Vapourware System Shock 3 by OtherSide Entertainment - taken over by Tencent!

[pippin]

IIRC Deus Ex's main theme was a placeholder, and initially even Spector himself was kinda opposed to it, but it proved so damned catchy that they just left it as the official thing.

 

[LESS T_T]

http://www.polygon.com/2017/3/2/14798096/deus-ex-warren-spector-vr-virtual-reality-dumb-down-games

Earlier in the talk, Spector listed a series of questions he asks himself before every game he makes, culminating in the question, “Do you have something to say?” An audience member brought this up again during the Q&A, asking how that might apply to the wide variety of less hardcore games being created, including non-narrative experiences.

Spector conceded that there may be some games wherein “having something to say” is less important, but went on to say that they aren’t the type of games that interest him.

“If I have to dumb down a game to sell 20 million copies, I’m not going to make games anymore,” he said.

 

[anvi]

A dumbed down System Shock already exists, it is Bioshock and there was 3 of them! I really hope they get this shit right.

 

[Ash]

“If I have to dumb down a game to sell 20 million copies, I’m not going to make games anymore,” he said.

But dumbing down a game and NOT selling 20 million (Invisible War) is OK?

Games these days are attempting to make statements more than ever. Back in 1997-2000 few were making strides in the storytelling department except cRPGs.

Bets on the table, probably another Bioshock: attempt to make a statement and tell an interesting story while forcing players through garbage whack-a-mole gameplay for 95% of the experience, and thereby lessening the value or impact of your statement, despite the statement being the pretentious end-game/purpose of the developer to begin with.

Guy made my favorite game of all time, though. I'm seriously not giving him enough credit here.

 

[LESS T_T]

undoubtedly what the question was referring to ("hardcore" is rarely used to refer to an involved/intelligent story in any capacity). Yes, gameplay and the execution of it can heavily affect the message you're trying to send but he glossed over gameplay altogether.

Well, without full context I'm not sure what the question really was about. It's the Polygon writer's description. (Fortunately, this kind of talk will be available for public rather sooner on GDC Vault/Youtube.)

Bets on the table, probably another Bioshock: attempt to make a statement and tell an interesting story while forcing players through garbage whack-a-mole gameplay for 95% of the experience, and thereby lessening the value or impact of your statement, despite the statement being the pretentious end-game/purpose of the developer to begin with.

I'm not sure if he'll trying to make a "hard" game, but I rather believe that he'd try to make a statement via gameplay and simulations than telling a story. It's what his recent Sweden Game Conference talk and this GDC talk were all about.

 

[Ash]

Well, without full context I'm not sure what the question really was about.

Very true, and I edited my post in hindsight just before you responded.

I rather believe that he'd try to make a statement via gameplay and simulations than telling a story

What was Invisible War's statement via gameplay and simulation? The only message I got was that dumbing down was perceived to be necessary to grow in this industry, and in all likelihood it's very true.

I'm not sure if he'll trying to make a "hard" game,

An engaging challenge is not all of what modern games or Bioshock lack in gameplay, but you probably agree.

 

[Zombra]

“If I have to dumb down a game to sell 20 million copies, I’m not going to make games anymore,” he said.

But dumbing down a game and NOT selling 20 million (Invisible War) is OK?

He didn't say "I have never worked on a dumbed down game in my life."

 

[Ash]

I know. Without being there it's difficult to make any kind of valid contribution. But it's perfectly acceptable to be jaded and skeptical after IW (and all the later games of that type, even if he personally wasn't involved in them). Seems he wants to give it another honest shot though, so we'll see.

 

[anvi]

System Shock isn't even a complex or difficult game anyway. It is actually too easy in many ways because you can just savegame and load a save whenever, and the respawn chambers make the game too easy. You can't die constantly because you will run out of nanites or whatever the component was for them, but later on you have plenty, so if you are creeping through somewhere on low health and energy, you realise you don't need to be scared. You can just charge into battle and die, and then you respawn with about 60% health and power, good to go. Imo the whole thing should have been balanced to be harder, and modern survival/horror gamers will not find it a problem at all. The average CoD tard might, but they are never going to be the audience anyway.

