Why is System Shock a Big Deal?

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
3,247
0
0
Why is System Shock a Big Deal?

Let's talk about why System Shock is a daring game that deserves its celebrated place in gaming history - while also being a frustrating mess that doesn't hold up.


Read Full Article
 

Tiamat666

Level 80 Legendary Postlord
Dec 4, 2007
1,012
0
0
It's true -the interface- is the big important thing that makes an old game age well or bad. Primitive graphics are tolerable and can even be charming (as indie-devs prove time and again). Same thing with music and sound effects. But a game with a bad interface that is tedious to play melts the fun away rather quickly. It was tolerated in the old days because you had no choice and didn't know any better. But after all the innovations and common sense in UI design, some games have gotten simply too painful to bear, unless you can bring bucketloads of nostalgia for the trip.

One classic example is the original WarCraft. I used to play that game and move single units around the map individually, because there was no real alternative. You could select a maximum of 4 at a time, but the movement was then so imprecise and awkward it was usually not worth the hassle. Hard to imagine ever going through that ordeal again.
 

Xeorm

New member
Apr 13, 2010
361
0
0
Oh for sure the interface problems are what get me the most in old games. But also all the little changes we've had in design add up. The little things that change a game from being annoying to being something good. Or where I'm aggravated by not being able to do something simple that I can do in a future game.

I haven't played the first System shock, but did get through the second. Good game. Even nowadays, I enjoyed it.
 

Cisco99

New member
Oct 2, 2015
1
0
0
I guess it was bound to happen now that games have been around for a few decades... Baldur's Gate, System Shock, EQ Classic servers... nostalgia revivals are in full swing in the games industry. But they should take a look at how it's done in music and movies: you don't just re-release the same old with minimal tweaks. You do new covers and new versions using all the improvements to tech and game play made available by 20+ years of innovation. And even then, there are no guarantees that it'll be better.

Better yet, you knock our socks off with something totally new we weren't expecting. Too much to ask for?
 

Halla Burrica

New member
May 18, 2014
151
0
0
Whenever I come across these articles, I do wonder how many people actually read them. If the amount of comments are any indication (which there is a very good chance isn't), then it's not many people. I think that's a shame, even if I don't care much for the articles myself, and probably would never have a positive experience with the author if I ever met him (which of course is never going to happen).
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
I'm not even sure the timeless classics you've mentioned are so timeless. Super mario works because its 2D, but Doom is horrid as its also been done better and prettier. Also weak is Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64. Both were epic in their time but better remembered for what they brought to gaming rather than to be played again. Oh, and same goes for FFVII.

In fact, most games are like that. And that's fine. And this is why each game should only be truly compared to its contemporaries. Video games were growing up along with a lot of us and each great game such as System Shock took one step further to make the games of today possible. As you said, System Shock and System Shock 2's creators went on to create Thief, Deus Ex and Bioshock. If that isn't important to gaming, what is?
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
FoolKiller said:
I'm not even sure the timeless classics you've mentioned are so timeless. Super mario works because its 2D, but Doom is horrid as its also been done better and prettier. Also weak is Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64. Both were epic in their time but better remembered for what they brought to gaming rather than to be played again. Oh, and same goes for FFVII.
You just walked into a biker bar and declared that Harleys are for pussies. I hope you're ready for arguments and comments about your mother's sexual habits.
 

Theminimanx

Positively Insane
Mar 14, 2011
276
0
0
FoolKiller said:
I'm not even sure the timeless classics you've mentioned are so timeless. Super mario works because its 2D, but Doom is horrid as its also been done better and prettier. Also weak is Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64. Both were epic in their time but better remembered for what they brought to gaming rather than to be played again. Oh, and same goes for FFVII.
I can't speak for Ocarina of Time because I haven't played it, but both Doom and Mario 64 are still very playable today. There's a reason all FPS games today use the exact same control scheme as Doom. You could argue that later games improved on them, (and I'd be inclined to agree with you) but that's not the point Shamus was trying to make. The point is that those games are still playable today because they have an intuitive and functional control scheme, which System Shock just lacks.

