System Sock 2 now on Steam

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
The New Dark patch is already included with GoG's version. Steam's version might not and if it does, it'll be loaded with DRM.

I can't understand how people would willingly forfeit their consumer rights for $3.

Because they are idiots.
Right now, I decided to check an old game that I installed on a previous Windows install/PC was up to date by verifying cache. Why am I checking for updates? Because it didn't work properly on Windows 7 last time I tried to play it.
What can I do with Steam while it verifies the cache? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

GoG is just so much better in all areas, ESPECIALLY for old games, which it specialises in, including extras and trying their best to make sure they work on new operating systems.

GoG >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steam for older games. It shouldn't even be a question. $3 for 10x more convenience and 100x more support? I'm OK with that. (I also bought SS2 from GoG when it was initially released, ages ago).
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Putting money into a system that works reasonably well and a majority of the people like and want to support is a sunk cost?

It's been shown repeatedly that the majority of people are retarded and like crap.

See Hollywood, CoD, the news, US elections, Apple, etc. A majority doesn't automatically mean something is good, right, best, or correct.

I'm not against Steam or anything, this is off topic and just pointing out that "majority of people" is one of the worst and most played out arguments made on AT and the worst reason to validate something, because people are stupid, doubly so in herds.

Any time someone argues "majority of people" to me they have already lost. Be an individual and embrace something because it fits your needs or wants, not because the social hive mind does it.

The majority of people would say System Shock 2 sucks and that they would rather be playing Call of Doody. Hows that for the majority?
 
Last edited:

motsm

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2010
1,822
2
76
The New Dark patch is already included with GoG's version. Steam's version might not and if it does, it'll be loaded with DRM.

I can't understand how people would willingly forfeit their consumer rights for $3.
I always go with GoG if it's an option as well, but it's still worth posting for those that are going to buy it on Steam regardless. Personally I still have my System Shock 2 CD.
 

tnt118

Member
Jan 17, 2010
170
6
81
I'm curious, I'd assume since Night Dive is in control of this, any game/engine updates they push to GoG would also get pushed to Steam, right?
 

dmoney1980

Platinum Member
Jan 17, 2008
2,471
38
91
what am I missing? I'm thinking about picking it up on Steam since it's cheap. I never played the first one so would that be ok?
 

AdamK47

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,782
3,604
136
You're missing the mysteriously obnoxious resurgence hype surrounding the game. The game really is good, but I really don't understand why people are suddenly bringing up System Shock 2 again. You didn't buy it then, so why buy it now?

It's a great game. Still own the original CD version that I bought and played though in 1999. If you didn't play it in 1999, why have interest in it today?

By April of 2000 the game sold only 60,000 copies. I wonder where Looking Glass would be if they had the same hype then as there is today.

/rant
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,202
216
106
This is quite subjective, but I think that the best answer I can give you OP is to find out by yourself, it's the only way to know what you've "missed", if anything (I.E. to play it yourself). Additionally I disagree with AdamK47, in that in my book there's no "time period" to try out a game you haven't played "until present day", even if it was released a decade ago.

The standards change, the hardware change, but the game-play can potentially still be enjoyable, or it may not be. It's always a matter of personal preferences, regardless of nostalgia or curiosity. The thing is you have to play it yourself to make up your mind about it being boring, or fun after all (or to find out about what you "actually missed"), even if it only takes you ten minutes of play to find out.

The "problem" I guess, to me anyway, isn't related at all about the game's age, or not even related to the fact that you might have "missed it" for so many years only to find it interesting now. The actual problem might be the fact that you'll have to buy it to play it. Now of course if it bores you after 15 minutes you might then think "well that was it then? this game is boring!" and there goes your couple of bucks down the drain thanks to your curiosity about "what you've missed".

So, here is what I suggest:

1) Buy it, "try it" (I.E. play it 'x' amount of time) until you find out if you like it or not.
2) If not, then go on YouTube and watch one out of the numerous individual game-play videos of the game, ranging from its intro to its ending, and from them determine if you think it might be for you, or not.
3) Try to find some actual reviews ("professional" ones or not, user ones or not, that's up to you) instead of potentially watching major spoilers in a video such as on YouTube.