Also the enemies are generally slow and retarded, most of the game you fight the same thing - zombies. They are pretty clueless so you can generally 1 shot them with a bullet to the head before they spot you, and even if they do, they just lunge at you in a straight line so they are still easy to shoot. Even games like Fallout 3/4 are harder because the enemies are more animated, move faster, and move at angles. Also modern shooters often have a moving crosshair but in System Shock it was rock solid which made it easier to shoot accurately. The limited ammo makes System Shock a lot more interesting, but it doesn't matter as much when the enemies are easy. You can also just smack a lot of the enemies with your melee weapon instead of wasting ammo.

Also besides the combat and health, there isn't anything difficult or challenging. It is a pretty simple game. Find a door that requires a key, explore the next few corridors and find the key and backtrack to the door. The only real depth the game has is that there are multiple ammo types which I love. You have anti personnel slugs and rounds which rip through zombies but just bounce off robots. Then vice versa you have lazers and armor piercing stuff which rips through robots, but doesn't do as much damage to zombies. And same with grenades, there are frags good for soft targets, and emps good for robots. It is cool but it isn't complex. Also cyberspace was a simple minigame, and hacking is like a crappy flash game that a 6 year old can do.

Don't get me wrong, I love both of the System Shock games, and to me they are the best FPS I have played, but they are not complex at all, and only slightly challenging. They are also dated and a new game that is the same would not be good in this day and age, after playing stuff like Call of Pripyat, or EYE, etc.. System Shock is pretty old fashioned compared to that. The reason why System Shock was so special is because it had so many things that games of the time had never done. It was way ahead of all other games. Most people were playing mindless simple gibbers like Doom, and even back then, System Shock had multiple ammo types, grenades that you could manually throw, backtracking to health/energy restorers etc. It was way better, but that was in the early 90s. Things have moved on. In this age of Dead Space trilogy and bigger more advanced games like STALKER series, I think a new System Shock runs the risk of being seen as boring and outdated.

 

[Ash]

I agree with most of that when directed at the original, but not the sequel. If Shock 3 was in the vein of Shock 2 it'd be far from "outdated" . as the game was more "advanced" or plain well put together than your average modern Immersive Sim or survival horror (in terms of design, not tech).

 

[anvi]

The sequel was more challenging, although still left a bit to be desired imo. I can't remember how but I remember that it changed the respawners to be less abusable. Also the combat was generally a bit harder because quite early on it puts you against the humanoid robots which hurt, and then not long after that you have to face those big scary tank like robots that can kill you fast, and also lots of the rooms have turrets which really hurt. So there is a lot more creeping around and being careful which is essential imo. The creeping about being shitscared of being ripped up by a turret or robot guard is what makes the game special and interesting, without that I may as well just play Halflife or something. Also the start was pretty cool with the recruitment process that lets you pick a class of sorts. I wish the classes were better though, I would like to play as a psi specialist but you can't really do that because psi is quite weak and seems like it was designed to be more of a helping hand than something you can focus on. A lot of stuff wasn't really worth focusing on too, because say want to play as a heavy weapons type, so you hoard explosives and rocket launchers etc, you just end up running out of their ammo so fast that it becomes a waste of points. It seems like the game is only really designed to be played one way, a general guns guy who focuses on pistols and rifles, with some hacking ability to help out with ammo, maybe a bit of psi to grab occasional goodies from out of reach places etc.

If I remember right the sequel also removed some stuff like the cool grenades from the first game, which was one of my favorite parts. It removed cyberspace too but I guess that was kinda crappy anyway. Overall though I still think SS2 wouldn't seem very special by modern standards. Alien Isolation was a lot more challenging and scary, even though I found it too tedious after a while. But a combination of stuff like that, EYE, Stalker, etc. It raised the bar on what a game like System Shock has to do to seem worthwhile. I really hope they respect the heritage and deliver something special and not just a generic sci fi zombie shooter.

 

[Ash]

I agree neither of the Shock games are particularly challenging as far as survival horrors or your typical classic game goes, or are not as challenging as I'd like them to be (especially the first), but of course challenge is not all that makes a great game. SS2 still seems special to me today, especially by modern standards where challenge is almost non-existent in most.
Address the genuine shortcomings of the game, translate it well to a modern engine, iterate upon some aspects of design that would be worthwhile to pursue, and it would be very special, imo.

also lol, EYE didn't raise any metaphorical bars. And STALKER, great as it is, is no more special overall than Shock 2, imo.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

I think Spector has publicly implied that he regrets the compromises they made on DX:IW in order to get it out on consoles.

