Pyrian on 6/12/2015 at 06:10
Hmm. I've played through SS2 twice in Steam, and logged 27 hours total. But does excessive time spent playing Overworld Zero count?
eastgate2 on 6/12/2015 at 07:33
Quote Posted by icemann
6 hours of gamplay? :eek:
I'd have hoped for atleast 2 days worth.
What is surprising about this, I don't get it.
I bought outlast on the day of release for 20usd, finished it in 3 hours. It has much better production quality than solarix, but is very shallow in story and variety compared to solarix, which I finished it 6.7 hours.
Just for the sake of comparision, I mean. If your point is else, I don't get it.
I didn't dive into any of the background story elements in details in Solarix, didn't explore much off-paths. Didn't read terminals and emails much. I heard it was pointless to explore every nook and cranny in levels but I can have a look if the developers provide new patch to add achiements as they keep saying over steam forums.
In any case comparing solarix's gameplay length and background story richness to system shock is pointless. System shock's lore continued to literally hunt me long after the game was over, even long after I stopped reading about the game. so that's something else. very something else.
By saying ttlg turning blind eye on solarix I meant exactly this. Solarix can be an useless/failed/modest attemt to recapture the system shock "feeling" and the devs claimed to do so. But even if you slap the label old-school in this age, it might be totally unnecessary because steam masses welcome anything "retro" but quick to dismiss anything "old-school"
Can we really discuss : Is there any way or point to try to reach/re-do/re-claim any results system shock or deus ex or thief did way back then today, even if you are an indie team?
Comparing time length of game play is the only way to do so?
icemann on 6/12/2015 at 09:03
Well they did say in their kickstarter that the main inspirations were Deus Ex and System Shock if I remember right, so I would consider that (gameplay length) a valid thing to ask about considering the length of those 2 games.
I'm afraid we're not in the 80s anymore. So 3-6 hours of gameplay just isn't going to cut it for most people.
And I was one of the people who backed Solarix. So you can take your assumptions and leave it the door.
Manwe on 6/12/2015 at 12:45
Quote Posted by icemann
Really? One play through for me, is about 2 nights worth. So about 12 hours-ish.
Eh that might have been on my later playthroughs when I knew the game by heart. Still 6 hours doesn't strike me as odd. It depends on the quality of these 6 hours, and the expectations of the player. I think it's an old debate. If you're paying for a linear but minutely crafted single-player campaign with really high production values, then 6 hours is the norm. If you're paying for a sprawling open-world RPG with branching paths, then 30 hours is a minimum.
Anyway as I grow older and my free time diminishes I kinda like my disposable superficial cinematic games to be as short as possible. Not sure in which category Solarix falls though.
heywood on 6/12/2015 at 13:58
It's also hard to agree on length since we all play differently. I am the type who wants to check
everything out in a single play, as much as possible anyway, even if it's an RPG and I know I'm going to play again as a different character. And sometimes I like reloading and repeating sections just to try something else for the sake of what if. So my time estimates are longer than most other people's.
Quote Posted by Yakoob
How much Stealth is in Solarix? I've been wanting to pick it up for a while, mainy for the story and setting, but concerned about gameplay. I am not a huge stealth fan (had take 2-3 breaks when playing Thief to beat the whole game) and the AI and bugs criticisms I've read make it sound like it could be extra frustrating.
The gameplay is all stealth, and it's modeled on Thief. If you're not a fan of Thief's gameplay, I suggest you play on easy.
eastgate2 on 6/12/2015 at 14:55
Quote Posted by icemann
I'm afraid we're not in the 80s anymore. So 3-6 hours of gameplay just isn't going to cut it for most people.
I really want to say amen to that but isn't exactly the opposite happening lately? Games are shorter nowadays compared to old days, and many are "ok" with it.
Let's say;
Somebody want to remake/do a spritual successor to Unreal 1. We should assume that somebody would be an indie dev since big studios will never take such risks today. And It took me a full week of whole nights to finish Unreal 1 and the moment I hear somebody is doing something related to that game today, I'd be interested immensely.
Now, especially the variety in levels amazed me in Unreal 1. And pretty sure average gameplay length for Unreal 1 can't be less than 20 hours even if you rush.
We have two options for such "remake";
Either the devs would try to stuff in as much as variety to live up to its name and sacrifice any "next-gen graphical improvements"
or;
make a good looking unreal 1 remake, possibly in unreal 4 engine and focus mostly to make it look as much suitable to "next-gen" label but make the game shorter, naturally because of having limited budget, due to being indie.
Which one would we/you prefer?
Spiritual successor of your favorite 90s game today with no current tech-graphics or a shorter, lighter version of it but having better graphics?
icemann on 6/12/2015 at 18:12
In that example, I'd go for whichever captures the essence of the game it's a spiritual successor to obviously :).
