We should start a petition for SS3... - by sh0ck3r
sh0ck3r on 19/10/2008 at 07:03
:rolleyes:
Rogue Keeper on 23/10/2008 at 16:00
Quote Posted by Random Petition Signer
I have never bought an original game but if SS3 is gonna be made I'll definitely buy it!
Riiight, someone at EA saw this post, got scared of people who sign petitions for game sequels and canceled secret SS3 project in pre-development phase.
sh0ck3r on 23/10/2008 at 20:33
I don't understand why SS3 is not being made...
If it's a question of EA not believing the game, in any form resembling that of its predecessors, would be profitable, then that is bullshit because while fans of the original game may be relatively few, half of the kids who buy BioShock would probably buy SS3!!! And think of the hype it could potentially generate in a PC games market hungry for a resurgence. If it made half as much money as Fallout 3 it would be profitable enough.
I don't think it's a question of money as much as one of laziness and bullshit surrounding rights to the game...
demagogue on 24/10/2008 at 04:15
Ken Levine talked to EA about making SS3, and he reported that EA didn't give a shit about the game and put too many restrictions on the project. Then he went on to make Bioshock. After BS got all hyped up, in the meantime EA had some sort of re-focus towards developing new IP with a more "creative" edge, or something.
So you get a situation where making a System Shock inspired game is sounding good to EA. But not SS3 itself: you've got Ken's pretty public remarks against it, it's always been somewhat niche, and it's not new IP.
Instead they made Dead Space, and that's probably the closest we'll ever get to SS3 until someone else gets the property. It's really not that mysterious, I think.
sh0ck3r on 24/10/2008 at 06:19
yes, I'm aware of all that.
I think originally it was money that was the issue and EA was to blame
but I think now that BioShock's success suggests SS3 could be quite profitable, it is just laziness on Ken Levine's part (and delusions about how great BioShock franchise is), with the property rights issue lingering.
it seems 2k could buy the rights if it really wanted to.
I wonder if EA would ever release the game under a team led by Doug Church. probably not!
Myagi on 24/10/2008 at 12:37
Quote Posted by sh0ck3r
but I think now that BioShock's success suggests SS3 could be quite profitable
not to beat a dead horse.. but it's just laying there, asking to be beat, over and over and... The road of BS's success is paved with bitter design choices that would be heartbreaking to see in an SS3.
While I agree that if there's any single person that should/could do it, it would be Doug, I still don't beleive it would be enough. In the current state of the industry I prefer them to just let SS RIP.
cosmicnut on 24/10/2008 at 12:46
While I hate to admit it, we are a minorty. Larger than for most games of the same age but still a minority.
The only way we would get a SS3 would be a "start from scratch". Thats dangerous. We've had it recently with fallout and it looks like it may be good but we'll have to see the fallout fans reaction to it.
I would like to see a rebuild project to re-start by updating the SS1 engine and giving us the best SS1 experience, complete with music and storyline, gameplay idea.
Only then would we be able to go forward to SS2 and then a sequal.
sh0ck3r on 25/10/2008 at 01:28
do you mean a real SS1 remake, released on the market? that would be dope. and probably wouldn't be THAT hard to make [i'm not trying to be blasphemous by saying that].
and to Myagi: I don't know how you interpreted my words, but just to clarify what I meant: I didn't mean they should incorporate BioShock elements into SS3; I just meant that the similarity in atmosphere in games (with one of those games being very profitable) and also even the fact that BioShock kiddies would eat up anything made in remotely the same vein means that SS3 would be profitable. Where you from in Sweden, BTW? I was there last year. My uncle's in Oslo.
