System Shock 1 vs 2 - Which is better and why?

[Micormic]

SS1 was more impressive but SS2 has a better engine and plays better(obv).

SS1 didn't age well...At all lol.

 

[anvi]

It is fine if you use the mouse mod.

 

[schru]

It is fine even without the mod. I would say that using it is harmful to the experience as it makes the player too efficient in combat and it just changes the way the game feels.

I played both games for the first time relatively recently and found the first one to be better all in all, in spite of the poor combat.

 

[anvi]

I agree apart from the mod part. Mouse mod essential for avoiding brain cancer.

 

[Semiurge]

SS2 feels like a dumbed down remake. Nightdive's re-release of SS1 is beautiful to look and listen at, and immersive.

 

[Van-d-all]

I have to say SS2. Aside from the shit ending, I liked the pacing, especially as it gets you killed in 30 seconds from the start if you don't move. Really let's you know the game doesn't fuck around from the get go. Also the scientifically explained residual ghosts ("self-hypnotic defects in the R-grade unit") while quite cheesy nowadays, seemed a clever plot device back then. Improvements in character development and QOL are an obvious plus.

 

[Katana1000S]

SS1 for me, played it when it first came out and it was so revolutionary, it even supported a basic "lo res" VR headset back then believe it or not! Its non mouse look style was fine back then as proper mouse look as we know it now and for when SS2 was released was not around when SS1 was released, hardly fair to knock back SS1 for this.

SS1 was way ahead of its time on release.

Anyway and as it happens, actually finished a run through of SS2 last night, there are some amazing moments in the game for sure ... it is very much an RPG .. but jeez, it grinds at times, and the overspawning kills it almost, also and even after several plays since its release (last play was a few years ago) it can be easy to wonder what the fuck I'm supposed to be doing at times, even looking at logs/emails/hints, some are a bit vague on some levels and had to go look at walkthough's before I gave up in boredom. SS2 ending is poor too, so you make it to the end, beat Shodan and then bang, straight back to the menu Interface, no reward or video ending, the game just stops.

The short but muddled SS Rickenbacker part is where the game really goes downhill and to a boring lacklustre grind of an ending as well, its as if they realised they were approaching a deadline and had to rush things to meet it ... worst part of the game IMHO.

The overall sketching out of a Space station is quite good though, its how I imagine one would be with different levels for different things ... but so was SS1 in this respect.

SS1 ... that I did a full run again a couple of years ago was a much more satisfying experience if you can get over the less crisp graphics and older movement system, its a much better designed game, more coherent, better structured IMHO, very much looking fwd to seeing Nightdive Studios version finished ... and wouldn't it be wonderful if it supported VR as the original did on its release!

As for the proposed SS3 if its still going to be made by the people that did Underworld Ascendant? (gave up checking on it) not interested, was so looking forward to UA as a massive Ultima Underworld 1 and 2 fan, when it became apparent Otherside were butchering the legacy of the originals with a cheap thrill action game (I hesitate to call it a game) I gave up, have tried to play the finished (LOL) game and cant get further than 10 minutes in, its pure shit ... sorry for being blunt, but it really is crap. I'd rather have no SS3 than have another stain on original games legacy as what happened with UA to UW.

SS1 got my vote in this topic over SS2, easily, SS2 is still a brilliant game, just ... Oh I don't know ... and if you could just judge on gameplay and not new graphics against old, SS2 is just not in the same league as SS1

 

[anvi]

SS1 was the best by a long shot. As a game it was slightly better overall, but it has to get major bonus points for being the first. It was so ahead of its time, I was bored stiff from all the FPSs back then, once you completed Wolf3d and all its expansions, Doom, Doom 2, Quake, Quake 2, etc.. they were all a chore for me. But while ID was producing the Call of Duty of its day, SS1 was like a game from the future with an inventory, grenades, multiple ammo types, RPG mixed with FPS, etc. SS1 was amazing.

 

[Raskens]

SS1 had better exploration and therefore it gets my vote.

 

[Semiurge]

I was too young to be interested in SS1 when it was released, nor did my PC have the CPU power to run it, it could barely run Wolfenstein 3D. However, after the souce port was released there's no better time for a first playthough. I've almost completed Research level now and the game surely doesn't hold hands like most modern games, there's no objectives listed so you have to read your collected logs to find out what you're supposed to do.