Ultimately though, I'd like to reiterate that, to me, there's no "right time" to play a game. There's of course "a time" during witch a game will become popular and have its impact on the market, the industry, or will ater have a cult following or whatever (which is usually at or a short time after the game's release, obviously). And you might argue that playing such games "during their height" is the "best time" to play them though. But I think that's a useless debate. I've often read about gamers whom, for example, have played Half-Life in the mid 2000's even though it was released in 1999. What about anybody ending up buying some game on Steam or wherever because its on sales even though it was released four, five or six years ago? I really don't end up questioning myself with "didn't buy it then so why buy it now", there's too many reasons for such a scenario to occur (be it you'd consider them "good" or "bad" reasons is of no importance).

When comes the time to try a game I think I might like (even though of course I could be disappointed, which is always possible) the only thing I'm thinking about, if anything, is money (for me anyway). It's really the only obstacle, certainly not the game's age. So if I hadn't played System Shock 2 back then, but would like to find out about it nowadays then I wouldn't exactly pay too much money for that. But I guess that's just me.

Another example I can use is GoG.com, how many games I have bought there recently but never bothered playing back in the days even though I did hear of them (and very often so in some cases) is rather ridiculous... but I've done it. Be it Beyond Good & Evil, Giants: Citizen Kabuto or Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 2 (and more) are all games I never bought then but ended up buying now, and for the most part enjoyed them (except for the controls in some of them, ugh... but that's another story).

There's still gamers out there keeping their older consoles who occasionally try to buy games they only heard of but never played even though they were released a decade ago, or more. The reason(s) as to why people do that are ultimately irrelevant, be it curiosity, nostalgia, building your own collection or "just because you can" ultimately doesn't matter, in my opinion. What's important is that you probably satisfy your curiosity since otherwise you'll always keep wondering about it (or maybe not and will forget in a week if you never bothered to find out about it in the end).

So anyway I made my points, ultimately OP I think you should buy it, but you have other options such as watching videos/reviews, at least, to avoid potentially wasting your money (and potentially watching spoilers too).
 
Last edited:

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
3,003
126
The game really is good, but I really don't understand why people are suddenly bringing up System Shock 2 again.
A new patch was recently released (New Dark), that's why. It appears to be an ex-Looking Glass employee with access to the source code.

This has also allowed it to be released on GoG, where it was the top requested game for a long time.

In addition to modern OS fixes and engine improvements, it also improves modding capability quite a lot.

I never played the game back in the day, so I played it for the first time with this new patch, with various HD content. It's definitely a very good game, though not as good as the mass hype. I actually enjoyed Bioshock 1 & 2 a little more.

BTW, I have merged this thread into the main System Shock 2 thread - Super Moderator BFG10K.
 
Last edited:

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
It's been shown repeatedly that the majority of people are retarded and like crap.

The majority of people would say System Shock 2 sucks and that they would rather be playing Call of Doody. Hows that for the majority?

It's also been shown that the majority of people on Internet forums are bitter, angry losers who like to use faux intellectual arguments to boost their flagging self-esteem.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
You're missing the mysteriously obnoxious resurgence hype surrounding the game. The game really is good, but I really don't understand why people are suddenly bringing up System Shock 2 again. You didn't buy it then, so why buy it now?

It's a great game. Still own the original CD version that I bought and played though in 1999. If you didn't play it in 1999, why have interest in it today?

By April of 2000 the game sold only 60,000 copies. I wonder where Looking Glass would be if they had the same hype then as there is today.
They'd probably have done better. Quite a few fantastic games from the late 90s and early 00s didn't do so well, but they didn't have the web as a tool in the same way we do today, and really small publishers were basically screwed, at the time, if they didn't have a run-away hit.

Several games I've bought from GoG I had either not heard of at all back when they were released, or they were under my radar--IE, the name rings a bell, but nobody talked about it, it wasn't out there to see in the stores, etc.. That kind of limitation isn't there, today. You can get games without visiting the store, find what non-shills think of it very soon after release, and usually find moderated forums about the game, to boot, if it is sufficiently complicated. Today, I often find out about games before release, or shortly after release, from small devs/publishers, who would not have been able to handle a physical-box distribution model. They can sell their game online only, cheaper, and yet have a return, where physical distribution would require some large number of sales just to break even--fittingly more sales will be needed, the wider the distribution would be.
 
