System Shock!

[LUKas007]

Originally posted by Drake1009
Non Amiga game again, System shock 1 had a way to handle drugs, just like Ultima Underworld handled effects of herbs.

Btw, System Shock 1&2 are just incredible games
Ive finished SS1 CD edition. Now I will try to finish SS2...

[Drake1009]

SS2 was inferior to SS1 in all aspects except graphics and sound. You don't even get fun drug effects. And no more cyberspace either.

[LUKas007]

But SS2 has MANY elements that SS1 dont have... For example there are some types of character to choose, and you gain experience points during the game, so you can choose how to develop in the game. SS2 is also much bigger comparing to SS1.
IMHO the second System Shock is not worse than the first one.
Anyway I think that SS1 and SS2 are just both great games...

[Shatterhand]

For me, those are changes that makes SS2 worse.

I HATE BIG games that gives me TOO MANY DIFFERENT PATHS... it just makes me feel "Damn, I am missing something.."

And then I have to play the game over again to see what I was missing. But then I am probably missing something again.

System Shock is DAMN good. I recommend everyone to try it out. And if you don't like FPSs, try it too, because that's not your average FPS. (I personally don't even call it an FPS). It puts Half-Life to shame

[LUKas007]

Originally posted by Shatterhand
For me, those are changes that makes SS2 worse.

I HATE BIG games that gives me TOO MANY DIFFERENT PATHS... it just makes me feel "Damn, I am missing something.."

...It puts Half-Life to shame

The fact that you like 'small', with no different paths - more primitive games, doesnt mean that more complicated games are worse...
IMHO Half-Life is a great game, I've finished it too... but it cannot be compared to SS1&2.
H-L is close to FPP-arcade while SS is rather FPP-RPG+arcade elements, of course.
It's like comparing Arcanoid and Dungeon Master

[Drake1009]

I still liked SS1 better. And I think it's larger in a way than SS2. SS2 limits your places to walk. Don't know if SS1 does that though. But there's just so much more in SS1.

And I don't like big games where you have to keep track of too much. Thus I don't really like games like Civilization, warcraft2 (3), or Age of wonders though they're good examples of those kinds of games. Keeping it small is the way for me. Like Jagged alliances or Space hulk.

[LUKas007]

Originally posted by Shatterhand
For me, those are changes that makes SS2 worse.

I HATE BIG games that gives me TOO MANY DIFFERENT PATHS... it just makes me feel "Damn, I am missing something.."

And then I have to play the game over again to see what I was missing. But then I am probably missing something again.

Have you ever played Silent Hill (PSX) ?
It's IMO just fu****g unbelievable... one of the best games I ever played... and it has MANY different paths and a few (5 if I remember) endings... not to mention it's a 'big' game.

[Drake1009]

Strange isn't it? I don't like too big games

1. they're not easy to find your way around in.
2. It gets old before you reach the end (For me anyway. Took me a long time to complete Half life)

but then again, if it's too closed down, too on track you start feeling like you're being pushed along without a say in the matter. Much like the old interactive games which were basically movies where you clicked every now and then. Take Undying for an example. It's a darn large area you walk around in, but yet you feel it's one way, you might not see where to go, but you can't go other ways.
Then take something as old as Alone in the dark 1. You still had a bit of say as to where you were going. It had the freedom you needed while still giving you claustrophobia. What a work of art. (No drugs in AITD afaik)

[Dalai]

SS1 is excellent.

Check out this appropriate and amusing guide:

System Shock: The Hacker's Guide To Sin

[Shatterhand]

I HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF HERE!

I never said Half-Life is a bad game, but I think it's too overrated. (While SS1 is underrated ) . I compared Half-Life to SS1 in the adventure aspect of both. But you're right, Half-Life is much more action oriented than SS1

I love to have freedom in my games, but I hate when I have freedom and still I need to follow certain paths to finish the game. Silent Hill may have dozens of different paths and 5 different endings, but after I finish it the first time (I must add I never played Silent Hill), I'll hardly want to play it again, I'll probably want to move to something else. And then I'll know I have missed something.

Drake gave a good example: Alone in the Dark . This game is big enough, and it never gives you the feeling of being missing something. 2 other great examples of this are Flashback and Another World.

And I agree with Drake in another point: HUGE games usually gets boring before you finish it. I never finished Half-Life , just because I got bored before doing it (And being an FPS doesn't help it too much. You have to kill the SAME ENEMY over and over and over... yawwnn). Surely, it gives you some surprises, but between each one, you have to kill a bunch of soldiers that are just like the last ones you've killed.


