawning enemies. The former, in my view, added a novel
degree of tension and terror. Okay, not everyone agreed, but that does not
make it a flaw - the subsequent patch simply gave people the option to
control these factors to suit their tastes and style of play.

Paladin.

"Werner Spahl" <spahl.DeleteThis@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0608170357450.13773@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Hank the Rapper wrote:
>
>> So everybody is wrong and you are right? Or could it be that they
>> accepted
>> the faults of SS2, but those fault didn't ruin the game for them. Like
>> you
>> don't accept the faults of Bloodlines and claim it as the best game ever.
>
> There is still the difference for me that this faults were just bugs while
> most of you agree that the faults of SS2 were design decisions. So how can
> this still be a "masterpiece" then? Well, everyone has different taste !
>
> --
> Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
> "The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

SS2 was a great game. The only flaws I would attach to it are the fact that
most levels required loading screens to move around them (this is
discounting moving to other levels) . Its biggest problem however, is System
Shock 1. SS1 had bigger levels, no loading screens and cyberspace. The
latter really made you feel like a hacker when you were running around
inside the computer. SS1 character development was based purely on cyber
upgrades that you found and software upgrades. They really made a big
difference unlike the weak plugins found in SS2. SS1's levels for the most
part are better designed with its pacing and story line being much better
orchestrated. I'm not really knocking SS2. I have played it quite a few
times. But each time I play it I can't help but think that it was something
of a lost oportunity based on what they missed out.

--
RobP
'There are only 10 types of people in this world - Those that understand
binary and those that don't'


"Paladin" <sirgruffil.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1155829980.5942.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> Maybe we don't feel that the design decisions you have picked upon are
> faults at all. I completed SS2 three times and had no problem with the
> breaking weaponry or spawning enemies. The former, in my view, added a
> novel degree of tension and terror. Okay, not everyone agreed, but that
> does not make it a flaw - the subsequent patch simply gave people the
> option to control these factors to suit their tastes and style of play.
>
> Paladin.
>
> "Werner Spahl" <spahl.TakeThisOut@cup.uni-muenchen.de> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0608170357450.13773@cicum1.cup.uni-muenchen.de...
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Hank the Rapper wrote:
>>
>>> So everybody is wrong and you are right? Or could it be that they
>>> accepted
>>> the faults of SS2, but those fault didn't ruin the game for them. Like
>>> you
>>> don't accept the faults of Bloodlines and claim it as the best game
>>> ever.
>>
>> There is still the difference for me that this faults were just bugs
>> while most of you agree that the faults of SS2 were design decisions. So
>> how can this still be a "masterpiece" then? Well, everyone has different
>> taste !
>>
>> --
>> Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
>> "The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships
>
>

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Walter Mitty wrote:

> Change the record Werner. Its not that it couldnt : its that it was not
> supposed to and you know it. There were moving robots etc anyway.

Even worse then. One great moment in Bloodlines is when your personal
ghoul servant dies in front of your eyes. Some people dislike that so
much, that there is even a patch to remove that hard moment, it's not
included in my patch though. As for the rest of my SS2 criticism it's
like with yourself and Far Cry: Some things just have to be said !

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Hank the Rapper wrote:

> NPCs to interact with but that was not how the story unfolded. You went
> aboard a ship to discover everyone died, not that you went aboard a ship to
> discover that people were dieing. Again, a design decision. You are trying

As far as I remember SS2 really tried to do the impression that others are
alive only you never reached them in time. That's what I disliked and
contrary to SS1 where this seemed to have worked in SS2 they overdid it.

> do with everything else). Broken weapons and enemy respawns were a design
> decision. It wasn't poor coding that made weapons break. Many people didn't
> like it so a patch was issued so the user could tweak it to their liking.

I think I already said that I believe these were design decisions albeit
very bad ones. Releasing a patch to remove such design elements because of
user protest is a clear sign to me that I'm not alone with that opinion!

> Again, a design decision. It's absolutely fine that you do not like SS2, but
> don't try to come up with irrational reasons to diss the game. I've never

That are not irrational reasons. Breaking weapons and constant respawning
just sucks from a gameplay point of view and many user agreed, see above.

> and other people's opinion. Like your opinion that Blooodlines is a
> masterpiece, yet you don't see everyone jumping into your bi-weekly

Just to make clear that I'm not bashing a game just for fun while praising
another, Bloodlines may be one of the best games for me up to date but of
course it has some bad design decisions as well: e.g. forcing third person
view while melee fighting or only dropping one of the two weapons enemies
normally carry. Sadly I can't do anything about these issues myself .

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, pigdos wrote:

> I'll bet more people would pick SS1 as a masterpiece than would EVER pick
> Bloodlines...

I'll bet more people have played SS1 than Bloodlines and although I never
did, reading the comments here make me believe they are right. But I did
play SS2 and found it vastly overrated. If SS1 was great, SS2 has to be a
very bad successor. And that is what people are fearing for SS3 now too.

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, pigdos wrote:

> You're trying to judge System Shock 1 by today's standards?

I never judged SS1 to today's standards, just SS2 .

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, mace wrote:

> Irrational=ex-LG employees working in the LG' office with the LG at the
> time of SS2.

Yeah. So why did they split in the first place? Ion Storm had two groups
too ...

> Spector=DX:IW.

Yes. And I liked Dx:IW although most people did bash it while praising the
IMHO much worse SS2. Blaming it all on console co-developing again?

> Masterpiece= flawless??????

Well, you said it like this: "minor glitches in the masterpiece because
SS2 and the other LG's classics are still far superior to anything else in
the market." You called these things we now consider "design decisions"
"minor glitches" and claimed that SS2 is "far superior" to "anything else
in the market." Couldn't let that stand against Bloodlines, could I ?

> So, do you have played SS1 or not?

No, but I believe you that it is a masterpiece. None of the minor glitches
or bad design decisions of SS2 were present in SS1 after all or were they?

--
Werner Spahl (spahl@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships

Werner Spahl wrote:

>> Again, a design decision. It's absolutely fine that you do not like
>> SS2, but don't try to come up with irrational reasons to diss the
>> game. I've never
>
> That are not irrational reasons. Breaking weapons and constant
> respawning just sucks from a gameplay point of view and many user
> agreed, see above.

I didn't particularly mind the concepts, but the way SS2 did them initially,
before the patch, was indeed way, way over the top, especially with the
breaking weapons. Weapons degrading "naturally" over time I could have
taken, but there was nothing at all natural about what SS2 had going on
there, and how the game got out the door with that particular "feature" is
beyond belief. In comparison, the extent to which the monsters respawned
was simply a minor aggravation.
--
chainbreaker

Werner Spahl wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, pigdos wrote:
>
>> I'll bet more people would pick SS1 as a masterpiece than would EVER
>> pick Bloodlines...
>
> I'll bet more people have played SS1 than Bloodlines and although I
> never did, reading the comments here make me believe they are right.
> But I did play SS2 and found it vastly overrated. If SS1 was great,
> SS2 has to be a very bad successor. And that is what people are
> fearing for SS3 now too.

I wouldn't go so far as to say SS2 is a "very bad" successor, but it
certainly missed the mark at catching that "nastiness" SS1 has going for it.
SS1 kept me on the edge of my seat, one of those games that pulls you in not
realizing you've just pulled an all nighter playing it, while SS2 was never
anything but just another decent game, good, but nothing particularly
memorable.

--
chainbreaker