Hell, if Unreal 1 had been really short I'd have been bitterly disappointed.
It really does depend on what games it's the spiritual successor/inspired by and especially depend on the genre.
So in this example (Solarix) it's of Deus Ex (FPS/RPG hybrid) and System Shock (FPS/RPG, more so with the second game). So I'd be hoping for a good few nights worth (3+ with the more the better assuming the gameplay is good).
Though from what I've read above, whilst it's sci-fi based the gameplay leans more in a Thief direction. I've only played through Thief 1 and 2 once, so my memory is sketchy on length but I think both were several nights long.
If I'm in the minority though on this issue, then by all means it could be just me that feels this way. But for me, I like a game that gives me a good amount of content for my $$$, and again price affecting expected length (when it's a newly released game). So someone said it is $20 US, which converted over to Aus is $27. I'd be hoping for 3-4+. Below 3 and I'd expecting the cost to be lower.
I will give it some slack though, as the kickstarter was unsuccessful at the time and if I remember right they went with private backing + investment of their own money. I'm sure if the kickstarter had been a success that we'd have a far larger game.
It's a shame that if what the posts above have said is right, that exploration of levels (rather than just heading the main direction) doesn't really = a reward of anything. Which would = lesser gameplay time.
[edit]
Watched some gameplay vids. Random thoughts:
Looks nice. I would say it's more Thiefy and Deus Ex-ish influenced gameplay wise. ESPECIALLY with the interface and hacking style which is straight up 100% total Deus Ex 1 stuff in look and style. Though the interface looks more clunky and minimal. Interface and the inventory needs a revamp. I didn't get anything of a "System Shock" vibe with it.
Does the shock melee weapon even work? In the gameplay vids I watched it failed every time even when they aimed for the head (which the audio log when you get it tells you to aim for). If it's only worthwhile using guns all the time, then that gets rid of much of the Thiefy-ness. Also takes away variety in play styles that the game will accommodate for.
You can take out light sources to provide more dark cover. Good. But then there's no melee weapons (that I saw in the gameplay vids) beyond the shock weapon. And ammo seemed scarce.
I did see some optional side areas/rooms for extra ammo, health kits etc.
Also is it 100% checkpoint based, or is there manual saves also? Please be manual saving. And can you upgrade stats or abilities, get better armor etc? Looked very bare bones-ish. In the second vid I watched the player got a better hacking tool towards the end of it.
The enemies seem very quiet and quick to react. Not even a "INTRUDER ALERT!!!". Just quick aim and fire, and chase you endlessly until you or they are dead. I didn't even hear foot step sounds as they walked. Shame.
If you throw an object as a distraction, the enemies run to said object immediately. Not even a "huh what was that?". Just run instantly over to it, like a dog to a stick/bone. Don't like that.
But it does look good as I said. Very nice looking game. Voice acting seems good.
It just looks like it needs more work to improve the interface, add in more enemy sounds, enemy walking etc. I also think if it went more with a sound based detection scheme for enemy alertness (ala Thief, System Shock 2, Metal Gear Solid 5), it would improve the game significantly. Especially as it has, the option to throw objects to distract enemies.
Yakoob on 6/12/2015 at 20:56
I prefer shorter games these days, but not due to dearth of time. After almost 20 years of gaming I kind of "seen it all" so I can understand the gist of a game much faster than before. As a result, games bore me more quickly too. So id rather have a short and sweet experience that come in, shows me where it shines, and doesn't overstat its welcome than drawn out and padded grind for the sake of clocking in enough hours.
heywood on 7/12/2015 at 18:58
Quote Posted by icemann
It's a shame that if what the posts above have said is right, that exploration of levels (rather than just heading the main direction) doesn't really = a reward of anything. Which would = lesser gameplay time.
It's an issue with some of the more open levels, particularly chapter 3. This is an outdoor level where you are tasked with exploring the site where two gigantic ships crashed, and then finding the entrance to the mines. It is a big level with a lot of complex and interesting geometry that somebody obviously spent a lot of time laying out. It looks like it's just tailor-made for exploration, but it's practically empty. There's just a handful of enemies, and the only things I recall finding around the crash site were one container with a loot item and an important audio log. Also, in the original unpatched game it was extremely easy to get stuck or trapped by the geometry if you tried to explore the nooks and crannies of this level, and even after patching there are clipping bugs lurking off the beaten path.
The other chapters are comparatively less empty, but there's still a lot of level design in this game that is nice to look at but superfluous.
Quote:
Looks nice. I would say it's more Thiefy and Deus Ex-ish influenced gameplay wise. ESPECIALLY with the interface and hacking style which is straight up 100% total Deus Ex 1 stuff in look and style. Though the interface looks more clunky and minimal. Interface and the inventory needs a revamp. I didn't get anything of a "System Shock" vibe with it.
