Talk:System Shock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article System Shock is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star System Shock is part of the Looking Glass Studios video games series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 22, 2014.

Where could i buy this?[edit]

Where could i download this? Somewhere other than Ebay >_>

You can download it here.

So called POV line[edit]

This is in relation to the recently removed line: "The series is considered by some people to be one of the greatest ever made." This line was already altered to be more accurate and less POV from its original form. Besides, the series is considered by some to be one of the greatest ever made. Its no more POV than saying that some people believe the first moon landing is a hoax. It would of course be POV to say "The series is one of the greatest ever made.", or "The series is the greatest ever made.", but that's not what it said.--DooMDrat 19:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The removed sentence is just as POV as your last two examples; interjecting the phrase "is considered by some people" is just a cop-out. The sentence still reflects one editor's opinion (or the collective opinion of a number of editors). If you want to turn it into fact, then you need to cite some sources. Provide links to reviews of the games, or articles naming one or both of them as some of the greatest games ever, a la the article on Half-Life 2. Also note that the HL2 article does not begin with "many people consider this to be one of greatest games ever made", even though many in the game community have attributed such accolades to the game. Perhaps you should review Wikipedia's official NPOV policy, and some NPOV examples, while you're at it... — EagleOne\Talk 02:07, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, fair enough. I tracked down a couple reviews. Mind you, they aren't the greatest. The SS1 review is just of the disk version, so no assessment of the CD enhancements. I guess that a lot of the old review sites from that day are long gone now. As for the SS2 review, its by IGN, if that counts for anything (negative or positive), and it is pre-patch.--DooMDrat 11:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Using your standard of defining "cop-out", I detected quite a few examples in the first three paragraphs of the wikipedia article on Osama Bin Laden. Stuff like "is widely believed", "is usually considered", and "the popular assumption is". I submit that you are trying to hold wikipedia to an unreasonable standard. For one thing, being a gamer and having mostly gamers for friends, I can assure you I've never personally met a gamer who didn't agree that SS2 is a masterwork. Factually speaking, it *is* what most people say about it, or would say if the issue ever came up in conversation. Why is reporting on what people say non-NPOV? As it currently stands, the article reports on a lot of negative "criticisms", which also are just stuff people said about it. Why should the criticisms be NPOV but not the praise? The article as it stands is unfair because while it vaguely mentions "critical acclaim", it goes into great detail about the game's flaws. Once I get some sleep, I'll see about hunting down some old reviews to write a Praises section. -Kasreyn
Hmm. For anyone who's confused (because I sure was), this comment is in re: the article on System Shock 2. I have no idea how it wound up on the talk page for System Shock. I have removed the unsourced POV criticisms from the System Shock 2 page. Happily, the System Shock article seems to already be balanced and encyclopedic, so it doesn't need work from me right now. -Kasreyn 09:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

On Removal of Doom 3 References[edit]

The references made to Doom 3 under "Future of the System Shock series" were strenuous and I don't remeber Doom 3 ever marketed as "spiritual successor" to System Shock series nor it mentined as such in computer gaming media. The text read as someone "putting down" Doom 3 - so to speak - rather than informing the reader of some relevant connection between the games - of which I see none. POV text that in superficial glance seemed neutral. Hence my removal of said text.
- The Merciful 2 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

