About an hour in to System Shock 2, so far, not impressed

[MasterSmithFandango]

Jesus... I can't believe this topic exists. I nominate everyone who talks shit for dumbfuck tags.

 

[Roguey]

I've completed Shock 2 The System and have opinions that don't warrant their own thread.

As surprised as I am to say it, I didn't hate it. The progression and customization elements, combat-feel, and degenerate hacking minigame are pure garbage of course, and ADaOB is like applying a bandage to a giant gash because it's flawed fundamentally. However, the art direction, storytelling, and especially the level design (up until the Rickenbacker) are amazing. Wasn't surprised to see a few LGS Thief designers in the credits, though that sadly extends to the linear combat-crawl of the last 2 hours. Regardless, the level designers deserve the most accolades here and it's a damn shame that Prima Donna Levine got the bulk of the credit, inflating his ego and making him believe he could be much more than a competent genre fiction writer.

Additionally, the enemy respawn and weapon degradation rates were fine as they were, and anyone who complains about them is really bad at games and/or a big baby.

If not for those last two hours I'd consider it a Fallout-quality game, so instead it falls just-short (still enjoyed it more than the Thiefs overall). Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 1 and 2 have significantly better core gameplay (deal with grognards), but they're not as good level-design or art-wise, so it still has something to offer.

 

[toro]

... crap ...

You are fundamentally flawed. And possibly retarded.

 

[CyberP]

Jesus... I can't believe this topic exists. I nominate everyone who talks shit for dumbfuck tags.

This. System Shock 2 is mind sex and the contents of the OP is absolute garbage.

 

[Roguey]

You are fundamentally flawed. And possibly retarded.

I don't believe you actually read what I wrote.

 

[King Crispy]

Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 1 and 2 have significantly better core gameplay

 

[toro]

You are fundamentally flawed. And possibly retarded.

I don't believe you actually read what I wrote.

Do I need to read it?

 

[CyberP]

There's nothing worse gaming-wise than Bioshock fags. Anyone who says Bioshock has decent gameplay in general doesn't understand what constitutes gameplay.

 

[Elthosian]

If you want really good level design from start to finish play the first System Shock, a much better and more balanced game imo, even though it lacks all the RPG stuff.

 

[Roguey]

Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 1 and 2 have significantly better core gameplay

Deal with it grognard. All three have better progression and customization systems (doesn't take much effort), combat-feel, enemy content, and hacking minigame in Bioshock 2's case (DS doesn't have any).

Do I need to read it?

No, but it's generally a good practice to read posts before replying to them.

If you want really good level design from start to finish play the first System Shock, a much better and more balanced game imo, even though it lacks all the RPG stuff.

If Ken Levine got one thing right, it was his insistence that SS2 have a more accessible interface. That and the weird-looking cyberspace sections have kept me away, though I'm aware I can specifically turn down the difficulty on those. Maybe one day.

 

[King Crispy]

Arguing with you Roguey is like trying to get through a game like Bioshock 2. Pointless and stupid.

 

[CyberP]

Deal with it grognard. All three have better progression and customization systems (doesn't take much effort)

Acquiring cyber modules as part of natural progression and then going up to an upgrade station takes effort?
You must be talking about the PnP-inspired rules. I'm sure most of us here prefer choice and consequence, replayability, and playstyle depth over your typical shitty simplistic skill trees and perk-like systems.

combat-feel

Sure, those other games have modern polish and effects, but SS2's has more depth, more choice. Combat is but one small part that makes up an awesome experience anyway.

,

enemy content

Check your wording. Content? As in number of pawns? AI Behaviour? SS2 wins there as each monster has backstory and a logical reason for existing, and there are more types. We learn fuck all about Houdini Splicers for example, and them all being clones makes fuck all sense. SS2, like all Immersive Sims has reasoning. Bioshock is not an Immersive Sim.
Biocock's AI behaviour has more polish but that comes naturally with bigger budgets.

"hacking minigame in Bioshock 2's case"

SS2's stat-based hacking is better and has more depth behind it. Both Bioshock minigames are skill based-which would be prefectly fine and rival SS2's if they both didn't take fuck all skill.

why do I always fall for these scrub threads...

 

[Elthosian]

UI gets easy to handle after two or three hours, main problem lies in the cyberspace mode which is really painful to get through, thankfully you can set its difficulty to minimum and if I recall correctly most of the time you can just ignore it.

 

[Roguey]

Oh yeah and I forgot to mention research. Researching suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked because of the backtracking and pointless wait-times. Even Bioshock's camera was better, though Bio2's was the best.

Acquiring cyber modules as part of natural progression and then going up to an upgrade station takes effort?

I'm talking about the utterly terrible balance, and hard requirements like "can't use a weapon without meeting the prerequisites."

Sure, those other games have modern polish and effects, but SS2's has more depth, more choice. Combat is one small part that makes up an awesome experience anyway.

