Caltrops - System Shlock 2 - can someone post my reply?

Forum Overview :: System Shlock 2

by FABIO 08/16/2003, 1:33am PDT

I had a Qt3 forum account, but it seems it's gone inactive and I don't feel like applying for a new one. The Giajin guy's profile says he's from Spain so I'll let the barely coherant english slide (all quotes are from his post).

A few parts were exaggerated for the sake of humor (I guess communist revolutions killing over 50 million people really wasn't quite as bad as SS2), but the opinions, points, and final verdict all stand. The ONLY things this game did right was establish a scary atmosphere early on and scatter around neat audio logs to listen to. The thing is once you found out that the enemies were cheating with cheap respawning, were mostly the same boring hybrids, and could (almost) all be taken out with a simple wrench using a clunky FPS engine that wasn't designed for any kind of action beyond walking around and bonking people in the head with blunt objects, there was nothing more to scare you. Look at a great horror game like Silent Hill; not only are the enemies creepy enough that they don't get old and annoying, but the game also throws in some horrifying moments that don't involve enemies at all (locker room, telephone, etc.). SS2 had no such moments, it relied entirely on the enemies to keep things scarey and gave up on ambiant scary after 5 minutes into the game when you found the dude who hanged himself (I can only read "Remember Citadel" written in blood so many times before it ceases to shock). Once the enemies were exposed as the stupid, monotanous wrench-fodder that they were, the initial scare wore off, and the only thing I looked foward to was finding more audio logs; the gameplay was a chore.

I donÂ´t like this type of reviews. That type of review could be used at all single games around, is like that persons that explain "Why girlfriends are so awful? to make people laugh.

Sorry, missed that one. But you're saying that, since you could call any game bad, that when someone says a game is bad, that point is invalid?

A reviewer as I understand is there not for discuss design decissions, but to judge the quality of the game and how it translates to the player. Most of the things on that text speak about features that are not bad per se, only he doesnÂ´t agree with them, but doesnÂ´t afect the game at all (maybe afect to the game he would like to see).

Design decisions don't affect the final quality of a game???? The respawning, weapon degradation, and crappy skills system didn't affect someone's ability to enjoy it???? If a design decision is bad enough to affect the game, you better bet I'm going to mention it in the review. Take out all the bad elements in a game, and that IS the one I would like to see. Who wouldn't want to see SS2 done right?

An intrusive RPG system can be as weak as the player wants (you can develop annoying characters with crazy stadistics in most of them). What you have to do is roleplay a little, think about how your character have passed that 3 years and translate it to the scores

If I use my imagination enough, a crappy game will become a great one?

(and if you put zero at gun skills, blame yourself to do such stupid thing as thinking that a marine that have passed 3 years at school is not able to take a gun, you could only blame the studio if they forced you to do that).

But they DID force you to do that. The best your marine can manage at the end of his 3rd year is a standard weapon skill of 3, meaning the most complex weapon he can handle is a shotgun. I don't know what kind of bizarro world military the designers were thinking of, but if you're in the armed forces, you're trained in firearms no matter what your job; a network admin will still know how to operate an assault rifle. The game also suggests that no one would be able to eventually figure out a gun on their own, also BS. Or do I have to roleplay being a firearm imbecile? How is it stupid of the player to assume that a marine of 3 years should be able to use a gun? That may be the case for your Spanish Armada, but here in America (which we all know will be running the world in 2120, or whenever SS2 takes place, just like it does now) our boys know how to shoot.

Most of the decisions at SS2 are not looking for being realistic, but to improve the gameplay and make it scarier (the respawning for example).

There's a difference between "not realistic" and "reality breaking". In SS2, the bad points like respawning and being an utter retard with guns were enough to snap you out of the horror and go "What is this crap?". A horror game, especially a first person horror game, should set immersion as its #1 priority. And when a game is based on semi-reality, it shouldn't throw in crap like having enemies spawn in through the door you just came through a second ago.

ItÂ´s not real, itÂ´s odd, but a designer have to adapt himself to what the game needs, and not looking for the "real thing" that at the end would have driven to walk by empty rooms, instead of a game where you never knows what is going to happen.

