System Shock remake and System Shock 3

[664b78b7d1332Kolya]

Eh guys, cycling menus for anything more than 3-4 items are awkward – as are radial menus for anything. I mean it's like we've all been driving Ford Mustangs since the early 90s and now a quarter of a century later you guys get into this heated debated whether a Tesla is faster than a Smart. They both suck.

[664b78b7d14ffJoin2]

No, depends on the context. Either one can suck more, or less. and developers need to stop using damn radial menus for everything and go back to cycle selection when it would be better to do so.

See GMDX's Invisible War toolbelt selection option once it is released. Fuck radial menus when they are unnecessary.

[664b78b7d1b15ZylonBane]

Wrong. The industry standard example I gave would be slower because of the intitial onHold delay, and then the subsequent required actions.

You're pulling random variables and delays out of your ass. There's nothing that says there has to be any ONHOLD delay. Press the menu button and it appears instantly. Tadah. I could just as easily blah blah blah about delays and obscuring UI overlays in cycling interfaces, but I'm not, because I'm not being disingenuous.

"I would say it is preferable for up to 10 choices." Preferring to cycle-cycle-cycle through 10 freaking choices instead of selecting directly is batshit insane.

They both suck.

Some suck less than others. Mapping complex controls onto a handheld controller is always going to be an exercise in compromise.

[664b78b7d1ec0Join2]

We can argue the specifics all day. I'll repeat this to end it now:

Also, and here's the big one for LG games: radial menu overrides mouse/analog control for the selection, so you lose the ability to look and do just about everything else whilst selecting, even if real time.

....

Some suck less than others. Mapping complex controls onto a handheld controller is always going to be an exercise in compromise."

Not if they start putting more actual damn buttons on them instead of fucking social media share buttons and such.
And currently the only compromise necessary for SS is in shortcuts, which isn't mandatory functionality.

[664b78b7d2012Join2]

Also, you make it sound like a ton of work, when it isn't.

with a selection of 10, you ideally cycle through five maximum from any given position.
if we're at icon 2, we cycle left to get to icon 10 faster, providing cycling past 1 is coded to set you to ten (which it damn well should be).

Now for SS's 6 or so hardware, this would be 3 cycles maximum.

[664b78b7d22b1Nameless Voice]

They all serve different purposes.

Cycling is good for when you have a variable number of options that you don't usually want to access too often (think of Thief's inventory), or when you have a small number of options, again that you don't want to access too often.

Radial menus are good when you have a fixed number of options that you need to access quickly.


Cycling takes longer, no matter what.  You need to look at the current selection and then know how many times to press it quickly, or if you don't remember/count perfectly, you need to look at each option while you are cycling through them before you can select.  It's quicker/easier to reapply the same action again (since you don't need to cycle, just activate it), but slower for anything else.

Radial menus are almost instant.  You press the button, tap the direction key, let go of the button.  They also work really well with mouse control.  League of Legends' "ping menu" is a perfect example of radial menus done right - you can hold the button down to see the options, or just a quick hold-drag-letgo to instantly use one of them.  It also has the advantage of only having four options, so it's very easy to hit the right one.

Note, however, that I'm talking about using these kinds of systems on a PC with keyboard + mouse - because a lot of games still use them on PC.  Selecting the radial menu might be slightly more awkward on an analogue stick, but shouldn't really be.

Of course, keyboard shortcuts are the best, since they give instant access, but need a keyboard.  Even games that use the other options should still allow the player to bind keys to each action.

[664b78b7d26b4Join2]

Of course, keyboard shortcuts are the best, since they give instant access

Shortcuts have downsides too: you have to memorize each shortcut, which can be more of a problem when the result of each shortcut is interchanging (For example, we set it to use a consumable, which then is consumed and something else fills the slot), this of course is rather than everything being easily accessible under a cycle or radial menu.

[664b78b7d2a43ZylonBane]

I'll repeat this to end it now:

What you quoted ends nothing and is irrelevant. Normal single-brained gamers are not going to be meaningfully playing and dicking around with a cycling selection interface at the same time, so their control of the game is going to be for all practical purposes every bit as impaired as someone using a radial interface. But the radial interface is faster, so it wins again.

Not if they start putting more actual damn buttons on them instead of fucking social media share buttons and such.

Wow, you really are insane. The standard Xbox controller already has 8 face buttons, 2 triggers, and a directional pad. That's 14 "buttons" total, plus the 2 analog sticks. Nobody needs to be cramming more smegging buttons than that onto a console game controller.

[664b78b7d2b6eJoin2]

So...Looking Glass were insane for using the majority of the keyboard? Social media share buttons are perfectly fine, but more buttons for actual deeper gameplay are not? What the fuck are you even on? And talk to me with some fucking common decency or we don't talk at all.