FoolKiller said:
And this is why each game should only be truly compared to its contemporaries.
Also, just... no. There are many older games that are often considered far better than later installments in the franchise. Sure, older games can serve as a great teaching tool for how to better design new games, but that doesn't mean the creators of the new game always learn those lessons.
 

Xeorm

New member
Apr 13, 2010
361
0
0
Halla Burrica said:
Whenever I come across these articles, I do wonder how many people actually read them. If the amount of comments are any indication (which there is a very good chance isn't), then it's not many people. I think that's a shame, even if I don't care much for the articles myself, and probably would never have a positive experience with the author if I ever met him (which of course is never going to happen).
I'm betting it's not a good indication, especially for Shamus's articles. I'll eagerly go to the escapist each week to see his article, and even check out his blog, but I usually don't post a comment. Not because the article was badly written, or had an uninteresting topic, but because I have nothing to say. The majority of his comments tend towards "I agree!" which quickly runs into low content problems.
 

The Madman

New member
Dec 7, 2007
4,404
0
0
As much as I love the System Shock series I agree entirely with the article save perhaps for one tiny detail: Why do you think System Shock 2 is inferior story-wise? SHODAN's rise to power, the conflict between her, The Many, and Xerces, plus the collection of various smaller personal stories told throughout your time on the Von Braun and Rickenbaker made SS2 pretty damned impressive story-wise. Meanwhile as fun as it is the original's story basically boils down to 'SHODAN dun gone nut, end her before she destroys the world'.

I'd actually rate SS2 as the better of the System Shock games in terms of storytelling. It took the characters and premise of the first game and threw them into a new environment with changed stakes, and I like that.

Personal preferences aside though it's a good article about one of gamings classics. My compliments.
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
I definitely plan to pick this one up if only for its historical value. As a person who considers Daggerfall to be his favorite Elderscrolls game, I don't think that getting to know a clunky interface will be too much of an obstacle for me. I'm in the middle of a few games though, so I'm gonna bide my time and see if a Steam version surfaces.
 

Ogoid

New member
Nov 5, 2009
405
0
0
Shamus Young said:
Let's talk about why System Shock is a daring game that deserves its celebrated place in gaming history - while also being a frustrating mess that doesn't hold up.
Ooh, now them's fighting words, Mr. Young.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of your article - I don't even disagree about the "frustrating mess" bit.

However, I played System Shock for the first time in 2008. It was about as big a hurdle getting the damn thing to run under Windows XP as it was learning to actually play it... and it still earned its place among my all-time favorites list once I managed to climb over that sheer cliff of a learning curve.

Again, I agree with most of what you say, but "doesn't hold up" I most decidedly can't get behind.
 

Blood Brain Barrier

New member
Nov 21, 2011
2,004
0
0
I don't quite understand why difficulty in games (scavenging for survival, aiming bullets at heads, complex puzzles) is highly praised and rewarded, and yet a difficult interface isn't. If you've just awaken on board a space station with newly acquired biotech surgery, of course you're going to have a hell of a time getting around. Using half the keyboard to navigate and use your capabilities was part of the experience, and was incredibly cool to learn and master at the time.

Sure, you might not be skilled at it but I'm not skilled at targeting things with the mouse in real-time. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to call all shooters crap (although I can try).

So why doesn't the old argument that interfaces should be as easy and simple to use as possible, apply to Dark Souls which during my 20 minutes of playing gave rise to endlessly frustrating and unenjoyable dead ends, deaths and needlessly difficult combat?
 

venn2011

New member
Apr 15, 2011
18
0
0
Blood Brain Barrier said:
I don't quite understand why difficulty in games (scavenging for survival, aiming bullets at heads, complex puzzles) is highly praised and rewarded, and yet a difficult interface isn't. If you've just awaken on board a space station with newly acquired biotech surgery, of course you're going to have a hell of a time getting around. Using half the keyboard to navigate and use your capabilities was part of the experience, and was incredibly cool to learn and master at the time.

Sure, you might not be skilled at it but I'm not skilled at targeting things with the mouse in real-time. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to call all shooters crap (although I can try).