 

[Spukrian]

I can't choose, they're both great games. I recently played both for the first time in over 10 years. SS1 has less handholding and the level design is more open. SS2 holds your hand all the way to the end and the level design (while not bad) is very linear. On the other hand SS2 has stats and that increases replayability for me, because I like trying out different builds.

Inb4 Codex Edgelords claim the plot twist is "predictable" or "banal shit boring" just like they did with KOTOR.

This guy figured it out pretty quick:

 

[Maggot]

https://www.systemshock.org/index.php?topic=11582
Full map of SS2 (SCP maps) in sketchfab.

 

[thesecret1]

I liked the first one a lot more. While the second's looks were better, it was basically a dumbed down version of the first, with simplistic level design and less content.

 

[Correct_Carlo]

SS1. I am on record as saying that SS2 is massively overrated, and I stand by that.

 

[Nano]

I liked the first one a lot more. While the second's looks were better, it was basically a dumbed down version of the first, with simplistic level design and less content.

Dude... SS1 wasn't even a horror game nor did it have RPG elements. The two games have a lot of differences beyond level design.

 

[kangaxx]

Old poll, but I voted 2. It's a difficult call, but the second one had more impact on me when I first played it. I was young and it genuinely scared me, and not a lot of media can make that claim.

 

[RoSoDude]

I liked the first one a lot more. While the second's looks were better, it was basically a dumbed down version of the first, with simplistic level design and less content.

I already BTFO'd you for this "dumbed down version of the first" claim in the other thread; why are you at this again?

Every single time I try to play System Shock 2 I keep telling myself that I should be playing System Shock 1. I end up turning it off and playing neither. I think something died inside me.

It's mostly what I've thought while playing SS2 as well. It wasn't a bad game, but... that's it? That's what everyone is talking about? I played SS2 shortly after finishing SS1, and it was like I jumped straight into a pool of decline. No matter how I looked at it, it seemed like massive casualization – gone was the intricate level design, gone were many of the actions you could take, even the difficulty seemed very significantly lower... SS2 had better graphics, obviously, and better UI (which was pretty shit in SS1 truth to be told), but those are minor things compared to what was lost.

I quite like SS1, but this feels pretty reductive to me. SS2's levels are certainly less complex and mazelike than the first game's, but they're also populated with thoughtful encounters against more challenging and dynamic enemies. With a few notable exceptions (e.g. Cyborg Assassin, Autobomb) most of SS1's enemy roster just shuffles in place and hitscans the player. By contrast, SS2's hybrids will aggressively chase after you, monkeys and midwives will pin you down with energy projectiles and fend you off in melee attacks up close, Cyborg Assassins will run away to bait you into a spot where they can more effectively pelt you with shurikens, protocol droids fill the autobomb role with kamikaze rushes, the droids are massive tanks that box you into hallways and spam dangerous energy bolts, and we have actual turrets as static defenses instead of enemies that just behave like them. Enemies come in fixed placements, scripted ambushes, and dynamic respawn roaming so there's always a threat around the corner and you can easily get caught off guard while managing your inventory or hacking security. SS1 had all of this too, but aside from a few memorable encounters (like the mutant elevator ambush on Level 2, SHODAN's Death Machine on Level R, the Nice Jump ambush on Level 4, the Cyborg Assassins tucked away in sneaky places on Level 8), most of the combat runs together in my mind even after playing on the hardest difficulty settings. SS2 is filled with clever enemy setups, like the Maintenance Droid charging the Medsci hallway unexpectedly after you get the access keycode from Grassi, or the staggered bursting of Protocol Droids out of shipping crates in the Cargo Bays, or the dozen hybrid/midwife/assassin/spider ambushes I can think of throughout the game, or something as simple as a worm egg placed underneath a camera in Hydroponics A so you get trapped in a corner by the worm while trying to avoid the camera's sightlines. A lot of these are possible only because the level design has chokepoints that expect the player to enter and leave through a particular route.

