System shock remake is now full fledge reboot

[DOOM GUY]

Played the demo, thought the overall look and layout was very faithful to the original game, that's a big plus.

Personally, I don't like the little examining animation that plays when you pick up a new weapon or some of the items, but I'll let that slide, the biggest thing I didn't like about this little demo was the soundtrack. I know it's far from finished, so maybe what they actually had in mind wasn't implemented yet, but according to their Kickstarter page, they're taking a "dramatic and modern take on a musical score"

 

[Sharia]

What's funny to me is how both you and B-Cell are always complaining about Bioshock supposedly being ''dumbed down'' compared to System Shock, but then go ahead and praise Doom.

Two very different games, aiming for different things. That's like saying that I can't rip a game apart for having a really bad story and delivering it poorly and then go on to praise Super Mario.

 

[Sharia]

To be honest, I barely consider "dumbing down" to be a legitimate criticism anymore. It basically bypasses any meaningful discussion about how the mechanics work together into a "THEY REMOVED SOMETHING I LIKED!!!!!!!!" shorthand.

Umm, of course it is a legitimate complaint, that is provided it has been used and aimed correctly. It sounds to me like you are taking just about every argument you have heard on the matter, and merging it all into one. I will admit though that the term has lost a fair bit of weight, but only because the issue is so old now.

I suggest you look at it case by case, not just make an assumption as soon as you see the term used. Yes, sometimes changes are made and things are removed which people might have an issue with, but it can often be because they see those changes as detrimental.

 

[Hawki]

To be honest, I barely consider "dumbing down" to be a legitimate criticism anymore. It basically bypasses any meaningful discussion about how the mechanics work together into a "THEY REMOVED SOMETHING I LIKED!!!!!!!!" shorthand.

Umm, of course it is a legitimate complaint, that is provided it has been used and aimed correctly. It sounds to me like you are taking just about every argument you have heard on the matter, and merging it all into one. I will admit though that the term has lost a fair bit of weight, but only because the issue is so old now.

I suggest you look at it case by case, not just make an assumption as soon as you see the term used. Yes, sometimes changes are made and things are removed which people might have an issue with, but it can often be because they see those changes as detrimental.

"Dumbing down" may describe something tangible, but the phrase itself only serves as a negative connotation that anyone can throw out without having to explain why. Heck, to use examples from media in this thread:

-"Resident Evil 4 made it easier to move around and shifted from survival horror to action horror! They dumbed it down!"

-Aliens turned a horror movie in space with sub-text about violation and the perils of the unknown into spaze mareens! They dumbed it down!"

-"Dead Space took inspiration from 2001: A Space Odyssey, and turned the monoliths into mcGuffins for creating space zombies! They dumbed it down!"

Not that I agree with any of these assertions, but it highlights the issue with the phrase. Either you can fully articulate how and why you feel a successor is inferior to its predecessor (and therefore you don't need to use the phrase), or you can use the phrase in isolation and generate eyerolls that have lasted since at least the 19th century (introduction of mass media through novels). Either way, the phrase is useless. Even when I do feel something along those lines, it's disingenuous for me to use the phrase because there's the sub-text that anyone who enjoys the successor is, by extension, "dumb."

 

[Sharia]

Wow, talk about going over the top... It's a useful term, like many, in order to sum up. It essentially means: simplified so as to be intellectually undemanding and accessible to a wide audience. If you wish someone to articulate or elaborate on how exactly it has done so, then you ask them.

 

[Hawki]

Wow, talk about going over the top... It's a useful term, like many, in order to sum up. It essentially means: simplified so as to be intellectually undemanding and accessible to a wide audience. If you wish someone to articulate or elaborate on how exactly it has done so, then you ask them.

Or, ideally, just explain and/or give insight from the outset? Even the explanation you give is derogatory. It's automatically assuming that a) people are just too stupid to "get it," and b) that making something more accessible is "simplifying" something.

Before you say anything, no, I'm not offended (this is the Internet, and far more malicious comments exist), but it's a reason why I try to avoid using terms like "dumbed down" and "casualized" because they're reductive at best, and malicious at worst. Also why when people use such terms I just roll my eyes.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Wow, talk about going over the top... It's a useful term, like many, in order to sum up. It essentially means: simplified so as to be intellectually undemanding and accessible to a wide audience. If you wish someone to articulate or elaborate on how exactly it has done so, then you ask them.