But I have to admit there are 2 games that are HUGE, and it took me a LOOONG time before I stopped playing both: Elite and Frontier

[alkis21]

Originally posted by Drake1009
Strange isn't it? I don't like too big games

1. they're not easy to find your way around in.
2. It gets old before you reach the end (For me anyway. Took me a long time to complete Half life)

I tend to agree, but the exception for me was Outcast (PC). I usually hate what today's kids call Action-adventures (Tomb Raider and the like ), but this one seemed to have exactly the right amount of both. I bow to the makers of this fantastic game.

[Drake1009]

One game that had entirely too much freedom was Daggerfall. It was great to have the freedom, but it got boring too fast because I kept falling off the plotline. In it's followup Morrowind it's easier to follow the plot. (Bought it the day after it came out, played it like 5 hours then got captured by Duke nukem Manhattan project and haven't played it for about 2 months now).

I tried installing Outcast but it never worked. The installer always crashed. Looked like a good game if you could get over the fact that it used voxel graphics.

[alkis21]

You should try it again some day mate, maybe after you install a new graphics card or something. You don't know what you're missing.

[Drake1009]

I know. I borrowed the game from a friend who said it was great, when I couldn't install it he showed me how it ran on his computer. Looked like a nice game though he never showed me more than up to the first travel part so I'm guessing I didn't get much out of it.

Not quite sure, but I think the freedom might be a bit like that found in Nomad soul, a lot of freedom (And I can't find that stripper to get on in the game)

[alkis21]

That's not true, and you're talking to a man who can get lost in a Bubble Bobble level. I could find my way pretty easily in Outcast, the areas were big but by no means chaotic, and the tasks you had to perform were easy to keep track of especially if you scribbled down a few notes.

[Drake1009]

Nomad soul isn't that hard finding your way around in either. I just can't find the right building in the city.

And I did get the impression of outcast that it wasn't that hard finding your way around it.

[Dalai]

I remember reading that the Half-Life guys took a lot of inspiration from System Shock when making the game.

[Drake1009]

Well I'm not sure that's too true.

System shock = maniac computer taking control and eradicating all humans turning them into cyborgs. Plenty of puzzles and inventory management.

Half-life = Experiment gone wrong. Aliens coming to get the humans, as well as the army getting the humans. Not really any puzzles and no inventory management at all.

Ok so it's the "Something has gone wrong" scenario, but that's it. In system shock there are not any other people around that you really meet (I think), you get most of the story through voice mails (If you have the CD version). In half life there are plenty of people to help you. The entire story is seen by you, and once or maybe twice heard through a radio.

[Shatterhand]

the "everything gone wrong" scenario is overused in game.

Once me and a friend were counting how many games could have the sentence "You wake up, and everyone is dead" in the plot.

Dozens and dozens..

[LUKas007]

Originally posted by Shatterhand


I love to have freedom in my games, but I hate when I have freedom and still I need to follow certain paths to finish the game. Silent Hill may have dozens of different paths and 5 different endings, but after I finish it the first time (I must add I never played Silent Hill), I'll hardly want to play it again, I'll probably want to move to something else. And then I'll know I have missed something.

Drake gave a good example: Alone in the Dark . This game is big enough, and it never gives you the feeling of being missing something. 2 other great examples of this are Flashback and Another World.

And I agree with Drake in another point: HUGE games usually gets boring before you finish it. I never finished Half-Life , just because I got bored before doing it (And being an FPS doesn't help it too much. You have to kill the SAME ENEMY over and over and over... yawwnn). Surely, it gives you some surprises, but between each one, you have to kill a bunch of soldiers that are just like the last ones you've killed.


But I have to admit there are 2 games that are HUGE, and it took me a LOOONG time before I stopped playing both: Elite and Frontier

IMO telling different paths and different endings is a fault of a game is nonsense. Whats is wrong if you do have some choose how to complete the game, and several endings according to how you act during the game...? You DONT have to see all locations, characters, etc, and all the endings. But if you do like the game you surely will enjoy playing it again choosing other solutions to complete it...
Shatterhand doesnt seem to realise that in MOST Amiga games (and in fact games on every platform) "You have to kill the SAME ENEMY over and over and over... yawwnn). Surely, it gives you some surprises, but between each one, you have to kill a bunch of soldiers that are just like the last ones you've killed."... I think I dont have to quote examples here... just think of some 'small' Amiga games you like very much. Just try to be objective...