The atmosphere has some SS2 vibe to it. Also, the story themes and the use of audio logs are clearly SS2 inspired. I think the interface and inventory is fine. There isn't a ton of stuff to manage like a Shock or Deus Ex game.
Quote:
Does the shock melee weapon even work? In the gameplay vids I watched it failed every time even when they aimed for the head (which the audio log when you get it tells you to aim for).
The electro-shocker does work. The target area was small in the unpatched game, so you had to be close and aim carefully. In the patched game, it's more generous. You approach the enemy from behind while crouched, stop just behind them, stand up and fire. But sometimes an enemy will hear you stand up even if you don't move, so using the electro-shocker can be a risky proposition. This was especially true after the patches and the randomness of it was annoying.
Quote:
If it's only worthwhile using guns all the time, then that gets rid of much of the Thiefy-ness. Also takes away variety in play styles that the game will accommodate for.
You can take out light sources to provide more dark cover. Good. But then there's no melee weapons (that I saw in the gameplay vids) beyond the shock weapon. And ammo seemed scarce.
The gun is more useful for shooting lights out than killing. You will not get very far in this game trying to gun down enemies. Your gun is weak, you're not a good shot, and the enemies are better armed. It will occasionally get you out of a pickle, but it's not a weapon of first choice.
Like Thief, the gameplay options are basically ghosting, melee takedowns, or some of both.
Quote:
Also is it 100% checkpoint based, or is there manual saves also? Please be manual saving.
Checkpoints only. Which is a good thing in a survival horror game. The checkpoints were mostly well placed, but there were a couple of times where it checkpointed right as I was being attacked, or about to be attacked, so I couldn't progress from the checkpoint and had to restart the level. Again, this seemed to happen more after the patches, because they added more checkpoints.
Quote:
And can you upgrade stats or abilities, get better armor etc? Looked very bare bones-ish. In the second vid I watched the player got a better hacking tool towards the end of it.
It's not an RPG.
Quote:
The enemies seem very quiet and quick to react. Not even a "INTRUDER ALERT!!!". Just quick aim and fire, and chase you endlessly until you or they are dead. I didn't even hear foot step sounds as they walked. Shame.
The enemies do make footstep sounds as they walk. And you can outrun many/most of the enemies you encounter. The alert states need some fixing though.
In the original, unpatched game the enemies had a very limited field of view and range of vision, so they would often hear you before seeing you and go into an alerted "hunting" state. But their vision was so limited that it was too easy to ghost. The game patches amped up the AI difficulty, so now they generally go from being unaware to shooting your ass instantly, which isn't any better. I feel like the devs never really got the AI balance right despite the multiple patches.
Quote:
But it does look good as I said. Very nice looking game. Voice acting seems good.
I agree that it looks really good for an indie title. If I had to pick nits, it would be with the metal textures indoors that seem to have a rather dated specular bump mapped look. But I think the architecture of the levels and amount of detail in the level design is impressive.
Quote:
It just looks like it needs more work to improve the interface, add in more enemy sounds, enemy walking etc. I also think if it went more with a sound based detection scheme for enemy alertness (ala Thief, System Shock 2, Metal Gear Solid 5), it would improve the game significantly. Especially as it has, the option to throw objects to distract enemies.
The enemies do use sound-based detection. It works almost exactly like Thief.
icemann on 8/12/2015 at 05:06
Ah ok.
In regards to gun shooting: In all the gameplay vids I watched, players used guns quite often and didn't miss that often when going for head shots. In only one of them, the player tried using the shock weapon and it failed to work (the enemy spun around instantly and shot the player to death). I didn't see players using guns for taking out light sources that often, due to scarce amounts of ammo.
On check points vs manual saves: I've always seen check points rather than allowance for manual saving as lazy programming, and it holds up just as much in a survival horror as in any game (eg the shadowrun returns devs were quite hesitant against adding in manual saves for their game which was a straight up RPG even though the players were screaming for it, but they didn't want to add it due to the huge amount of time required to add it in, even though it really was needed).
I've always felt, that it should be in every time with FPS games. Yes it heightens the tension by not having it, but giving players choices on how to play a game works MUCH better than limitations. Don't like manual saves? Then don't save and rely on your check points. Don't like check points and prefer manual saves? Just use your manual saves. Choice.
Manual saves also allow for experimentation in play styles, play as you go with the time you have available (eg ability to save where you are when you need to get off the computer for whatever reason rather than having to redo 10-20 minutes of gameplay just go get back to where you were. Dead Space 1 & 2 did just fine with it, as did System Shock 2.