It has the illusion of choice and a ton of false options.

Check your wording. Content? As in number of pawns? AI Behaviour? SS2 wins there as each monster has backstory and a logical reason for existing, and there are more types. We learn fuck all about Houdini Splicers for example, and them all being clones makes fuck all sense, when SS2 has reasoning.

Content as in the combat situations you find yourself in. Gameplay, not story.

SS2's stat-based hacking is better and has more depth behind it. Both Bioshock minigames are skill based-which would be prefectly fine and rival SS2's if they both didn't take fuck all skill.

"Stat-based hacking."
You mean reload-encouraging RNG-based hacking. There's no depth in "put points in hack and cyber affinity to remove dangerous nodes." Your wanting a pointlessly-high skill floor on a minigame is crazy too.

 

[felipepepe]

Even gaming journos admit that Bioshock games have shitty gunplay, but Roguey needs to go that extra mile...

 

[Roguey]

Even gaming journos admit that Bioshock games have shitty gunplay, but Roguey needs to go that extra mile...

The ones Ken Levine were involved in yes, but not so much the 2nd. It's not ~fantastic~ but it's all right and the content helps a lot.

 

[CyberP]

I'm talking about the utterly terrible balance,

Granted, there is balancing issues, but this is a common trait of most RPGs.

and hard requirements like "can't use a weapon without meeting the prerequisites."

This forces choice and consequence and as a result increases replayability potential, meaningful choice & strategy. There are other ways they could have gone about it, but the game is meant to be hard after all. Having weapon requirements is in no way a bad thing.

"It has the illusion of choice"

Expand. they are all choices that reward you with new content upon investment.

"and a ton of false options."

You mean imbalanced options. As said, there's a few and this is common to RPGs.

"Content as in the combat situations you find yourself in."

What, SS2, that requires tactics, avoidance of various hazards, allows numerous build types to approach enemies with, even verticality sometimes, and challenge is offered, or Bioshock where you essentially have unlimited ammo, god mode, and battle on a flat plane almost at all times. There's nothing else to it.

"Stat-based hacking."
You mean reload-encouraging RNG-based hacking.

It wouldn't be abusable if it weren't for quicknoobsave.
You don't have to abuse it, but the game does encourage it by default I'll give you that.

"There's no depth in "put points in hack and cyber affinity to remove dangerous nodes."

Yes there is. Hack skill, Cyber affinity, hack software, Psi powers, hack implant, ice picks. There's many options and it's called strategy and choice and consequence.

Your wanting a pointlessly-high skill floor on a minigame is crazy too.

Challenge constitutes a game. Look up the definition of "Game". When you play biocock, which features always-on God mode and almost unlimited ammo, gameplay is irrelevent. Your actions have little significance. You may as well go read a book or watch a film because Bioshock just doesn't DO gameplay. Dead Space does. SS2 does. Biocock does not.

 

[felipepepe]

Even gaming journos admit that Bioshock games have shitty gunplay, but Roguey needs to go that extra mile...

The ones Ken Levine were involved in yes, but not so much the 2nd. It's not ~fantastic~ but it's all right and the content helps a lot.

Better than System Shock 2? Right...

 

[Blaine]

I've completed Shock 2 The System and have opinions that don't warrant existing.

My knee-jerk reaction....

Bioshock 2 and Dead Space 1 and 2 have significantly better core gameplay

...Confirmed.

 

[Nuclear Explosion]

If you want really good level design from start to finish play the first System Shock, a much better and more balanced game imo, even though it lacks all the RPG stuff.

It also has better gunplay

 

[zerotol]

Bioshock is like the retarded brother of System Shock 2. That's the right comparison to make.

 

[Roguey]

Granted, there is balancing issues, but this is a common trait of most RPGs.

"Most RPGs are garbage" is a sentiment I can agree with.

This forces choice and consequence and as a result increases replayability potential, meaningful choice & strategy. There are other ways they could have gone about it, but the game is meant to be hard after all. Having weapon requirements is in no way a bad thing.

It creates "difficulty" through blind guessing. One has no idea that anything that isn't a standard weapon, crystal shard, or grenade launcher is pretty outright useless/subpar in comparison until they've spent the points to test the weapons out themselves (or relied on meta-knowledge). Utterly terrible design.

Expand. they are all choices that reward you with new content upon investment.

Most of the OS upgrades are outright worthless. Modify is unnecessary because french-epstein devices require no skill and you'll get enough to fully upgrade three ranged weapons. There are only a couple of places where having repair is a minor convenience. I already covered weapons. Many of the PSI powers sound useless even at a glance.

What, SS2, that requires tactics, avoidance of various hazards, allows numerous build types to approach enemies with, even verticality sometimes, and challenge is offered,

SS2, where the majority of combat is a single enemy type in a hallway.

or Bioshock where you essentially have unlimited ammo, god mode, and battle on a flat plane almost at all times. There's nothing else to it.