[664b78b7d2d0aNameless Voice]

1. Frob
2. Jump
3. Crouch
4. Sprint
5. Walk/Sneak
6. Lean left
7. Lean right
8. Primary attack
9. Secondary attack / block
10. Reload
11. Change ammo type
12. Full inventory and stats screen
13. Map
14. Quick-select weapon (let's say a radial menu)
15. Quick-use item (e.g. for quick healing, can be another radial menu)
16. Quick-activate hardware (another radial menu)
17. Play last picked up log

Those are just some of the basic controls I'd expect in a "thinking person's shooter" like System Shock.  Note that despite compacting a lot of things (item, hardware, weapon usage), I've still got 17 commands.  Yes, I've also made the list a little longer by including some features from SS2 (mostly leaning and sneaking.)

Oh, also note that if I were using a cycling list instead of radial menus, I'd need both "select next X" and "use selected X" for weapons/items/hardware, bringing the total up to 20.

[664b78b7d35c5JDoran]

As long as JosiahJack can keep working on his reconstruction, I don't care. The chance of actually remaking System Shock for consoles of all things while being faithful to the original are next to nil, so I don't bother.

Yes to both of your points. I too hope that JosiahJack can continue his good work, and my expectations for a commercial update are very low, given the state of the industry and it's "The more you dumb it down, the more people will buy it" philosophy.

It speaks volumes about how bad the games industry's standards have become, that we can believe an amateur made ('amateur' as in non-paid, not as in unskilled) remake of System Shock will be great, whereas we imagine that a commercial remake, with no doubt a large team of professional, experienced codes/artists/designers/etc, will end up missing much of what made the game so great, instead offering dumbed down gameplay, 'help' systems that practically walk you through the game, very good graphics that somehow change the style of the original instead of enhancing it, oh, and it's not at all unlikely that when the commercial remake is released, it will have game-breaking bugs that need patching. And I haven't even mentioned possible day one DLC, or micromanagement purchases to buy or upgrade weapons or armour...

That's my point. They say that they don't have the resources (and skill, I dare to add) to make a System Shock 3; a game that would would have to meet So how could they expect to make a System Shock remake that consoleros consider worth buying? What gain is there compared to the enchanced edition with its mouselook and easier controls?
---
Terri and Eric Brosius seem to be on board as well:
https://twitter.com/Dandastur/status/664247423997493248

Speaking as a console fan (who also loves PC gaming), I think provided System Shock was released with good graphics (a requirement for any new game, be it PC or console) and was a good port with well thought out joypad controls, then I think it would sell well. The big draw for many console only gamers would be that it's a good game that they can now play, not much would be needed to make them want to buy it. Of course, lots of console gamers wouldn't want a game that's so complex, but that's also true of PC gamers.

But if it did come out on consoles, then I can imagine the port concentrating too much on acheivement  points, too much auto-aim, re-arranged areas to make the game easier to navigate (even though fifteen or twenty years ago gamers were perfectly capable of navigating relatively complicated maps without problems and without a big onscreen arrow magically pointing to where you need to go), and so on. The modern games industry thinks that PC gamers are stupid, and that console gamers are even more stupid...

But imagine if they released System Shock 1 and 2 in one pack, that would be amazing for console only gamers (I'd buy it, and I have them already on console). But if they do a modern-Thief-reboot style game (which was awful even if you didn't compare it to the magnificence of Thief 1 and 2) then it might still sell on the name (to those who have heard about it), but it won't make anyone happy.

[664b78b7d39bbZylonBane]

Those are just some of the basic controls I'd expect in a "thinking person's shooter" like System Shock.  Note that despite compacting a lot of things (item, hardware, weapon usage), I've still got 17 commands.

You're forgetting, analog controllers, so creep/walk/sprint are all just degrees of a single command. So, something like this seems like it would work okay:

left analog: move (creep/walk/run)
right analog: look
left trigger: use
right trigger: shoot
Y: jump
A: crouch
X: lean left
B: lean right
black: weapon control radial
   up: reload
   left: cycle ammo type
   right: cycle mode
   down: cycle weapon
white: hardware control radial
back: inventory/logs/stats screen
directional pad:
   up: user define (replay last log, heal, stim patch, whatever)
   left: user define
   right: user define
   down: toggle full map

Really, if they can manage Skyrim on a console controller, System Shock shouldn't be a problem.

[664b78b7d3d4fYankee Clipper]

Those are just some of the basic controls I'd expect in a "thinking person's shooter" like System Shock.  Note that despite compacting a lot of things (item, hardware, weapon usage), I've still got 17 commands.  Yes, I've also made the list a little longer by including some features from SS2 (mostly leaning and sneaking.)

