Kristijonas on 9/6/2016 at 13:00
Which game is considered better?
In terms of graphics?
In terms of user interference/more pleasing to use
In terms of gameplay/action
In terms of story
In terms of content
I could not get into SS1 because of poor graphics and user interface. I mean, cmon:
Inline Image:
https://cdn.bundlestars.com/production/product/1280x720/6fb6e4da-27ff-42ab-90cb-0b9984909d53.jpg wondering if there are other factors in the game SO good that they would be worth struggling through the game?
D'Arcy on 9/6/2016 at 14:26
Do you seriously expect to make a direct comparison of stuff like graphics between two games that were published five years apart?
And you couldn't get into the original System Shock because of graphics? Well, your loss. I still play the game at least once a year.
Trance on 9/6/2016 at 14:55
Try not to make graphics technology a factor in your enjoyment of video games. Art style matters, but polygon count and rendering techniques don't. (And SS1's art style is absolutely fine.)
As to which is better, that's mostly down to personal preference. I think it's a relatively even mix of elements between the two games where one does better than the other. SS2 had a much more fast and intuitive UI than SS1, the logs were generally of better production quality (but that doesn't necessarily mean the logs did a better job of conveying atmosphere), and the sound and AI department was enormously improved. SS1's music is a much better listen for me, and I really like its style of presentation and its tone, much more so than SS2's. Despite the significantly less advanced engine, SS1 still feels as realistic to me as SS2 does.
Which do I like to play more? SS2. Which do I like more? SS1.
ZylonBane on 9/6/2016 at 15:07
I suspect Kristijonas was hoping to gather a support group for his poor taste.
D'Arcy on 9/6/2016 at 16:53
Oh yeah, I forgot to add: I love both games but if I had to pick a favourite it would still be the first one.
Stingm on 9/6/2016 at 19:04
I like them both but never found shock 1 hard to get into. And now its even better with mouse look and all the enhancements.
Kristijonas on 9/6/2016 at 20:59
Thank you for your answers! However those personal attacks on me are really uncalled for and unnecessary.
And i'm NOT looking for a support group for my tastes, I am simply interested in how other people feel about these games and their differences. In hopes to see if others are enjoying SS1 and I should make another attempt at liking it or if the general concensus is it is too clumpsy/ugly to play nowadays. Also I was hoping someone can tell me how they view and play SS1 to see if I can emulate their style and also enjoy it. Finally I wanted to know whether SS2 is not considered too inferior to SS1 as a flawed sequel as often happens. Good to hear it is not! It also seems SS2 is based on the same graphics engine as T1? Thief graphics to me even today look the best. All those shiny new games have nothing on it.
Quote Posted by Trance
Try not to make graphics technology a factor in your enjoyment of video games.
I do! To this day I play Ultima Online, Strife, Planescape Torment, Master of Orion 2, Fallout and some even older games and I LOVE their graphics! I think they are works of art and their graphics technology being ancient did nothing bad to these game.
However SS1 feels different to me. The graphics look clumsy. Or maybe it's the user interface that I could not get into? First of all I feel in SS1 as if the character I play is not a person but a clumsy... box. With a camera attached on top. If you know what I mean. Secondly, maybe it's just the type of controls/UI that reminds me of the 'genre' of the games I never liked, the 'dungeon crawler' genre as I call it. Where the view was static and you could only move forwards, backwards, left and right to change the scenery.
For example Daggerfall:
Inline Image:
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/screen_kubrick/0/31/1880109-vf_daggerfall_rpcg.pngEye of the Beholder:
Inline Image:
http://img2.game-oldies.com/sites/default/files/snaps/sega-cd/advanced-dungeons-dragons-eye-of-the-beholder-usa.pngI'm allergic to this kind of UI and tend to avoid games like this. I only played SS1 remastered, so maybe SS1 was originally like these games? In that case it is perfectly understandable why it did not suit my personal taste.
terrannova on 9/6/2016 at 22:15
Which game is considered better?
I always enjoyed System Shock 1 more. Maybe it was the environment. Maybe the weapons. Maybe the sounds and music. Maybe the SHODAN plot which was just pure awesome. Either way, System Shock 1994 remains my #1 Top Video Game of All Time for over 22 years, and counting.
In terms of graphics?
System Shock 2 arrived in 1999, so obviously it has a better graphics engine, but that said, some of the human and mutant models in Shock 2 leave much to be desired, way too few polygons.
In terms of user interference/more pleasing to use
I never had an issue with Shock 1's interface. It is the only game I play with the arrow keys using my left hand, and the mouse on my right hand. With the recent EE, WSAD was fine, and tapping E to use mouselook was a charm. Shock 2's interface is obviously easier to use, but I prefer Shock 1.
In terms of gameplay/action
Shock 2 has really good atmosphere and immersion, though it's actually quite easy to die. Shock 1 has really good sound and music, and plenty of action.
In terms of story
Shock 1's story is everything I want in a video game, this helps maintain it as my #1 game of all time.
In terms of content
Shock 2 feels like it may be slightly larger than Shock 1, but not much. Both games are similar in length/content.
Both games have a ton of content. From secret rooms to easter eggs to cool puzzles. There is no disappointment.
So in the end, just play both--preferably in order, and then hang out with us in the clubhouse as we wait for Shock 3--which should continue the trend of excellence.
D'Arcy on 9/6/2016 at 22:20
I think you might have one serious disadvantage when compared to most of us: you didn't get to play System Shock when it first came out. And believe me, the feeling you got back then was like entering a whole new world. The game was different from almost everything we had seen, and probably the first 'real' 3D game - System Shock's movement/physics are miles away from games like Doom, which came out roughly around the same time. You probably have no idea of how revolutionary this game was in 1994.
Most people here absolutely love the game. I've been playing it for 22 years and counting. Still love the story, still feel immersed in Citadel Station, still get scared running through a maze full of Auto Bombs, wandering through halls filled with Inviso-Mutants or cowering inside a grove, while listening to some Gorilla-Tiger nearby, ready to go through a whole clip of Splinter ammo with my Flechette without removing my finger from the trigger at the slightest sign of movement. I still love just listening to the music on the Exec or Security levels. Even with all the improvements made to the game, I actually still play it using its original controls and no mouselook, because that's the way I got used to do it. I don't expect that someone who plays the game for the first time today would be able to feel the same. But it's somewhat annoying to see someone bashing one of my all-time favourite games because of 'poor graphics' (your 'I mean, cmon' comment was what irked me).
D'Arcy on 9/6/2016 at 22:27
Going off on a tangent, just the other day I was playing Bioforge, and for some reason I always find that it has aged considerably worse that System Shock. And at the time, I remember being absolutely stunned by its graphics - my poor old 486 DX4 100 couldn't handle it; I had to buy a Pentium to be able to play it :)