That's all without getting into SS2's heightened focus on resource management, inventory selection, and character upgrades which result in vastly different approaches to each combat scenario depending on your other choices. SS1 has a sizeable weapon roster and some light inventory management on its own, but ammo and healing items are comparatively plentiful and most players will be relying on the same selection of gear as one another depending on their progression through the game. I'm also not sure what more you're looking for in the player's actions? The Von Braun lacks Citadel's secret wall panels and cyberspace is (happily) a thing of the past, but SS2 has plenty of interactivity beyond combat. Cameras are now tied to meaningful security systems, there's a bunch more to hack and repair than SS1 had with its grid and wire puzzles, there are alien artifacts to research with chemicals, and there's comparable platforming here and there. We're lacking SS1's roller skates and jet boots, but the suite of 35 psionic disciplines more than makes up for it. SS1's rearview mirror, headlamp, and night vision are all less interesting to me than SS2's implants, and I prefer SS2's armor system to the energy shield and envirosuit. I'll grant that SS1 had a more interesting patch system, as well as better use of darkness as a gameplay element. More initiative was also expected from the player in solving the progression riddles by finding audio logs and piecing together clues in SS1, while SS2 gives the player explicit directives, at least early on. But in terms of overall difficulty, were it not for some unfortunate discrepancies in balance that allow for significant metagaming I'd say SS2 on the hardest difficulty is quite a bit tougher than SS1 on its hardest settings, even factoring in the latter's 7 hour time limit.

What's funny is I actually think UI and graphics were strengths of SS1 compared to its sequel. Manually managing your interface in the heat of combat was often a greater source of tension than the enemy design itself in SS1 and led to some interesting simulated interactions with throwing grenades and reloading your guns, and I found the vibrant cyberpunk aesthetic of Citadel Station to be more fleshed out and unique than the rather barren hallways of the Von Braun, though the latter certainly establishes a menacing atmosphere of its own. Both games have their strong points, so it confuses me when people describe SS2 as this massively casualized product of decline when the likes of Bioshock exist.

They're different kinds of games. Both complex, both innovative, both hardcore, both flawed, and both excellent. Have whatever preference you like, but it's asinine to pretend that SS2 was trying to be the same kind of mazy dungeon crawler adventure game as the first and simply messed up along the way.

 

[thesecret1]

why are you at this again?

Probably because I disagree with your evaluation. I played SS1 and SS2 back to back, and I just don't see it – none of SS2's encounters stuck in my mind as somehow special or cleverly placed, the only thing I remember of them is how disappointingly easy they were to beat. Sure, they were a lot more scripted than in SS1, but what does that matter if I just stomp all over them? Things like researching artifacts seemed like little more than a gimmick, and the level design went from great, maze-like levels full of secrets into something more akin to a Skyrim dungeon. I say it was casualized, because that's how I saw it – a sequel to a great game that I had a lot of fun with, which is however merely mediocre. I cannot and will not ever agree that SS2 is somehow "complex, innovative, hardcore, and excellent" because to me, it wasn't any of those things, especially not in comparison to SS1.

 

[Eisen]

I found SS1 more fun

 

[Semiurge]

Made it to Bridge now, with all enemies dead except for SHODAN. There's not much replay value but it has been a good mix of point & click adventure and action. I wonder what it could've been without the movement system limiting its difficulty and design at the time...

 

[JDR13]

Why does one have to be better? It's not really an apt comparison imo.

 

[Ash]

SS1. I am on record as saying that SS2 is massively overrated, and I stand by that.

fuck you

SS2 feels like a dumbed down remake. SS1 source port is beautiful to look and listen at, and immersive.

And fuck you too

I have no idea what is supposed to be dumbed down. SS2 is the more complex game. the controls maybe
The level design? Sure if you neglect the fact that SS1's often had had minimal detail and gameplay diversity, except it didn't have to be that way because when they actually tried the level design was great instead of endless empty coridoors. I'm guessing at the time some of the level designers had not quite got the memo yet.

 

[anvi]

SS2 had pretty amazing controls, you could lean forward and stuff! Never saw another game that could do that.

 

[Ash]

That was inherited from Thief.

SS1's depth of movement was great, though the implementation requiring 100 different keys for it was retarded.

 

[Nano]

SS2 had pretty amazing controls, you could lean forward and stuff! Never saw another game that could do that.

Weren't you the one shitting all over Thief? You could literally do that there.