Oh, also note that if I were using a cycling list instead of radial menus, I'd need both "select next X" and "use selected X" for weapons/items/hardware, bringing the total up to 20.

Not to mention all the psi commands. The 12 F-keys make them easily selectable now, so you would need another menu for them.

[664b78b7d406dZylonBane]

Not to mention all the psi commands.

Yes, you shouldn't mention them, because there are no psi powers in SYSTEM SHOCK.

[664b78b7d4189Yankee Clipper]

Since the post is also about SS3, I assumed psi would be part of the mix. But, I haven't really kept up with all the SS3 might entail, so if psi is not to be part of the mix, then disregard.

[664b78b7d42f3JDoran]

Perfect Dark, a console first person shooter controlled by a joypad, handled weapon changing very well. You could carry all of the weapons that you picked up (since Perfect Dark was released before the days when every FPS had to have a weapon carry limit of two or three weapons) and in-game you always had three ways of changing weapons:

1. Cycle forwards or backwards through the weapons, one at a time, in real game time.

2. Hold down A for a radial wheel of your weapons, in real game time.

3. Pause the game, and choose your weapon from a drop down list of your carried weapons, this method of course pauses the game.

Freedom of choice, so you used whichever method you preferred.

[664b78b7d46adCFW Magic]

I for one liked how Doom 3 ported on x-box handled the problem with weapon selection. The black (or white) button on the controller was fixed to be a flashlight, face buttons allowed to switch back and forth towards weapons, plus the 4 d-pad buttons were customizable for quick access to up to 4 weapons. That alone was more than enough since I'd usually keep 1 short range weapon (shotgun), one med range (machinegun) and one long range (rocket launcher) plus one free for whatever weapon I felt like at the moment (usually plasmagun).

PC version of Doom 3 did it even better as it's quite easy to bind pretty much any button to any impulse. My custom version of Doom 3 has such controls as of now, and they work quite good:

W,A,S,D - Movement
Q - Plasmagun/Railgun (Yes, plasma railguns)
Z - Shotgun
X - Use Stimpack
C - Machinegun
V -  Handgun
E - Frob/Carry object
O - Spawn Shotgun Ally
P - Spawn Pistol Ally
[ - Spawn Shield Ally
] - Spawn Machinegun Ally
Mouse 1 (Left) - Attack
Mouse 2 (Right) - Aim
Mouse 3 (Scroll Button) - Use Medkit
Mouse 4 (Side button) - Flashlight
Mouse 5 (Side button) - Nightvision
Mouse Scroll Up/Down - Change Weapon up/down

Now some of these buttons can be easily re-purposed if doom had leaning, crawling and such. All weapons can still be moved to the good old 1 - 0 keys, and the F keys could be used if we had hardware or other such important inventory items that one would need to turn on/off.

Of course, going with the best of both worlds and presenting users with both radial and regular keyboard options would work quite nicely. But even then, it would just be great if all the binds can be customized by the players themselves. I see an alarming number of games which don't allow full customization of one's controls. Take a look at BioShock's forced mouse acceleration (can be disabled through gamefiles though) or Mass Effect's mash up of the run/take cover/action into a single button (once again, can be "fixed" through mods). In the end, I'd much rather have both systems and yet have a backdoor to making the controls just the way I like them, instead of having to forcibly get used to a system of controls which aren't fit to me.

P.S.: I also have to agree with Kolya, relying only on radial or only on cycling sucks balls both ways. Cycling tends to keep me to using only 2 or 3 weapons/items if any at all (one of the reasons I'm still not feeling at home with OSA) while radial is simply utter garbage if one has more than Up, Down, Left and Right directions. It sounds easy to use and instantaneous on paper, but getting to diagonal weapons, in the heat of battle, is a pain in the ass and usually lands me into selecting a completely different weapon. It's even worse if there's more than 8 slots at a time as I have to make sure the pointer is just at the right fucking angle. All the while I can't turn around and see what is that monster which've been raping me all this time. Verdict: Both can die in hell, custom binds rule.

[664b78b7d4ac7Join2]

Those proposed lists are missing use mode toggle, which I'd damn well expect in a console port. Plenty console games use cursors.

By the way, Ultima Underworld on the considerably more limited PS1, also with cursor usage/use mode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxLSW1PyrOo

Wow, it even had the map annotations. Underworld was truly before its time even on the console.

Edit: speedrun of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EESQ4-GRQZI

[664b78b7d4e73Hikari]

Am I the only one that wants whoever tries for a system shock 3 to go with something less than state of the art? I'm talking maybe slightly better than what we have with a fully modded ss2 in terms of graphics. Something that wouldn't take as many people to have to work on compared to say bioshock or the like.

Then again if money were an issue (and it is) I would be happy if they went back to a 2.5d engine so long as it has floor over floor and slopes, varied lighting, and enviromental sound.