I knew what was going to happen. I knew that in certain areas an enemy would always come through a door next to me despite having cleared the entire level; I would yawn and stand next to the door, wrench raised in preparation. The respawning was a source of frustration, not suspense. There were dozens of better ways they could have solved the problem of empty rooms (have enemies spawn far away from you so it doesnt look like they're teleporting in, partially refill a level when you leave and come back to it, etc.).

However, is what he thinks, respect his view. But will like stop seeing things like "you know, reviewers at magazines are busy guys that have no a clue and only think at deadline" IÂ´m pretty tired of it, and for some reasons is a thing use to find on this type of reviews that pretend to be "the real truth". Find normal people say this type of things on a forum, but not in your own review.

You're tired of seeing people bash professional reviewers? I'm tired of listening to professional reviewers gush about how great a game is only to find out that it's crappy and I've been ripped off $50. Peoples' wallets take precidence over your feelings. I can understand someone liking this game despite its major flaws, but to go on about this game of the year/scariest game ever/1st-5th best game of all time stuff is ridiculous, and yet thatâ€™s all there is when looking at reviews of this thing. Hell, SS2 isnâ€™t even in the top four scariest FPS PC games of all time; Doom, Thief, Aliens vs. Predator (marine), and Undying all come out ahead.

Note that none of the above games contain any RPG elements whatsoever. It baffles me that people think sticking in RPG elements automatically makes your game smarter. They certainly don't work in a genre like a FPS, where your reflexes and hand/eye cord. ARE factors. Deus Ex's skill system wasn't bad, but like Curst said I certainly don't think it added anything to the game. In SS2 it was just a mess. The designers should have stopped the instant they started putting in a super upgrade to allow the player to swing his wrench overhand rather than side to side, shook their heads asking "What the hell were we thinking?", and just gone back to the cool, non-experience based upgrades of SS1 like laser sites and frickin awesome roller skates. It's like they just thought it would look cool, and that RPG geeks LOVE their stat crunching and experience gathering (a poor substitute for skill. Not good enough to advance? Just beat on some goblins for a few hours until your stats are high enough, no need to master gameplay!) so they threw them in. They sure as hell weren't well thought out, and even worse than adding nothing they managed to subtract from the game.

The guy that reviewed SS2 at my mag played to death, we have not deadlines most of the time since we are online, and he loved it. How explain that? Lacks of taste? No, just diferent types of pointviews.

Insanity? I dunno. Did you have to pay for your copy? I'm starting to think professional reviewers go easier on games when they get them for free.

You donÂ´t like the game, others do, live with it.

Tell this to every person who says they don't like a particular game, real productive.

Just say what I think and what the game can offer, and how I saw it, then let them judge if they share my view or not.

You mean exactly like I did in my review? I said it can offer a scary atmosphere...for about an hour or two, then proceeded to list exactly what made it suck. The whole point of reviews isn't so others can "share your view" and nod together in agreement, that's what fansites are for. The whole point of game reviews is to clue people in on the quality of a game before they play it. I know, it's crazy!

If the writer of the review is reading this. Sorry If I look harsh or something, donÂ´t pretend it. Respect your view and is a cleverly written text, just I donÂ´t share some of your points.

Yay! Ice cream for everyone! Even for that Mr. â€œ500 message board postsâ€ Mayer guy who called me an internet nerd. :'(

P.S. I read awhile ago that someone working on Irrational's The Lost posts here? What the heck is up with that game? Now I don't hold a grudge, maybe Irrational's next attempt at a horror game will turn out good, but what the hell is with its website (www.thelost.com)? That thing reads like the videogame plot we all wrote in magic marker when we were 9 years old. It may turn out to be a great game, but that website has to GO. That snake-breast Medusa picture isn't helping things either, and lose the American McGee Alice clone main character. A blue apron clad female must descend into a hellish landscape armed with a butcher knife? Uh huh. And if only one of the cerberus's heads can both hear and speak, how is it the three of them argue all the time? Details!