Nightdive Studios, the guys behind the "System Shock" remake, have
stated* that there are no clear plans for "System Shock 3", as the
license for that now lies in the hand of the publisher Tencent and
they haven't been too forward about what they're going to do with the
IP.

(Nightdive retains the rights to the remake and a possible "System
Shock 2" remake, however, so no worries there.)

Is this bad news or not? I'm not sure. On the one hand, I loved
"System Shock 2" and the game left a clear path for a sequel (I'm less
endeared with the original, but still consider it an enjoyable
classic). But on the other hand, well... I've made clear my opinion of
milking old properties rather than creating something new, haven't I?
Sure there's a part of me that wants to be terrorized by Shodan again,
but there's that (sadly too-often right) part of my brain that reminds
me that 'you can never go back home again', and any continuation of
the story will more likely disappoint than please.

But even were I unabashedly in favor of a sequel, would I /really/
want one made by "we never met a monetization scheme we didn't like"
Tencent? They are the possibly the worst fit for a niche, slow-paced
horror title like "System Shock." I just don't have confidence that
they'd put out a sequel I'd enjoy.

So, in a sense, maybe Tencent's lack of comment is good news? They
don't really know what to do with the IP, so maybe they'll be willing
to sell it to somebody more invested - more approriate! - to the
license.




"Look at you, hacker. A pathetic creature of meat and bone. Panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors."


------------------------
* https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/system-shocks-owner-says-its-now-up-to-tencent-if-sequels-get-made/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 29/08/2022 02:26, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Is this bad news or not? I'm not sure. On the one hand, I loved
"System Shock 2" and the game left a clear path for a sequel (I'm less endeared with the original, but still consider it an enjoyable
classic). But on the other hand, well... I've made clear my opinion of milking old properties rather than creating something new, haven't I?
Sure there's a part of me that wants to be terrorized by Shodan again,
but there's that (sadly too-often right) part of my brain that reminds
me that 'you can never go back home again', and any continuation of
the story will more likely disappoint than please.

I've seen the remake of SS:1 and even played SS:2 although I only played
it for a few hours as it didn't really grab me.

Would I like to see a SS:3, possibly but I'm not sure it's the type of
game that has dated well and nor am I sure that if they keep more to the original that it could justify a budget to do it justice.

Milking old IP, for me that kinda depends. So £30 for the SS:1 remake, I
don't see that selling on anything more than nostalgia so I'll pass.

Enhanced editions of say the Black Isle games. I'm fine with that as I
think the gameplay is still relevant (at least to me) and the graphics
and QoL update is a good thing. It also means I don't have to worry
about are all of the five CD's still in the case. Yes most of what you
get can be done with mods but £5 for the convenience, that's a good deal
to me.

As we're on BG, I'll mention BG:3. The more I see about it the less I
like the look of it. All I see is 'stuff' about how they are adding new classes, skill, feats, environmental effects etc. and very little about
the story or world building. As always that doesn't mean it's a bad game
but instead one I'm unlikely to like.

A remake I think did a good job was Black Mesa as instead of just taking
HL:1 and adding shiny graphics/physics they keep what I feel is the
essence of the game but re-imagined it for gaming today. Saying that
even for me and my don't care much about graphics attitude the original
was getting close to the that makes my eyes bleed stage.

Overall although, I tend to agree, I'd prefer a new IP over a rehash of
an old one. I can see why it's so attractive to companies though as
taking an existing, and successful, IP just has a lesser risk than
creating a new one. The triple-A publishers have a successful formula
and I don't see them letting go of it anytime soon.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:55:21 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

As we're on BG, I'll mention BG:3. The more I see about it the less I
like the look of it. All I see is 'stuff' about how they are adding new >classes, skill, feats, environmental effects etc. and very little about
the story or world building. As always that doesn't mean it's a bad game
but instead one I'm unlikely to like.

I'm probably not the best person to ask about "Baldur's Gate 3." I
/adored/ the original; I felt - I still do! - that it captured the
feel of the tabletop game excellently. I was less endeared with the
sequel; the plot was becoming increasingly convoluted, the
power-levels were skyrocketing and it required you to buy into the
complexities of the Forgotten Realms setting rather than simply exist
as a fun and fairly generic fantasy world. It was a game that felt
like new features were added simply because, as a sequel, people
expected lots of new features, and was the worse for it. It's not a
bad game, but - unlike most - I always felt it was the weaker of the
two.

And "Baldur's Gate 3"? Like you, the more I see about it, the less
interest I have. It's not just the overabundance of mechanics - the aforementioned feats, effects, etc. - although that certainly plays a
part. Larian enjoys making increasingly complex games but I've little
love for that sort of design; I don't want to devote my life to
learning the 10,000 combinations to making a perfect build, which
means all that complexity is either wasted or gets in the way (too
often the latter).

