Talk:System Shock 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article System Shock 2 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 2 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 August 11, 2016.

Level editor origin[edit]

"The community at Sshock2, a fan site, have also released a free level editor entitled ShockEd.[54]"

ShockEd was given to the community by Irrational Games, it's the editor the game was developed with. It comes with a license by Irrational. The way it's written now, it sounds as if fans wrote the editor. (Kolya 213.196.203.248 (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the reversion by Rehevkor: That "reliable tird party source" is wrong. Take a look at the license that comes with the editor. Also, how is this for a reliable source? Kolya (87.78.10.189 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

It's not a matter of truth. The original source also covers the notability aspect of the editor. Fansites are rarely reliable sources however, and should not be relied on. As it was written it didn't imply Sshock2 made the editor anyway. I have rewritten to it somewhat, also removed neutral point of view issues, but it still requires a non fan site source, perhaps you could find one, as I was unable to, the FAQ one doesn't really explain enough to be of use. I ask you not to simply revert if you have issues with it, please discuss it here. Rehevkor 16:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Interesting article about the game: http://irrationalgames.com/insider/what-might-have-been/ Maybe it could be incorporated into the development section? --Mika1h (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreadable[edit]

Anyone else find this article all but unreadable now due to the dozens of reference links shotgunned throughout it? Most hard science articles here don't have that many links! Clayhalliwell (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That is how every article of any quality is written, everything must be sourced, and this is most commonly done via inline citations, see Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations. Rehevkor 03:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Based on a random perusal of Good Articles, no, this isn't how they're written. Yes, citations and references are important, but this article reads as if it were written by the sort of editor who'd put [citation needed] after "System Shock 2 is a game." Clayhalliwell (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You've obviously been very selective in which articles you've looked at, because yes, that is how they are written. If you are opposed to inline citations then I suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources, good luck! Rehevkor 14:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

System Shock 3 'status'[edit]

"PC Gamer UK expanded these rumors further, stating the team behind The Godfather was charged with its creation. Ken Levine, when asked whether he would helm a third installment, replied "that question is completely out of my hands." [...] As of January 2010, nothing conclusive has been reported regarding the status of the purported project."

Is this still notable? The 'team behind the Godfather' are surely EA Redwood Shores, which makes it almost certain that this supposed 'System Shock 3' project was science-fiction horror shoot-em-up 'Dead Space' and that there was simply some kind of miscommunication? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.229.61 (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Plausible, definite similarities in the games. Perhaps some reliable sources have brought it up. Rehevkor 00:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference material[edit]

While digging through the online print archive, I located the following print preview material for this game:

One or more print reviews for this game may also be found in the archive. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

The "Platform(s)" field of the Infobox includes "Dreamcast (canceled)". If the port of the PC version to Dreamcast was cancelled before release, why is it even listed in the Infobox? ProResearcher (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox VG states "The console or operating system the game was released for," so I removed it as it was never released on that platform. Is this source really usable? Doesn't go into any detail, seems to just be a database entry. Gives no background on the development or cancellation. Rehevkor 11:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

SHODAN article needs attention, and work[edit]

Just sayin'. --Niemti (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it needs attention. What if we work on it for FAC? — ΛΧΣ21 00:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Some more awards/noms[edit]

--Niemti (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the updates applied to the "Collectors Edition"[edit]

This version, considered by GOG.com to be a "collector's edition", includes updates to the original game to make it work on modern systems. I am happy with the content here; but the update itself as I understand it, was important on its own. Released by a broadly anonymous source. It is ongoing (still being updated according to the TTLG forum post) http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140085 One report on the incident: (the particular link to the first release location at ariane4ever appears dead now) http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/26/hooray-system-shock-2-thief-2-get-usability-patches/

I feel that ghis ongoing (unofficial?) development on SS2 is worthy of note.115.64.167.220 (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any indication that this is the same patch used on the GOG release? That aside, the Rockpapershotgun source shows coverage of the patch so I'd not be opposed to having it mentioned somewhere in the article. Яehevkor 12:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW[edit]

I think this article already includes it, but all the bonus content that was sold with the GOG version is now part of the Steam version (for all owners), along with the Linux port that came out yesterday (2014-04-01). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Spector director or producer on SS1[edit]

"Warren Spector, the director of the first System Shock, announced in February 2016 that he has joined OtherSide Entertainment and will be working on System Shock 3.[68]"