And while I don't think he's ever said anything about it publicly (for obvious reasons; pissing off Disney is career suicide), we know that Epic Mickey's initial concept and pitch were very different from the final, suit-approved product.

I'm more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Ash]

Oh for goodness sake. As has been established time and time again, the hardware limitations of the xbox is a convenient scapegoat for pandering design and selling out. IW is a clear case of selling one's soul in an attempt to hit the jackpot. Heck, dev interviews while the game was in development show as much:

"We are trying to make the Deus Ex experience accessible to a wide audience"
-Spector

Rather than what it should have been:

"We are trying to introduce the Deus Ex experience to the consoles with as few concessions as possible. That way we can broaden our audience, still make a potentially good game and not throw our artistic integrity and fans under the bus"

Maybe it would have still been a good or even great game that way, despite the hardware limitations of the Xbox.

 

[anvi]

Address the genuine shortcomings of the game, translate it well to a modern engine, iterate upon some aspects of design that would be worthwhile to pursue, and it would be very special, imo.

I hope so. I think a straight sequel would probably not be enough, most fans would like it, some would realise that their love was mostly nostalgia, and new players wouldn't be interested, and the whole thing would be considered a failure. But if they really do iterate stuff, and not just match the originals but improve some things too, all while looking good in a new engine, it could be a huge hit. They are in the right place at the right time, because there are millions of gamers out there right now who are playing survival games in various forms. Mostly searching for wood and food etc, but the mentality isn't much different. I think if a modern game combined that tense survival horror thing, with occasional bursts of fun action, pieced together with great story and exploration etc, it could be huge.

also lol, EYE didn't raise any metaphorical bars. And STALKER, great as it is, is no more special overall than Shock 2, imo.

I guess EYE didn't really raise any bars although I did like it. Stalker though... I have quite the hardon for that series. I actually think most of them are a bit crappy overall, except Pripyat, but all of them do things that really impress me and had some amazing moments. I love the way the AI behaves, and combined with the open world setting. I remember I ambushed this group of bad guys early in the game, I had a crappy gun with like 20 rounds, and these guys were all super equipped and dangerous. I was in an abandoned house taking long shots at them and they were coming towards me like a real assault, so I fled out the back door of the house, and quickly ran in a big circle around the hill, and came up behind them. The AI was so realistic, they thought I was still in the house, so I came up behind them and saw as the first guy went into the house and the other guys were all providing cover for him. I killed almost all of them with one grenade and then managed to kill the 1 or 2 survivors. It was probably the most exciting thing I've ever experienced in an FPS.

Those games are so under rated. Also I loved tracking shit on that little tracker, it would be leading me into the middle of nowhere, and it was pitch black at night time too, creeping through some marsh with my rusty weapon and not much ammo, scared to use my torch in case it attracted enemies, and then you hear an enemy... that game had so many amazing and terrifying moments. Shock games are more compact and different in many ways, but I still think they really need to push the boat out to be impressive in 2017. I hope they have at least kept up to date with gaming.

 

[Ash]

some would realise that their love was mostly nostalgia

Nostalgia, huh. I fell in love with Shock 2's design in 2011.

Stalker though... I have quite the hardon for that series.

Must be nostalgia. Shock 2 > Stalker: SoC.

I remember I ambushed this group of bad guys early in the game, I had a crappy gun with like 20 rounds, and these guys were all super equipped and dangerous. I was in an abandoned house taking long shots at them and they were coming towards me like a real assault, so I fled out the back door of the house, and quickly ran in a big circle around the hill, and came up behind them. The AI was so realistic, they thought I was still in the house, so I came up behind them and saw as the first guy went into the house and the other guys were all providing cover for him. I killed almost all of them with one grenade and then managed to kill the 1 or 2 survivors. It was probably the most exciting thing I've ever experienced in an FPS.

Stalker certainly has its merits, but they're mostly all in combat and atmosphere. Shock 2's is more in sim design, storytelling, player agency and depth of interactivity, atmosphere, audio design, horror and gameplay as the cumulative whole (not so much if truly broken down, such as the combat).