But worse, I've little interest in the high-magic setting that seems
to be the main draw of the game: illithids around every corner,
spelljamming ships, casual dimension hopping, etc. It makes for an
unrealistic and unengaging world; a cartoonish pastiche of fantasy
tropes that only is held together because the author insists on it.
Sure, the previous games suffered from that too, but the extremes of
this third game are just beyond my ability to ignore.

So... yeah. "Baldur's Gate 3" isn't a game high up on my 'must buy'
(much less my 'must play') list. I'm sure it will be an excellent
game... it's just not one I'm that interested in playing.

A remake I think did a good job was Black Mesa as instead of just taking
HL:1 and adding shiny graphics/physics they keep what I feel is the
essence of the game but re-imagined it for gaming today. Saying that
even for me and my don't care much about graphics attitude the original
was getting close to the that makes my eyes bleed stage.

I tend to give games like "Black Mesa" a pass, just because they're
usually made by fans who want to honor the original and don't really
expect to make any money off of it. The "Black Mesa" team worked for
years - over a decade, I think? - assuming their end product would be
a free mod, so even though they eventually did offer it as a
commercial product, I'll happily cut them some slack. This devotion is
much different from the often calculated decisions by some developers
to revisit existing IPs not because the story demands it, but because
they hope to profit from it.

Overall although, I tend to agree, I'd prefer a new IP over a rehash of
an old one. I can see why it's so attractive to companies though as
taking an existing, and successful, IP just has a lesser risk than
creating a new one. The triple-A publishers have a successful formula
and I don't see them letting go of it anytime soon.

Of course, one of the reasons it works is because the publishers are
so devoted to the formula. There's a lot of dissatisfaction with
triple-A games; they have the all the polish you'd expect from a $100
million development, but lack the novelty and experimentation. It's no
wonder people look back fondly at older games... and it's sad that -
rather than hearing what gamers are actually saying, these same
publishers instead see this as invitation to make a quick buck of
gamer's nostalgia. Which only makes gamers long more for the 'good old
games' of yesteryear, which results in more remakes/reboots, and the
cycle continues.

Well, fortunately there are the Indies and a slow resurgence of
middle-tier developers to break the cycle, but its unfortunate (if understandable and predictible) that the publishers with the most
money are more dedicated to the business rather than the art.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 21:26:19 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

Is this bad news or not? I'm not sure. On the one hand, I loved
"System Shock 2" and the game left a clear path for a sequel (I'm less >endeared with the original, but still consider it an enjoyable
classic).

I loved System Shock 2. I finished it more times then anyone in this
newsgroup reading this post, I am sure of it. I do not think the
original is anywhere near as good as Shock 2 but it is still a good
game. So I guess I agree with you on this point.

But on the other hand, well... I've made clear my opinion of
milking old properties rather than creating something new, haven't I?

Milk 'em I say. I love remakes of old games. If they suck, then I just
won't buy them, simple as that.Warcraft 3 remake sucked. Did not buy.
Bard's Tale remake did not suck. Bought.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 29/08/2022 18:37, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:55:21 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

As we're on BG, I'll mention BG:3. The more I see about it the less I
like the look of it. All I see is 'stuff' about how they are adding new
classes, skill, feats, environmental effects etc. and very little about
the story or world building. As always that doesn't mean it's a bad game
but instead one I'm unlikely to like.

I'm probably not the best person to ask about "Baldur's Gate 3." I
/adored/ the original; I felt - I still do! - that it captured the
feel of the tabletop game excellently. I was less endeared with the
sequel; the plot was becoming increasingly convoluted, the
power-levels were skyrocketing and it required you to buy into the complexities of the Forgotten Realms setting rather than simply exist
as a fun and fairly generic fantasy world. It was a game that felt
like new features were added simply because, as a sequel, people
expected lots of new features, and was the worse for it. It's not a
bad game, but - unlike most - I always felt it was the weaker of the
two.

I always find it hard to judge which was best as BG:1 obviously had the
wow this is different vibe to it, at least to me, which BG:2 just
couldn't replicate. Saying that I probably have a similar view to you in
that BG:1 felt more like the type of D&D I'd played in that you
characters weren't walking death killing machines and the setting was
obviously a fantasy one but not as fantastical as BG:2. I'd probably add
that very fantastical settings I don't find wrong as long as they
themselves are grounded in a different world and not a version of our world.

And "Baldur's Gate 3"? Like you, the more I see about it, the less
interest I have. It's not just the overabundance of mechanics - the aforementioned feats, effects, etc. - although that certainly plays a
part. Larian enjoys making increasingly complex games but I've little
love for that sort of design; I don't want to devote my life to
learning the 10,000 combinations to making a perfect build, which
means all that complexity is either wasted or gets in the way (too
often the latter).