No, it's now a useless term, because it's so over used and inappropriately applied that hearing it is meaningless. 'Dumbing down' means anything from having a simple plot, to removing unnecessary, unused features, to streamlining the UI without removing anything, to applying fucking tutorials instead of just throwing a brick of features at the player and letting them figure shit out. When a phrase can be applied to anything, then it ceases to mean anything.

Their target release date is December 2017, which is both a long ways off and doesn't feel long enough given the scope of their undertaking.

Pretty sure they're balls deep into making the game already, and it's just a marketing move to make a kickstarter.

Like "A Dead Space writer stated he never played System Shock 2", "Event Horizon also features hallucinations and flesh monsters" (I don't know), "I am a writer for Dead Space, I know".

Any argument?

Event Horizon features hallucinations, a controlling object (The ship) that hates you, body horror/flesh monsters, and even 'flesh moss.'

As for the writer bit... ever used Google? This isn't a fan wank or anything - The people who made the game were quite frank about how they designed the game and what influenced them. They admitted to basically stripping Alien/Aliens for parts, then watching hundreds of hours of horror/sci-fi films to fill in the rest.

Yeah, definitely. Alien and Aliens were things that we reference a lot on Dead Space 1 and Dead Space 2, and I think almost everyone we talked to, the first thing they say is kind of like, "Ah, it sounds like you guys are going from Alien to Aliens." I think that's pretty fair to say.

We definitely take a lot of influence from films. Everybody on the team is a film junkie. I think everyone in the game industry is. We all love entertainment. I think, though, that we've tried to do some things this time, there are a few moments in the game that I'm really proud of because I think that we're doing things that I think only games can do. We're trying to pioneer, in terms of ways to terrify or horrify the player.

 

[Sharia]

No, it's now a useless term, because it's so over used and inappropriately applied that hearing it is meaningless.

Sorry, but it's not the experience I have. I find it's quite often appropriately applied, even if it does cover a broad number of things.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Umm, of course it is a legitimate complaint, that is provided it has been used and aimed correctly. It sounds to me like you are taking just about every argument you have heard on the matter, and merging it all into one. I will admit though that the term has lost a fair bit of weight, but only because the issue is so old now.

I suggest you look at it case by case, not just make an assumption as soon as you see the term used. Yes, sometimes changes are made and things are removed which people might have an issue with, but it can often be because they see those changes as detrimental.

If you read the rest of my post, you'd see that the issue is with people finding adding complexity as inherently good and simplifying things (i.e. "dumbing down") as inherently bad. Very often people offer little, if anything, beyond, "Y is a dumbed down X, therefore X is better than Y." Beyond the snobbish elitism that often accompanies this, it is (ironically) a dumb way to argue. It strips all nuance and meaningful analysis from looking at the game's overall design. It doesn't ask, "Does this game work with what it has well?" or "Did this game find a new way to approach the core of what made its predecessor great?" It simply asks, "Did this game add complexity or remove it?"

I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather have a game that works with what it has very well than a game that is simply a bloated, unwieldy mess of complexity. I'm also sure that, in the long run, most people would rather a game find new ways to capture the core of what made an experience great rather than just regurgitate the same game over and over again.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Well, the Kickstarter has got a good head start. $447,000 out of $900,000 down already. The current top stretch goal is 1.9 million dollars, which seems to be a given at this point, and I'm guessing the top unshown stretch goal is around 3 million, which it'll probably get easily.

EDIT: I take that second bit back, they're actually not doing as well as I thought. A slam dunk for the initial goal, and very likely it will get it's current goals done, but I'm not sure it'll go much further then that without breaking some mid-kickstarter records.

 

[Sharia]

Umm, of course it is a legitimate complaint, that is provided it has been used and aimed correctly. It sounds to me like you are taking just about every argument you have heard on the matter, and merging it all into one. I will admit though that the term has lost a fair bit of weight, but only because the issue is so old now.

I suggest you look at it case by case, not just make an assumption as soon as you see the term used. Yes, sometimes changes are made and things are removed which people might have an issue with, but it can often be because they see those changes as detrimental.

If you read the rest of my post, you'd see that the issue is with people finding adding complexity as inherently good and simplifying things (i.e. "dumbing down") as inherently bad. Very often people offer little, if anything, beyond, "Y is a dumbed down X, therefore X is better than Y." Beyond the snobbish elitism that often accompanies this, it is (ironically) a dumb way to argue. It strips all nuance and meaningful analysis from looking at the game's overall design. It doesn't ask, "Does this game work with what it has well?" or "Did this game find a new way to approach the core of what made its predecessor great?" It simply asks, "Did this game add complexity or remove it?"