In regards to the whole Doom 3 -> System Shock 2 thing, there have been many who have felt it to be so. Now I've not played Doom 3, but I'll make a few points.
  • I post at a major forum in the System Shock community, and after Doom 3 came out, we got a fair number of new users (rare in the best of cases), who "played Doom 3 and wanted to try that game people said it ripped off".
  • I think I once read somewhere that someone at id themselves said that they were inspired by Shock 2, but I can't remember where I saw it, so disregard this point if you like.
  • Finally, a quote: "id's storytelling, too, has come a long way. Someone over there played and loved Irrational's System Shock 2, working the notion of e-mails and audio diaries into the experience." - Tycho from Penny Arcade [1].
I'll ask some others in the shock community, who have played both, about this whole thing so they can add their own input, but later. It's 4AM here, and I need sleep badly. Oh yeah, thanks for those boxart images, I'll just resize the images in the article to take up more of the infobox. Looks neater IMO.--DooMDrat July 2, 2005 18:12 (UTC)
  • All above points can connect about any game to any game. One propably not-so-seriuos speculatory reference on a web comic site on one gamplay/story telling feature and some posts on Trough the Looking Glass forums (my assumption, wasn't a recular reader around Doom 3 release) are hardly siginificant enough connections or notable general perceptions. You might as well claim Doom 3 to be a "spiritual successor" to Resident Evil due flash light and "survival horor" style gameplay. Some people migh claim such things, but that doesn't mean it shoul be mentioned in a encyclopediac article. These kind of things are a dime on a dosen. If there is a verified iD Software quote about SS2 as notable influence and/or mentions of SS2 as an influence on Doom 3 on significan number of mediums notable enough, then writing about this influence would me merited. Not under "Future of the System Shock series" section tough, but in a paragraph about SS influencing other games. - The Merciful 2 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
  • When I first loaded up Doom 3, and received my first in-game "email", I immediately thought back to SS2. There's no doubt in my mind of connection between the two games, at least in terms of the plot devices (emails, audio logs, the "benevolent overseer") and in terms of the survival-horror aspect (though D3-SS2 are by no means unique in that aspect). However, WP is not the place for speculation and original research, so I support the removal of the D3 references. At least, until we can get some verifable material from id. — EagleOne\Talk 02:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the 2 games into 2 articles[edit]

I feel that each game has enough information and is distinctly different enough to warrant seperate articles for each. System Shock 2 was enough of a cult hit alone to warrant more in-depth analysis which can't be done on an ambiguous page like this. --TheGreatFoo 12:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it and made some changes to both articles.--DooMDrat 04:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


Could SS be accurately described as a Thriller?--DooMDrat 11:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Number of copies sold[edit]

The following claims that 170,000 copies were sold:

Then edit the article accordingly, and put a source link.--Drat (Talk) 14:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Request info![edit]

I have a windows ME

and i have the original Mac CD of this game

can i still play this game on my ME computer?? thanks Maverick423 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd say you would be very hard pressed getting a Mac game working on PC. There is a special fan-modified distro called SYSTEMSHOCK-Portable, set up to work in XP.--Drat (Talk) 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


The suggestion that this article or any part thereof is a copyright violation is patent BS.--Drat (Talk) 13:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the speedy as I suspect it's a bad faith tag. The Kinslayer 13:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm still mulling over the bit about the mutants and cyborgs. As it is now, it implies that the whole crew was turned into mutants. People where either killed, turned into cyborgs or mutated. I can't think of a way to effectively rewrite it at the moment while still reading well.

As for the Hacker's dealings with Diego, Rebecca and co. didn't know specifically what the Hacker had done. Page 12 of the manual shows what they did know. One of Diego's logs alludes to him needing the Hacker's services to help him cover up some suspicious business he has been up to. A backstory (official, from what I recall, though it's been years) details that Diego was arranging to sell a virus from the biolabs to a criminal, or possibly a terrorist. I'll have to track it down, of course.--Drat (Talk) 11:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I see. I don't have any access to that stuff, which is why the section is currently full of holes. It's must-have information for the article, if you can get your hands on it. Also, I had a similar issue with the cyborg/mutant part, and just decided to leave it as-was for the time. I'll try to figure something out about that. JimmyBlackwing 18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The backstory you're mentioning is in the "System Shock I.C.E Breaker" (official hint book ISBN:017814100628) as "Investigative Report #209" on page 7. Specifically, it says: "Bianca Schuler, an undercover security specialist, determined that Diego intended to market Citadel's mutagenic virus as a biological weapon." Throughout the rest of the hint book other reports and emails flesh out the rest of the back story, including a reconstructed memo from Diego's computer on page 77 that explains that Diego was selling the virus to a terrorist named Oscar Kamar.Mullub's dimi 20:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments regarding GA-status[edit]