However in the SS1 article it says that he was in the producer's chair. -- TVippy  15:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it must be corrected because it represents an inconsistency. And speaking about System Shock 3, since the game has been officially announced by months, it would be good to create a dedicated article, using material in the "Sequel" section of SS2 and bring it to the "Development" section of SS3. 95.247.238.246 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
When there is more to say beyond "it's coming", we'll make a separate article. It's far too soon with as little as we have. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, then I'll correct only the thing about "Spector-director" with "Spector-producer". 82.51.154.194 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I find it pretty incredible[edit]

That this is today's FA and yet makes no mention of the KS for the remake. --82.8.229.174 (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That was for the first game's remake, not SS2. --MASEM (t) 11:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I find it pretty incredible how it's today's FA yet so much of the article (specifically, the sections about the source leaks and rerelease) are incorrect and/or misleading. They basically imply that Night Dive updated the game for modern systems, when in fact the rerelease is a combination of earlier community efforts gathered together and put up for sale again. Nameless Voice (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that affirms this, we can include it, but as best as I've seen, there's nothing to support this. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Most of the sources are discussions on fan sites and forums, which probably aren't "reliable enough" (judging by previous comments on this talk page), even though they were made by the actual people involved. Instead, I'll have to fall back on this source, which is at least an article on a gaming news website (even if the writing quality is rather poor): http://thegameinquirer.com/system_shock_2_back_from_legal_limbo/ Nameless Voice (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Misleading by omission[edit]

For more than a decade we're running a fansite and modding community at Systemshock.org. Our members have created dozens of modifications (including higher res graphics, translations, updated objects, hundreds of bug fixes, etc), we've been the ones who updated System Shock 2 for modern gaming systems for years and our fixes were used in the re-release of SS2. None of that appears anywhere in the article.

I'm not a wikipedian, I don't understand why you have useless links to DMOZ and IMDB but delete links to Systemshock.org. I'm just noting here that the article is misleading because it omits large parts of SS2's history. Namely the history of fan work on this game that leads directly to the re-release, remake and planned sequel.

This is related to the policy of relying on journalism, which is an incredibly bad resource in the gaming area, but dismissing the word of anyone personally involved. I understand you won't change that, because it works in other areas. But it's disappointing to see what a distorted view is generated by this policy here. This was a FA today, but it really didn't deserve that in its current form. 78.34.127.176 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Kolya

The problem is that with the only sources being fan communities, there's no way to vouch for identity and accomplishment of who did what. It's a core issues with WP:V that we have to go by "verifyability, not truth". It's also a shame that no major publications looked into the situation with the Night Dive version of GOG and fan-created mods, at least to establish some type of authority on the claims. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Isn't there a problem with this in terms of expertise? The people at systemshock.org are experts in the narrow area of these games. Any "major publication" probably wouldn't have the expertise to reliably come to a conclusion of any kind. All they could really do is consult and/or quote experts - which the article I linked earlier in the discussion does - but which is back to the people from the fan site whose testimony isn't considered verifyable (though the article also includes quotes from GOG staff, which might be considered more valid?). Nameless Voice (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I did see the above quotes but I can't find them at GOG.com, which we would need to have for authority of source. And what I meant is that we only would need a site that we consider reliable to comment on the situation ("Users and modders at systemshock.org found the Night Dive executable to be similar to that of the 2.4 patch") to be able to include, resting the authority that they trust systemshock.org on them. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Also I do know there are technically competent people at many of those sites that would be able to review the executables at a high level to note the similarities; it's just that (my opinion) the rose-tint glasses of having SS2 playable on modern hardware after it was extracted from the IP mess made them overlook the situation with the origin of the material. No intentional purpose to mislead or ignore it, just that it was far from the first thing on their mind when it was announced and available. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is an article from Fast Company, an American business magazine, which has an interview with Night Dive CEO Stephen Kick, where he talks about how the fan patches allowed him to re-release the game: http://www.fastcompany.com/3053050/app-economy/how-one-company-is-bringing-old-video-games-back-from-the-dead
Also, while not exactly the same thing, the official patch notes on Steam, also written directly by Night Dive staff, specifically mention that the patches are not created by Night Dive: http://steamcommunity.com/games/238210/announcements/detail/854929997292250689 http://steamcommunity.com/games/238210/announcements/detail/132081320175644883 http://steamcommunity.com/games/238210/announcements/detail/164715932138057026 Nameless Voice (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The Fast Company article works for all purposes. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on System Shock 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on System Shock 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)