 

[RoSoDude]

anvi I disagree that a new System Shock could only succeed on nostalgia and that games have moved on from their dated design. I just played System Shock for the first time and am now making my way through Shock 2, and frankly it's better designed than most of what I've played since it came out. I agree with everything you said about the difficulty and actual depth of the first game as a shooter, and so far I can see your point about players not being able to truly specialize in their build in SS2 (more things appear straight up optimal as opposed to just a different way of playing the game like you'd see in Deus Ex). But SS2's depth, level design, and atmosphere has been totally engrossing so far. When I played BioShock years ago I thought it was pretty mediocre, like there was something deeply missing there. Playing System Shock 2 now feels like finding it.

What's amazed me about my experience, exactly as it was when I first played Deus Ex in 2012 after playing Human Revolution, was how accessible it actually was. I had heard so many people say "Oh, the old games are good, sure, but they're so hard/esoteric!" People would complain that they didn't know what to do, or the game's systems were too dated or clunky to be communicated well. But that's been the exact opposite of my experience. Deus Ex explicitly tells you all of the places you can go in Liberty Island, and walks you through some basic mechanics via well-designed tutorial-like sections. It also stores all of your goals, notes, and conversations! Same with System Shock 2 -- I'm literally being told what to do and where to go, I just have to pay a modicum of attention and figure out how to do it. There's a ton of player feedback, and though there are some hit or miss upgrades, understanding all of the gameplay systems comes pretty naturally. And the key is, they're not actually that dated! Most aspects are well designed, or at least highly functional, and I never felt like I had to suspend my disbelief to "get over" old gameplay, storytelling, or interactivity. DX and SS2 should be a breeze for anyone who's ever touched a modern first person game, because the elements have barely changed. Maybe it's because I played some King's Quest V when I was 5 years old and there WAS some esoteric BS in there, at least from my younger perspective.

I recognize that your point was mostly that other games (which I haven't played, I'll admit) have since outshined System Shock 2, not that it's is too antiquated to play or enjoy. Even if that's true, it's not true of most modern AAA games. If System Shock 3 came around with the same depth as SS2/DX but with modern polish and improved simulation (AI, physics, effects which have or should have improved in 17 years), I think it would impress new and old players alike. While many gamers probably are only interested in shallow, easy games that require zero attention span, I imagine there are also a fair number of people like me who have noticed a lack of real progress in games over the last decade or so, and have as a result rediscovered classics.

I'm not willing to place any bets on the actual result here, I'm just arguing that A) games at large haven't made significant improvements to complexity and interactivity since SS2/DX and B) I think there is a market for such improvement, even if AAA publishers are shoveling out garbage that plays itself like Assassin's Creed to the rest.

Ash, I agree the design philosophy was the primary failure of IW, but it does seem like the hardware limitations played a role. The levels are so tiny that the devs could scarcely place challenges in them that amount to much more than "multitool this laser grid, or stealth past this guy to get to the same hallway". Maybe I'm just peeved because I couldn't stand the glitchy loading screens when I tried to play it, so I gave up entirely and I'm blaming everything on the tiny levels. If they hadn't focused on dumbing everything down for a wide audience it would have been an improvement, but I'm thinking it would have had shit level design regardless. Still their fault either way.

 

[Ash]

I agree the design philosophy was the primary failure of IW, but it does seem like the hardware limitations played a role. The levels are so tiny that the devs could scarcely place challenges in them that amount to much more than "multitool this laser grid, or stealth past this guy to get to the same hallway". Maybe I'm just peeved because I couldn't stand the glitchy loading screens when I tried to play it, so I gave up entirely and I'm blaming everything on the tiny levels. If they hadn't focused on dumbing everything down for a wide audience it would have been an improvement, but I'm thinking it would have had shit level design regardless. Still their fault either way.

The xbox certainly held the game back, but what was most detrimental was their approach to the game. Their mindset. Consoles don't justify overly pandering, accessible design and the abandonment of artistic integrity.

As for the rest of your post, salute.