I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather have a game that works with what it has very well than a game that is simply a bloated, unwieldy mess of complexity. I'm also sure that, in the long run, most people would rather a game find new ways to capture the core of what made an experience great rather than just regurgitate the same game over and over again.

I read the rest of the post, all I really saw was a conflict. You recognise there are situations where the argument is valid, but then call the argument itself entirely stupid. You seem to have this one sided view that almost everyone that uses the term is somehow unable to explain themselves, which is what I ultimately disagreed with.

I guess we have both had different experiences. Personally, I have seen more the opposite; wild, baseless claims of a game somehow being obtuse or unintuitive when really it's not. I think sometimes its easier to blame the game than yourself, but I'm not going to pussyfoot around the situation just because it might come across as derogatory or elitist in cases where I believe that to be happening.

Anyway, this argument is going nowhere. I'll chalk it up to us having very different experiences when discussing the matter with others.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I read the rest of the post, all I really saw was a conflict. You recognise there are situations where the argument is valid, but then call the argument itself entirely stupid.

The point was that "dumbing down" is not an argument itself. Some games (e.g. BioShock Infinite) work well with added simplicity. For others (e.g. Battlefield 3), it actively hinders the core of the experience. If you're going to say that a game is "dumbed down", then at least show how it negatively affects the experience beyond simply saying it is "dumbed down" or pointing out that something is different.

The problem that I have is that, far too often, people never move beyond the summation into the explanation. This is perhaps more of a problem when discussing RPGs, but it's still annoying none-the-less. It's all snobbish elitism without anything backing it up.

Personally, I have seen more the opposite; wild, baseless claims of a game somehow being obtuse or unintuitive when really it's not.

There's quite a bit of difference between saying a game is "dumbed down" and that a game controls like shit. You can build a great game around a relatively simple set of mechanics. Part of this discussion even started by someone pointing out how fundamentally simple Doom is. It's a lot harder to justify unresponsive or poorly laid-out controls, and after 2-3 decades of interface design, I'm sure most of us can reasonably expect an interface to be clean, easy to navigate, and not waste our time. Maybe the survival horror genre can get away with it, but beyond that, most genres can't.

In short, saying a game is unintuitive, especially the unintuitive part of the game is mentioned, is generally a criticism most people can understand and recognize as valid. Simply saying a game is "dumbed down" says nothing about its quality, just that it is simplifies things. Whether or not it actually builds well around that is still yet to be explained.

Besides, there's also the common, "You can't understand how bad something feels until you try it for yourself." People can generally describe how a game's simplicity harms the overall experience without requiring you to try it. At the very least, it can lead to discussion beyond a series of "yes/no" responses.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Well, played the demo.

Not sure what to think. Yes, it's pretty, and yes, the UI seems to feel a lot less awkward then it once was. But the HUD feels... weird. The lighting is fairly spastic, switching from'so many lights its hard to tell whats a usable items and what's just neon wall candy' and 'darker then the darkest dark.' Considering their stated goal is to make the game more horror based... well, I'm not really seeing it in the admittedly short demo. The limited combat is also stiff as hell. I can see it getting old and frustrating very, very fast.

I find myself in the awkward position of actually, for once, having a Kickstarter demo, and yet still not knowing what the hell this is beyond pretty.

Also, the circuit took me a moment to figure out, but I presume that will be sorted out with a tutorial in the final game.

Final thoughts - Shit, I don't know. I'm not going to kickstart it, but I'll keep my eye on it for updates.

 

[Barciad]

I've always been surprised that no-one has ever gotten round to doing this. System Shock has not just one of the best game villains ever, but one of the best games premises ever. The definitive space 'man trapped in haunted house'. I'm just hoping that the developers do the game justice. I.e. remember that this is subtle, atmospheric survival horror that sends shivers up the spine and not some clunky shooter.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Snip

Personally, I'm waiting until it's closer to release to pass final judgment. It's still in pre-Alpha and has over a year to polish things up and make the overall experience better. Still, I've certainly seen better Kickstarter pitches like We Happy Few. To its credit, it is better than what John Romero put out, but that isn't hard to do at all.