The big thing in either case is that they keep the source code on hand instead of 'oh we don't need THAT anymore. DELETE.' Granted I would love it if they sat and just gave us the source, but in either case they probably would just go with something that's already open source or hire the guy that's trying to reverse engineer ultima/shock1 to put in a less barbaric engine.

As for 'herp derp consoles are retarded and everyone is stupid' You guys are clearly not going to agree on control schema so can it just drop? Personally I'm probably in a vanishingly small minority here that could theoretically see Shock, IF MADE FROM THE GROUND UP, work as a console game. Yes the controls will be 'dumbed down' no matter what interface you use, but sometimes 'dumbing down' isn't inherently bad. You can have deeply intricate UI but you know what's also intricate? A ball of knotted up and tangled headphones and if your precious intricate UI is that important to you I'm worried whoever gets the job as lowest bidder will make a tangled mess rather than something useable simply to please the loud people in the room.

Between complex and intricate where you have to map eight thousand different controls and 'retardedly dumbed down' yet actually playable and letting me get on with the game and story, I'm going to choose the latter especially if they make damned sure that the game's story is solid, there's again that effective use of sound to keep things creepy as hell, and i have fun playing the game.

All THAT said, I want whoever this hypothetical company is to do one thing. Make the game easy to sink our teeth into and expand. Some of my favorite moments in system shock 2 were from Christine's quadrilogy, system shock infinite, and while Return to the UNN had its weak spots I absolutely was bouncing up and down when I first saw it announced on TTLG.

[664b78b7d514bNameless Voice]

I'm not sure why you'd want them to intentionally use a dated engine or give it extremely dated graphics?

Engine technology is not a problem now.  Anyone can pick up awesome engines like Unreal 4 and Unity for free, and they are constantly being developed and people already know how to use them.
SS2 didn't look bad because the artists weren't skilled or didn't take enough time to make the resources as much as it looked bad because the technology they were using was dated even when it was released.  Using modern tools for modern engines is much easier and much more efficient than what Irrational had to use.


As for the whole control thing, it's more a fear that they will a) dumb down the game because they can only let you do as many things as you can control on a console controller and b) focus on controllers so that both controllers and keyboards have the exact same interface, even when the one which works great on a controller is awful and unusable on a keyboard+mouse.
(And if you think major game studios don't do that, just look at the awful mess that is Fallout 4's controls on PC.)

[664b78b7d56c1ZylonBane]

SS2 didn't look bad because the artists weren't skilled or didn't take enough time to make the resources as much as it looked bad because the technology they were using was dated even when it was released.

Eh? The only things that really looked bad in SS2 were the AI models, and it's pretty common knowledge that that was only because they lowballed their polygon budget. As the Rebirth mod proved, the vanilla engine is perfectly capable of handling much higher AI poly counts.

In most other respects SS2 actually looked pretty damn good for its time. Compare a typical SS2 room to a typical Half-Life room. HL looks blurry and barren by comparison.

[664b78b7d58d1Hikari]

Well I only went with 'well why not go with old graphics' purely because graphics, modeling, and the like cost money and time and manpower.'

System Shock is very much an ears type of game where hearing is just as if not more important than what you see. That aspect of the environment would need to be kept no matter what else happens.

Frankly I think ss2's modded visuals are a decent place to aim for. I say this partially because my computer is total potato and I am not financially able to focus on actually getting better so yea, mildly selfish in that 'if this comes out I want to be able to play it instead of just watch it on twitch.' However I've shown the 'fully' modded version of SCP2 off to people and they think it looks really nice given the original came out in '99. Enough complexity to give interesting locations and the enemies get the point across.

Big complaint I've heard from friends about enemies is how stupid they act. IE limited to only a couple very course actions.

Get someone like Christine in to make the environment itself (As she made very 'it feels like a real place' settings, to me anyway) and the physical building bits are done. Other than the game engine questions

[664b78b7d5b1bCFW Magic]

After being bored for a long enough time to clear SS and SS2 a couple more times, re-reading The Hacker's Guide To Sin and Painwise .... I've finally singled out the one thing which is NECESSARY for any system shock game.

DRUGS. Hypomeds to inject for that high when you bash your skull in each and every wall 'till our death. Berzerk patches that make you hear the mutant colors and see their odor. Detox for that time when an officer is about to get you to pull over (afer you take the detox and go way down you find out it's just a drone anyway) and of course the psy hypo when having hallucinations by yourself just ain't fun anymore and you want to bend time and space for everybody else, too.

There BETTER be something to get REALLY high on in that next game, ese.

(Disclaimer: Actually doing drugs may be fun but will most likely earn you a visit from the federales, ese)

[664b78b7d5cf9rccc]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/5-things-a-system-shock-reboot-must-have-to-be-good