So why doesn't the old argument that interfaces should be as easy and simple to use as possible, apply to Dark Souls which during my 20 minutes of playing gave rise to endlessly frustrating and unenjoyable dead ends, deaths and needlessly difficult combat?
Because those difficulty in games you mention are just features of the game, like things that you can/will do in a game. On the other hand, the interface is the in-between link that connects the player with the game. The player relies on the interface as one of tools to gather information on what's happening in the game, in order to make moment to moment judgment on what's the next best course of action. A clunky and bad interface can only serve to confuse the player and possibly even mislead them to make a wrong move.

Think of the interface as like the dashboard gauges on your car. It should be easy to read and instantaneously recognizable so that the driver can make snap decisions, moment to moment, so that he/she can stay on the road, move toward right direction, avoid accidents, keep within the bounds of the law, and etc. But if the dashboard was a clunky, cluster-mess of stuff all over the place, then the driver needs to pay more attention to it than the road. Guess what is going to happen then? Yes, an accident... maybe even death. That's not good, right?

Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that such antiquated interface is absolutely bad. I'm sure it has its own brand of charm and I believe there're some people (like yourself) who enjoy such stuff. But you can't say that more most people. Think carefully for a moment: there is a reason why the interfaces of video games have gotten overall simpler and slicker over the years.

And I'd say that Dark Souls is a poor example for a comparison. First of all, Dark Souls is inherently a console game played primarily on a controller. And a typical controller doesn't have a lot of buttons. I'm even willing to bet that Dark Souls may use less number of buttons than the old Doom on PC... let alone the entire half of the keyboard (plus a mouse) for System Shock. So ask yourself which is more easier to learn & master for most people. Furthermore, the interface for Dark Souls is nothing like System Shock; unlike System Shock that has a cluttered & messy interface that takes too much space on the screen, Dark Souls only has (1) Health/Stamina/Mana/whatever bars on top left corner, (2) Weapons, Items, and Spells icons on bottom left corner, and (3) a simple Soul counter at bottom right. And none of those are too big to obstruct the main view of the screen and allows the player to focus entirely on the action if needed. It's really a no comparison.
 

ghalleon0915

New member
Feb 23, 2014
128
0
0
I've always wanted to play System Shock/System Shock 2 as they are the progenitors of Bioshock and I love Bioshock ( Yes, even the 2nd one). It's always amazed me at how I never played them when they first came out. I don't know if I ever will play them; Shamus addresses the concerns I have for myself regarding it.

Spot on article mate, I mostly enjoy the articles you write. Keep it up!
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
So...its important because better games came after it? So...like Pong is important because eventually Halo Reach happened? Or even shitting on your hand and smearing it on a cave wall is important because eventually the Mona Lisa happened?

Just seems...lame...
 

JohnnyDelRay

New member
Jul 29, 2010
1,322
0
0
I only played System Shock 2 (not 1), but found it a very interesting kind of game. I remember it took me forever to start playing it, as I had already played much faster and swifter controlling games in the meantime (Like Shogo M.A.D., Blood 2), and the controls in this game were the most painful thing about it. But I was amazed at the amount of atmosphere and story it managed to get across with the limited technology. Very well done game, but as you say, definitely not one I'd care to revisit. It would be really hard to do a decent remake as well, to get the whole tone down properly.
 

The Madman

New member
Dec 7, 2007
4,404
0
0
Silentpony said:
So...its important because better games came after it? So...like Pong is important because eventually Halo Reach happened? Or even shitting on your hand and smearing it on a cave wall is important because eventually the Mona Lisa happened?

Just seems...lame...
Well, kinda, yeah.

You think all those people scrambling to try and find, study, and preserve ancient works of art regardless of actual artistic merit are doing it for giggles? Studying and knowing where things come from is important. Maybe not stuff you or I make, we're not important ourselves, but in regards to say... a game series and entire style of gameplay, then yeah, there's a lot of merit to be had in knowing their origins. It might not be the origins of anything particularly important in the grand scheme of things but there's enough of an interest to make it a worthwhile thing to look into.

Plus some people still like playing older games and aren't as bothered by dated graphics or a few quirky oddities.

Or were you just being snarky?