Why do you keep bringing up Bioshock when I'm specifically referring to Bioshock 2?

Incidentally, in SS2, ammo stops being an issue by deck 4, it also has resurrection chambers, and I already mentioned where most combat takes place.

It wouldn't be abusable if it weren't for quicknoobsave.
You don't have to abuse it, but the game does encourage it by default I'll give you that.

I had thousands of nanites at the end game, so even without quickloading at the beginning (I stopped when it was clear that I would never have to buy anything from a replicator), it's still an infuriating timesink.

Yes there is. Hack skill, Cyber affinity, hack software, Psi powers, hack implant, ice picks. There's many options and it's called strategy and choice and consequence.

I don't think you know what those words mean.

Challenge constitutes a game. Look up the definition of "Game". When you play biocock, which features always-on God mode and almost unlimited ammo, gameplay is irrelevent. Your actions have little significance. You may as well go read a book or watch a film because Bioshock just doesn't DO gameplay. Dead Space does. SS2 does. Biocock does not.

"Why do you keep bringing up Bioshock when I'm specifically referring to Bioshock 2?"

Regardless, SS2 on normal wasn't particularly more challenging than even Bioshock's normal. As I mentioned in my impressions, it does art and level design much better, and there are no repetitive Big Daddy fights, but that's it for the most part.

Better than System Shock 2? Right...

Yes, SS2's gunplay is bad, Bio2 is competent. This isn't a controversial statement.

 

[DraQ]

I've completed Shock 2 The System and have opinions that don't warrant their own thread.

Like most of your opinions, actually.

As surprised as I am to say it, I didn't hate it. The progression and customization elements, combat-feel, and degenerate hacking minigame are pure garbage of course

Durp.

Combat-feel was adequate. It wasn't systemically complex, so something like DS has an edge on it by default, but it served its purpose admirably and felt right.

Minigames are almost universally garbage, because they are, pretty much by definition not integrated into gameplay proper (if they did they wouldn't be minigames, but full blown systems. Probably the only good thing that can be done with a conventional minigame short of converting it into well integrated system that's at least thematically coherent with the task, is making it short and minimally intrusive (because no one is playing survival horror because they crave simplistic puzzle games and if they do, there is GamePig or playing games in your brain for them) - SS2 minigames accomplish that.
Then there is the question of purpose. That's usually the hard part - justifying having player play some arbitrary shit over and over while interrupting game flow.
One reason is making the player feel like they are doing something. It's generally questionable and tends to require thematic consistency. The other, most legitimate reason is providing attention and control sink. It requires the minigame to take place concurrently to the game proper and not suspend the action and risks inherent to its gameplay context. The matter of such minigame is no longer succeeding at arbitrary simplistic task dissociated from game proper, but doing so under pressure dictated by the game's actual systems and possibly having to divide your attention to manage both.
SS2 minigames accomplish just that so I don't see why you're so butthurt about them. Yes, they are not good minigames, but that's not what they are for, so who cares?

Now, the progression and customization are probably the only part mentioned that is actually weak, but that's mainly due to nonsensical hard stat thresholds, which I don't think are something a gamist could possibly notice ( are you turning simulationist, Roguey? embrace the dark side), and balance issues.
Big flaws, but hardly so fundamental to not be fixable by mods.

I can agree on art direction, level design and respawns/degradation, but dissecting "core gameplay" in an atmosphere driven game completely misses the point of an atmosphere driven game - where's that fabled feminist ability to see things holistically and defy oppressive male reductionism? Roguey, I am disappoint.

Regarding writing, the worst part of the SS2 is the premise and derpy outro, on the small scale the writing works right.

If you want really good level design from start to finish play the first System Shock, a much better and more balanced game imo, even though it lacks all the RPG stuff.

SS1 is mostly better, but it doesn't have half the atmosphere. RPG stuff largely worked to SS2's detriment, actually (at least weapon skills and most hard stat requirements did, due to being nonsensical).

 

[Burning Bridges]

It's over 12 years that I played SS2. So I think it's not impossible that I would not like it as much as I did.

 

[Elthosian]

If you want really good level design from start to finish play the first System Shock, a much better and more balanced game imo, even though it lacks all the RPG stuff.

SS1 is mostly better, but it doesn't have half the atmosphere. RPG stuff largely worked to SS2's detriment, actually (at least weapon skills and most hard stat requirements did, due to being nonsensical).

Hate to disagree regarding atmosphere, DraQ, despite System Shock 2 benefiting from better tech and writing, I believe the first one did it better by (mostly) making you explore in order to know what to do next, no silly radio calls telling you to get some stuff in order to open a door, just you alone finding clues and going against a SHODAN that actually tries to kill you many times during your ordeal and feels like a tangible opponent.