But as for the actual demo: It isn't scary at all. The combat, while better than the video I saw, still feels slow, clunky, and somewhat unresponsive. I guess that works for a horror game, but again, I wasn't scared. And just when I was thinking the Doom 3 system of interacting with panels couldn't get worse, this game comes along. The premise is still interesting, but we all knew that already.

I mean, I get that it is pre-Alpha and that they have plenty of time to fix everything, but I'm still not sure this was the best time to show it. If it weren't the namesake, the only impression this would give is as a low-budget Unity game trying, and failing, to be System Shock 2 or BioShock in space. Which, I guess, in its current state, it is, but I'm not sure that's the impression you want to give for a demo meant to help your Kickstarter. It's basically running on namesake alone at this point. The good news for the developers is that they've got a strong namesake to milk right now.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

Snip

Personally, I'm waiting until it's closer to release to pass final judgment. It's still in pre-Alpha and has over a year to polish things up and make the overall experience better. Still, I've certainly seen better Kickstarter pitches like We Happy Few. To its credit, it is better than what John Romero put out, but that isn't hard to do at all.

But as for the actual demo: It isn't scary at all. The combat, while better than the video I saw, still feels slow, clunky, and somewhat unresponsive. I guess that works for a horror game, but again, I wasn't scared. And just when I was thinking the Doom 3 system of interacting with panels couldn't get worse, this game comes along. The premise is still interesting, but we all knew that already.

I mean, I get that it is pre-Alpha and that they have plenty of time to fix everything, but I'm still not sure this was the best time to show it. If it weren't the namesake, the only impression this would give is as a low-budget Unity game trying, and failing, to be System Shock 2 or BioShock in space. Which, I guess, in its current state, it is, but I'm not sure that's the impression you want to give for a demo meant to help your Kickstarter. It's basically running on namesake alone at this point. The good news for the developers is that they've got a strong namesake to milk right now.

I could make a kickstarter and only provide 3 minutes of audio of me pleasuring myself with way too much lube, and it would have been better then what John Romero put out, purely on the basis that my pitch was shorter and a lot more honest.

The demo... yah, I think we're on the same page. I feel like they would have been better off if they had cut out all the gameplay stuff and just had a slightly longer level, showing off more of the potential of the environment. Lets face it - Yes, shock games have a lot of stuff going on, but the Number One Thing has always been the environment and feel, from System Shock to Infinite. At best, the gameplay, HUD, and UI stuff they showed is just filler for Alpha footage. At worst, it's an indication of some troubling design choices. That in mind, they should have cut it.

 

[Sharia]

At best, the gameplay, HUD, and UI stuff they showed is just filler for Alpha footage. At worst, it's an indication of some troubling design choices. That in mind, they should have cut it.

What a load of rubbish. I'm sorry, but I shudder to think what you consider good.

Actually scrap it, you referred to the original game's UI as awkward. I really, really don't want to know.

 

[DefunctTheory]

At best, the gameplay, HUD, and UI stuff they showed is just filler for Alpha footage. At worst, it's an indication of some troubling design choices. That in mind, they should have cut it.

What a load of rubbish. I'm sorry, but I shudder to think what you consider good.

Actually scrap it, you referred to the original game's UI as awkward. I really, really don't want to know.

You've completely changed my opinion by saying I'm full of rubbish. Eyes have been blown wide open.

The inventory screen, in my opinion, is massive, blocky, and unattractive. The other menus are, at this time, worthless (Only list the handful of stuff obtained in the first couple of seconds, so unsurprising), but they suffer from the same blocky space waste that will only get worse during a full game where you'd get more stuff.

As for the original games UI... of course it was. I can't think of a game from that era that had a UI that didn't look like it was constructed by someone in the middle of a malaria fueled fever haze. Twas just the way it was.

Completely unrelated, but something I forgot to mention, auto stacking in the inventory was messed up for me as well. But that's pretty clearly a minor bug, so I'm not getting bent out of shape about it. Also, the stacked boxes you could open flopped around hilariously when you opened them.

 

[Sharia]

Eyes have been blown wide open.

Tell me about it Even your prior response to me in this thread makes a hell of a lot more sense.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Eyes have been blown wide open.

Tell me about it Even your prior response to me in this thread makes a hell of a lot more sense.

This is kind of amusing. You're just now realizing I'm an ass?

All the same, I'm curious - Have an argument, or is this just more posturing? Maybe some sources, of which I have provided some (I'm an ass, but I like to show my work), or some sort of reasoning beyond 'You're wrong?' and sassy responses taking shots at my character?