I'm literally being told what to do and where to go, I just have to pay a modicum of attention and figure out how to do it

core difference in modern game design practices vs old: using your brain. I don't get how people enjoy the dumb garbage they wade through these days. Even so-called braindead simple shooters like Doom engaged the brain more than your average modern game. without that engagement it's just not entertaining, to me, and I think games that don't engage the brain via gameplay aren't really games. Not worthwhile ones anyway.

games at large haven't made significant improvements to complexity and interactivity since SS2/DX

Nope. Just complexity in tech, rendering and engines of all kinds. Game design otoh has devolved.

and B) I think there is a market for such improvement, even if AAA publishers are shoveling out garbage that plays itself like Assassin's Creed to the rest.

I believe with effective marketing and extensive shoving of your product down people's throats there's a sizable market for anything. You may have seen me argue that before, but just look at cigarette manufacturers, jewelers, mobile games, or general hordes of shit that is pushed on people these days.

When I played BioShock years ago I thought it was pretty mediocre, like there was something deeply missing there. Playing System Shock 2 now feels like finding it.

I just played System Shock for the first time and am now making my way through Shock 2, and frankly it's better designed than most of what I've played since it came out.

 

[Invictus]

System Shock 2 might feel a bit meh to modern gamers but believe me that back then it was a revelation in so many ways; the use of degrading equipment, audiologs to tell the story, the overall level and monster design and a very kickass villian who sits center stage almost 20 years since her first appearance is rally remarkable
The Stalker games are really the evolution of FPS where Call of Duty didn't lobotomized half of the gaming population where you dont have to run and gun like Stallone but actually uograde your equipment, scavenge and scrimp on ammo and resources and come up with some emergent AI shootouts like the one described by anvi
Finally, for Spector himself he feels like the sort of guy who almost pissed his whole career away and ended up teaching classes but now feels that he has nothing to lose and will not compromise ever again after beign fucked in the ass by Disney Excecs and almost loosing his soul for that

 

[anvi]

BioShock years ago I thought it was pretty mediocre, like there was something deeply missing there. Playing System Shock 2 now feels like finding it.

For sure. I think my post might not be that clear because I don't think many people only like the Shock games from Nostalgia, I think the opposite in fact. What I meant was that a sequel that is just more of the same will face issues. The audience is likely to be somewhat niche, and even though most fans of the originals would be happy with more of the same, at least some of those people will discover that they don't like it as much as they did in the 90s, and some people will be wanting more than they had in the 90s. But I think if they can make it at least as good as the originals, and improve a few things, it would stand up great today.

Also I don't think any newer games have really outshone System Shock, but I think a few of them have come pretty close. Stalker for example, is kind of a similar experience, but it has an open world setting with more environmental dangers, more enemies, more weapons, much better enemy AI, and some player control over the story, etc. In other words some aspects of it are better than System Shock, but I still think Shock is still better overall. Also Alien Isolation is quite similar, you spend the whole time on space stations alone, it feels scary and solitary and you have to be careful as you go. It is more stealthy and avoid-y than System Shock, but it is still similar in some ways, and they did a great job at some things. There are other games too like the Dead Space series, Fallen Earth, etc. I don't think any of these games are as good as Shock games but some come close, and some have moved some things forward. I think a SS3 would need to at least not be complacent because some of these other games will be fresh in some peoples minds.

 

[ArchAngel]

Dead space is terrible. It has a terrible camera and designed for consoles.

 

[Ash]

I'm doubting you've even played it. It's a good game, especially as far as modern games or Shock spiritual sequels go (cough Bioshock). It's no System Shock, but very few games are on that level of brilliance. It's more inline with a traditional survival horror, which is by no means a bad thing.

Bioshock = 5/10
Dead Space = 8/10
Shock 2 = 10/10

 

[ArchAngel]

I'm doubting you've even played it. It's a good game, especially as far as modern games or Shock spiritual sequels go (cough Bioshock). It's no System Shock, but very few games are on that level of brilliance. It's more inline with a traditional survival horror, which is by no means a bad thing.

Bioshock = 5/10
Dead Space = 8/10
Shock 2 = 10/10

I played DS1 until about half way before I could not take that shitty game anymore and uninstalled it.

 

[Ash]

What a shame. But if the only criticism you have of it is you don't like the camera perspective or it was designed for consoles, then you must have a very narrow pool of games you DO like.

 

[ArchAngel]

What a shame. But if the only criticism you have of it is you don't like the camera perspective or it was designed for consoles, then you must have a very narrow pool of games you DO like.

In the type of game, it has to play more like a FPS or I don't care. Get that over the shoulder bullshit away from.