Last edited:

you2

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2002
6,884
1,960
136
The biggest problem I have with older games (pre 2002-2003) is graphics. I played system shock 2 a while ago (have the original disk) and it was fun; but to be honest I think I've played better games in recent years (its not just graphics - stuff like voice acting and game complexity has move forward over the years). Don't take me wrong - it was an enjoyable game with interesting ideas and there has been a lot of trash released the past 5-7 years but there has also been a few good games (sadly I would have to emphasis few). I'm reluctant to name recent games I think are better because it would open an endless debate as to what makes a game good but I will note that most (not all) seemed geared towards faster game play (a-rpg) and there are fewer games that have that mix of suspense that one finds in system shock. The other thing I'm find very annoying is that many modern games have very poor maps. Anyways i just finished replaying toee (not a great game simply because it crashes too many times) and have moved on to Van Hesling. I would like to replay system shock 2 (maybe with the new texture) but as I said I really don't think it is in my top 10 candidates - even when it came out I found myself enjoying aow2, wizardry 8 (and even half-life) significantly more than system shock 2.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
I'll go ahead and say it, i'm glad System Shock 2 is on steam. Hell, i'm glad it's on Gog as well. Consumer choice is a great thing. Now personally I have near 200 games in my steam library and I love the fact that I never have to re-install (my steam folder is always backed up) and I never have to worry about losing game keys and so forth. Steam takes care of all of that for me. I don't have to go to a website, remember my credentials, and download it again, if I re-install windows my steam folder is still there, and steam automates everything for me in the new windows installation. No game key? No problem. Steam has it. Anyway, I realize that some hate DRM here, but the only types of DRM on steam which are a pain are multi-layered DRM - i'm talking about publishers that use 3rd party DRM such as SecuROM and GFWL. I actually don't buy multi-layered DRM games, I only buy games which are steamworks. I'm just presenting the argument why a lot of folks like steam. It's very convenient and hassle free.

Regardless of how I feel about it, choice is always a good thing. I like steam for convenience, portability, and ease of use. DRM is rarely an issue unless it's a multi-layered DRM game (again, think SecuROM, UbiPlay, GFWL) but steamworks is as pain free as it gets. Conversely, I can certainly see the arguments for Gog. Again, consumer choice is a good thing indeed. :)
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,804
46
91
knitted-laptop-cover.jpg

that looks extremely uncomfortable, and I bet it gets hot as hell too.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
The biggest problem I have with older games (pre 2002-2003) is graphics. I played system shock 2 a while ago (have the original disk) and it was fun; but to be honest I think I've played better games in recent years (its not just graphics - stuff like voice acting and game complexity has move forward over the years). Don't take me wrong - it was an enjoyable game with interesting ideas and there has been a lot of trash released the past 5-7 years but there has also been a few good games (sadly I would have to emphasis few). I'm reluctant to name recent games I think are better because it would open an endless debate as to what makes a game good but I will note that most (not all) seemed geared towards faster game play (a-rpg) and there are fewer games that have that mix of suspense that one finds in system shock. The other thing I'm find very annoying is that many modern games have very poor maps. Anyways i just finished replaying toee (not a great game simply because it crashes too many times) and have moved on to Van Hesling. I would like to replay system shock 2 (maybe with the new texture) but as I said I really don't think it is in my top 10 candidates - even when it came out I found myself enjoying aow2, wizardry 8 (and even half-life) significantly more than system shock 2.

No matter what anyone says, graphics, sound and feel do add to immersion in a game, and playing a game that is a decade old will feel immediately dated. People say that graphics don't matter. I say these people are wrong, they do matter a little bit. Think of someone completely new to gaming play the DOS version of Doom 2 - they will say it sucks. But, those who played it in the proper time context all know that it was absolutely amazing and groundbreaking at the time of release. New players will never understand all of the intricacies that made Doom II so great for it's time.

Anyway, for a new gamer, trying to capture the same feel in the context of a different time frame is very difficult. System Shock 2 was groundbreaking at it's time of release, but I don't think very many new players will get a sense of that if they're playing for the first time - it's hard to appreciate.

Personally, with most games it is a non-issue to me. I can look past dated graphics, bad textures, and relatively low quality sound. However, most players have a very difficult time getting past it. If you hand system shock 2 to a relatively new gamer, they will immediately not like it because the immersion factor is less than what modern games have - it's unfortunate, but it is what it is.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,092
136
Well, I still have my original CD, and I also own a copy from GoG, do I waste another 6 bucks to have a copy in my Steam account? Perhaps. Perhaps I do.