But worse, I've little interest in the high-magic setting that seems
to be the main draw of the game: illithids around every corner,
spelljamming ships, casual dimension hopping, etc. It makes for an unrealistic and unengaging world; a cartoonish pastiche of fantasy
tropes that only is held together because the author insists on it.
Sure, the previous games suffered from that too, but the extremes of
this third game are just beyond my ability to ignore.

So... yeah. "Baldur's Gate 3" isn't a game high up on my 'must buy'
(much less my 'must play') list. I'm sure it will be an excellent
game... it's just not one I'm that interested in playing.

I haven't played latter versions of D&D but the impression I get is that
the audience has shifted more to players who have grown up with computer
games and possibly this is the type of player BG:3 is aimed at. The
counter to that is that my understanding is that D&D has shifted more to
a co-op story game.

As an aside D&D One, I can't say I'm happy with that direction change of
the normal mode is playing in a virtual environment. That just seems
incredibly restrictive to me and not to mention it's let's put a shed
load of micro-transactions in it feel. Now it could be said that well
just don't play D&D, true but I do feel it could have the knock of
effect of almost tying players into that ecosystem/style of play. To put
it simply if a player is of the mindset this is how an RPG is presented
then I can see quite a reluctance to go to different system this is more
ToM.

A remake I think did a good job was Black Mesa as instead of just taking
HL:1 and adding shiny graphics/physics they keep what I feel is the
essence of the game but re-imagined it for gaming today. Saying that
even for me and my don't care much about graphics attitude the original
was getting close to the that makes my eyes bleed stage.

I tend to give games like "Black Mesa" a pass, just because they're
usually made by fans who want to honor the original and don't really
expect to make any money off of it. The "Black Mesa" team worked for
years - over a decade, I think? - assuming their end product would be
a free mod, so even though they eventually did offer it as a
commercial product, I'll happily cut them some slack. This devotion is
much different from the often calculated decisions by some developers
to revisit existing IPs not because the story demands it, but because
they hope to profit from it.

To be honest if I'd spent that much effort into making Black Mesa I'm
pretty sure that the thought of well I can now make some money out this
would cross my mind!

Overall although, I tend to agree, I'd prefer a new IP over a rehash of
an old one. I can see why it's so attractive to companies though as
taking an existing, and successful, IP just has a lesser risk than
creating a new one. The triple-A publishers have a successful formula
and I don't see them letting go of it anytime soon.

Of course, one of the reasons it works is because the publishers are
so devoted to the formula. There's a lot of dissatisfaction with
triple-A games; they have the all the polish you'd expect from a $100
million development, but lack the novelty and experimentation. It's no
wonder people look back fondly at older games... and it's sad that -
rather than hearing what gamers are actually saying, these same
publishers instead see this as invitation to make a quick buck of
gamer's nostalgia. Which only makes gamers long more for the 'good old
games' of yesteryear, which results in more remakes/reboots, and the
cycle continues.

Honestly I don't quite understand how these triple-A franchises remain
so successful. For me two, at a stretch three, plus a couple of DLC's is
really more than enough to experience what a game has to offer. After
that I just think why would I spend £50 to get what is essentially the
same game with a different setting and a few tweaks.

As you mentioned CoD in another thread so I'll use that as an example. I
loved CoD:1 and its expansion. CoD:2 was good but not brilliant. CoD:MW,
it was ok but nothing special and that was the last one I played. The
gameplay experience was essential the same, shoot at some dumb as a rock enemies so you could advance to the point they stopped respawing, have
some set-piece actions scenes and chuck in a few cut scenes for good
measure. At least with Brother's In Arms they were trying something
different even if it quickly became apparent that the 'intelligent'
enemies were no more than if you go there we'll move there. At least
they didn't just blindly run at you waiting to die.

Well, fortunately there are the Indies and a slow resurgence of
middle-tier developers to break the cycle, but its unfortunate (if understandable and predictible) that the publishers with the most
money are more dedicated to the business rather than the art.

The mid to smaller studios and indies are what's really keeping me in PC gaming. Obviously they do want the money but it still has a bit of the
vibe of creating games that the devs. want to play. Disco Elysium is
great example for me.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 13:37:06 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm probably not the best person to ask about "Baldur's Gate 3." I
/adored/ the original; I felt - I still do! - that it captured the
feel of the tabletop game excellently. I was less endeared with the
sequel; the plot was becoming increasingly convoluted, the
power-levels were skyrocketing and it required you to buy into the >complexities of the Forgotten Realms setting rather than simply exist
as a fun and fairly generic fantasy world. It was a game that felt
like new features were added simply because, as a sequel, people
expected lots of new features, and was the worse for it. It's not a
bad game, but - unlike most - I always felt it was the weaker of the
two.