This article looks good, covers all the major topics one would expect to see in a GA-class article, features well-written prose and makes excellent use of inline citations to validate the statements made. Cheers, Lankybuggerspeaksee ○ 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings[edit]

There is no reason to remove spoiler warnings. No policy dictates that they are unacceptable, and no consensus has been reached as to their use. They are largely a matter of user preference, so going to articles with the sole purpose of adding or removing them is a waste of time for both sides. Many users do not expect spoilers when spoiler warnings are not present, due to their long-standing presence on Wikipedia. Until a policy is made regarding the use of these, things should remain as they have, and as such the spoiler warnings on this article should be re-added. JimmyBlackwing 03:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've directed the relvent people to the relevent discussion, although they are now trying to claim that the policy discussion has failed, which is obviously not the case. DarkSaber2k 11:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article protected?[edit]

Enlighten me. Lockeownzj00 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like two editors started a is-not is-too war about whether the {{spoiler}} template should be used, ever. 19:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's now two weeks later - why is this still protected? Time for unprotection methinks. MojoTas 03:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's been long enough -ZFGokuSSJ1 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Citadel Station[edit]

Since there are now at least three video games with a Citadel Station, I went ahead and changed that from a redirect page to a disambiguation page (yeah, I wrote System Shock in the edit comment, whoops, brainfart) Clayhalliwell (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not add a reference to Bioshock?[edit]

The bioshock article includers the following: "The game incorporates elements found in role-playing and survival horror games, and is described by the developers and Levine as a "spiritual successor" to their previous titles in the System Shock series." Falcor84 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The sequel to System Shock is System Shock 2 and that article does mention Bioshock. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference material[edit]

I found the following material:


  • Ramshaw, Mark (1995). "System Shock". PC Format. Pg. 65. 
  • Buxton, Chris (October 1994). "Remarkable". PC Gamer UK (11). Pg. 66-67. 
  • Jones, Cal (November 1994). "System Shock". PC Review. Pg. 54-56. 

Previews and other material[edit]

I'll add more here as I find it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparent reference to Les Miz.[edit]

It would seem the "Employee 2-4601" line is a reference to the character Jean Valjean from Victor Hugo's Les Misérables, who was "Prisoner 24601" therein. I obviously don't have a reference to this, but it's just too eerily similar to be coincidence. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  • That's pretty amusing, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was intentional, considering that the game was heavily inspired by the Spoon River Anthology. Plus, both of Austin Grossman's parents are poets, and he's gone on to be a successful novelist. I just wish there was a source, since it can't be added otherwise. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Spiritual Successor" line at the top[edit]

Can someone explain why Deus Ex and Dead Space are supposed to be spiritual successors? For Deus Ex, both have technology in a cyberpunk future setting. In Dead Space, it happens in space, but there's no cyborgs and no mutants, just alien zombies from human hosts and aliens. If what is being used as evidence is what I think it is, it's tenuous connections at best. You can say any game that came after it with anything involving space or cyborgs, like Rage, is a System Shock spiritual successor. And we could also say System Shock is a spiritual successor to Doom. You could say call of duty is the spiritual successor of battlefield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

TFA request[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/System Shock --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

moar screenshots[edit]

This article needs more screenshots. In fact, all Wikipedia articles on videogames need more screenshots. That would make Wikipedia more useful, which I think is something Wikipedia wants. Right?-- (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If the KS succeeds...[edit]

If the remake KS succeeds, or should it fail but they announce intentions to keep proceeding with it, we might want to consider splitting off the remake to a separate article. There's a few hefty articles I have recently come across on Night Dive's work on this to give a sufficiently large development section. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Good point, but I don't think there is quote enough information for that yet. Lordtobi () 19:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The KS has passed its base goal with about 2/3rds of its time left to go [2], and that Draft:System_Shock_(2017_video_game) has been created by @Syssho: which I think is ready to be moved to mainspace at this point. But I'll wait for input on this. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The draft seems solid, might need some minor touch-ups. We would then move everything over, I guess. Lordtobi () 10:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the draft looks good. Should be fine to mainspace it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)