Ziemanskye on 5/9/2006 at 13:28
I got lost :(
*notes to self: turn map ON
ZylonBane on 5/9/2006 at 13:32
To be fair, I do agree that DX took a better approach to weapons training. SS2's approach certainly isn't a game-breaker though... it's just more "gamey" than realistic.
I wonder if it's possible to modify the gamesys so that SS2 works more like DX in this regard.
charlestheoaf on 5/9/2006 at 18:16
1)The training missions: I kind of agree with you there. I would have liked to have a bit better of an idea of what I was getting in to the first play through. You have to weigh all the options, but you don't really know where they will all lead.
The system works well, but it makes it a little frustrating the first time.
2)I too felt the clunkyness of the ladder. Sometimes they're a real bitch to get off of. Sometimes you can just walk off, but sometimes you get stuck and have to jump. However, I just started jumping every time and have no woes.
3)I didn't really feel this much. This isn't the type of game where you advance from location to location. Rather, you're stuck in one location, and have to work your way out.
Bjossi on 5/9/2006 at 18:19
I bet it is possible, but how difficult...:erm:
Sulphur on 5/9/2006 at 18:52
It's easy enough to acknowledge that SS2 wasn't a perfect game.
The reason for its less than great mass appeal, though is because of a couple of other things, too.
1) It was difficult.
2) It was bloody difficult.
3) It wasn't a title you could pigeonhole - was it an FPS, an RPG, or an adventure game? It had elements of everything, and that made it harder for FPS devotees and other folks who hated RPGs or adventure games to like it. People weren't ready for post-modernism in games just yet.
4) Like System Shock before it, it was pioneering gameplay systems that hadn't seen the light of day yet, at least not in more mainstream titles for that time. Stuff, like 2) that was ahead of its time. This, unfortunately, made it hardcore. Not everybody could 'get' it. Which brings us to...
5) It wasn't easily accessible. Back in '99, Quake III repopularised the idea of FPSs being mindless brilliant fun like Doom. There's an irony there, I think, considering that the original System Shock fared poorly for almost the exact same reason - it was compared to another id product that was far simpler in concept, design, and play. Namely, Doom.
There were other reasons as well - like weapon damage/breakage, which really was out of control - but these are what come to mind immediately.
Shevers on 5/9/2006 at 19:01
I can see a lot of the points here, mainly for remembering my first time playing SS2. I'll admit, it completely confused and baffled me, particularly not being able to use weapons picked up. But then, I was 11 at the time :erm: So I had it worse than your average gamer.
But yes, it's a game with complex systems and it's fairly easy for a typical gamer to whiz through the training, then go "wtf is going on!?". Your point about the game being one that gets much better the second time through is the key to me - once you figure out what the game's about, and understand the systems it's built upon, the game's far better to get into.
So yeah, that's probably why it's more of a cult game, but I wouldn't call it a bad game because of it, just complex.
Womble on 5/9/2006 at 23:38
Every game has it's faults and I obviously recognise the faults apparant in SS2, but in my opinion, games often have a very personal appeal. This is why it's still in my list of classics :P
cosmicnut on 6/9/2006 at 11:11
My first comment is this.
Remeber how old the darn game is!!!
You also say you are and FPSer, I would also call myself on. However, SS2 is not an FPS. It's more roleplaying, yes it has an FPS view but it's more focused on character developmet and challanging the player than telling you to run through the monster filled corridors to press a button.
It's one of the games greatest achivements and also flaws. It means that a large section of the gaming public do not get the game.
I do agree with some of what you say about re-spawn. You think an areas clear and the next though you hear is the thud of a pipe on the back of your kneck. Annoying but if you let the atmosphere of the game get to you it can be some of the best scares. Also, remember. Not everyone's dead yet. They are still being caught, turned into zombies or eaten by a huge set of teeth and turned into something else!
The programmers did agree that they got the weapon degradation wrong. It's too quick and things break too easily but you can edit a file to reduce the effects.
I love the fact the ship is a SHIP. Not a long winding path from A-B. You don't always know what you need and you can't grab everything. Its fun trying to decide what you actually need and whats just recycler food. Games like CoD tend to only let you pick up usefull items and make them glow red. You can carry an infinate number of items and ammo. Fun when you just want to blast things, but not that much of a challange.
Next time your in a FPS. Do a ghost/noclip and see just how boring and liner the levels are!
Bomb Bloke on 6/9/2006 at 13:06
There's nothing wrong with the respawn. Sure, it's fairly constant, but it's not overwhelming. Players would get bored if cleared areas stayed clear until you triggered the next spawn by completing some task or other.
Sure, in a technical sense it's unrealistic (even if there is more then one entry point to most areas), but while playing it you get the opposite effect. When going from point A to point B, do you wonder what's on TV, or do you fear the darkness where the shotgun hybrids hide?
Nothing gets your pulse going like a mutant moaning right in your ear. Even after activating the QBM folk are worried about going back to the engineering cargo bays. Respawn makes for immersiveness, and that's not a drawback.
Well, except for those few times you actually see the hybrid warp in out of thin air. But those aren't exactly common, and tend to make people laugh more then snort in disgust. ;)
And what's this about dodgy ladder controls? Are we talking about the same game here? :weird:
Vigil on 6/9/2006 at 14:53
Quote Posted by Bomb Bloke
There's nothing wrong with the respawn. Sure, it's fairly constant, but it's not overwhelming. Players would get bored if cleared areas stayed clear until you triggered the next spawn by completing some task or other.
The constant respawning in the engineering cargo bays wasn't overwhelming? The constant respawning of assassins on ops wasn't overwhelming? It's not the odd pipe hybrid on medsci that's the problem here, there's areas of the game that get fucked to the point of unsurvivability
on normal difficulty because of the respawn rate. There's plenty wrong with the respawn as it stands... which isn't to say having it at all was a bad idea, but there's a happy medium that several key areas didn't hit.