I've always said that Baldur's Gate 2 is a better made game then
Baldur's Gate 1 (because it is) but I enjoyed playing the original
more.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:44:25 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

As an aside D&D One, I can't say I'm happy with that direction change of
the normal mode is playing in a virtual environment. That just seems >incredibly restrictive to me and not to mention it's let's put a shed
load of micro-transactions in it feel. Now it could be said that well
just don't play D&D, true but I do feel it could have the knock of
effect of almost tying players into that ecosystem/style of play. To put
it simply if a player is of the mindset this is how an RPG is presented
then I can see quite a reluctance to go to different system this is more
ToM.

I don't feel I'm in a position to push my opinion on D&D 6th Edition,
if only because - while I largely agree with you - I'm not sure if I'm
in the majority. If the vast bulk of their customers prefer
virtual-gamings, then it makes sense for WotC to chase after those
customers.

And anyway, it's not like it really matters to me; I'm not even
playing D&D 5th Ed, and am even less likely to play the next version.
My group and I are satisifed with our old-school rules playing around
an old-school table with old-school miniatures and old-school pencils.
It's not like my old rulebooks are going to stop working, and - since
I'm unlikely to be a major contributor to their revenue stream - I've
no issue with WotC not catering to my needs.

Plus, I suspect that the virtual-gaming fad will, eventually, give way
back to the old-school style again. It's more convenient, sure, but
there is an ineffable joy playing in a game where you can fling potato
crisps at the GM after he makes a ruling you disagree with. ;-)

To be honest if I'd spent that much effort into making Black Mesa I'm
pretty sure that the thought of well I can now make some money out this
would cross my mind!

Like I said, I've no objection to the BM team making a few bucks off
their work because it was not a project whose primary intent was to
make a profit; it was made out of love of the IP and for the challenge
of the task. Because of this, they had an uncompromised vision and
that's reflected in the end-product.

But I can't say that I have the same expectations for the "Dead Space"
remake. While I'm sure there are many on the development team who
loved the original, the goal of that title will be "what will make us
the most money", and the game will be altered to maximize that.

Honestly I don't quite understand how these triple-A franchises remain
so successful. For me two, at a stretch three, plus a couple of DLC's is >really more than enough to experience what a game has to offer. After
that I just think why would I spend £50 to get what is essentially the
same game with a different setting and a few tweaks.

Inertia and marketing. There's a long-held belief that triple-A
publishers are where you go for top-quality games (I admit I still
sort of subscribe to this myself). It's not entirely untrue - even
'bad' triple -A games tend to be playable - but these games lack
character and originality, which makes them functionally
interchangable (with some developers worse in this regard than others
<cough cough> Ubisoft <cough>). So triple-A publishers are bleeding
customers, but there are just so many gamers out there that they can
survive that loss for a long time.

It's also mitigated by excellent marketing that draws in a new
generation of gamers, some of whom simply don't know better (since
they've never experienced an era where games weren't MTX-riddled
grind-fests) and others who believe that a publisher's record from
twenty years ago equates to the quality of their games today.

TL;DR: on a planet with a potentially 8 billion customers to bilk, all subjected to constant psychological manipulation (a.k.a. marketing),
you can literally publish shit and still be assured of a profit. In an environment like this, if you put even a little bit of effort, you get
a blockbuster.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/08/2022 03:06, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Plus, I suspect that the virtual-gaming fad will, eventually, give way
back to the old-school style again. It's more convenient, sure, but
there is an ineffable joy playing in a game where you can fling potato
crisps at the GM after he makes a ruling you disagree with. 😉

The last campaign I was on did use a VTT but honestly I really don't
think it added anything and indeed probably took something away
especially when the GM stuggles with doing what they wanted so us
players spend five minutes looking at the screen. I also don't think it
helped that our GM didn't really seem to put the effort in to get the
most out of it. This was CoC though and ToM I find works fine there so
not a good showcase for VTT's.

In our current campaign we do use Roll20 but that's mainly for storing character sheets and rolling those dice as we play online. Works fine
for me but I'm not sure you could really describe it as using a VTT.

VTT's in general, I'm really not sure and even with D&D One it's not
entirely clear to me whether they are pushing this as sit around the
table or online, probably both as I assume then idea is not how you use
the content but that you buy content*. I just look at the whole concept
and think yep that's fine if you're running a pre-made module with the
required assets and you have a GM that understands how it works. The
problem I have though is it seems to mean running anything homemade is
not going to happen and that even includes making up scenes on the fly.
I also think that besides D&D there just won't be the economy of sales
for companies to invest in anything but a few selected modules.

*Who owns that content and is this just going to be even more of a
burden of the GM due to the unwritten rule of they buy pretty much
everything is yet to be seen. Who knows maybe they'll go full hog and
put NFT's in it!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)