http://www.gog.com/gamecard/system_shock_2

Which is amazing, because I lost my copy 5 or so years ago. If you go to their website now, you'll see a cryptic countdown (currently at about 13 hours). That's the countdown to SS2's release.

It's also amazing because it means everyone who missed out when it was new can experience it now. GoG support means it works on modern windows.

It will be $10 once it (FINALLY) becomes available. As your future Emperor, I COMMAND you to go and buy it, and then play it, and then come back to this thread and talk about it.
This game is EXQUISITELY BRILLIANT. A masterpiece. A genuine contender for single greatest videogame in history.



"Look at you, hacker. A pathetic creature of meat and bone."

Link?

gog.com

No link directly to the game yet. Once it launches I'll add it.

Quite cryptic indeed. So it's worth every penny of my hard earned money?

I'd pay $60 for it right now. And I always say no game is worth $60.

Link added to OP. GO BUY IT.

Seriously. There has never been a worthier game for your money.

Oh dear...

The excitement for this game is being fueled by nostalgia, right!? I don't mean to sh*t on any ones childhood but this game looks horrible.
(Ensue "get off my lawn" comments)

Visuals weren't even that great back in 1999 when it came out. But visuals are NOT the point. Everything else is.

This was the first game to truly terrify me to the point of aversion. f*** hated those zombies spawning out of no where.

RCA wrote:Oh dear...

The excitement for this game is being fueled by nostalgia, right!? I don't mean to sh*t on any ones childhood but this game looks horrible.
(Ensue "get off my lawn" comments)

I'm an older gamer and I'm on the same page as you. I said as much when Goldeneye was re-released years ago and everyone got all turgid for it.

People tend to remember the fun they hand when they look back at games rather than the game itself.

If the game is that good then make it again with the same mechanics but take advantage of the new technology(ies) that are available.

I keep exactly two older games on my ailing gaming laptop, solely because there is no modern replacement - the original Neverwinter Nights and the Starfleet Command series. Would add Wing Commander, but it seems that Chris Roberts is fixing something up in his lab, might add Xwing vs Tie, but with Disney acquiring LucasFilms (and consequently LucasArts) I'm holding out hope.

BusyBadger wrote:I'm an older gamer and I'm on the same page as you. I said as much when Goldeneye was re-released years ago and everyone got all turgid for it.

Goldeneye was a s*** game from the start. Shock 2 was a brilliant game.

You're missing the point but whatever, enjoy your fifteen year old game.

BusyBadger wrote:You're missing the point but whatever, enjoy your fifteen year old game.

Weird... that's not the kind of comment I expected to see from you of all people... I could easily say the same for many of the tabletop games we both enjoy. Since when does age mean anything? A good game is a good game. It doesn't just stop being good after some set number of years. And this one was hard to find for years due to copyright issues, so being able to get a proper legal copy is a big deal for a lot of people. The copyright issues also meant that a lot of people who didn't get onboard originally were out of luck if they wanted to try it out later on, which means this gog release is a extremely welcome.

This is NOT nostalgia. This is a igenuinely brilliant game that achieved things games today are STILL trying to replicate. It's a clean blending of FPS and RPG and exactly what BioShock and many other modern titles wish they could grow up to be. The controls, interface, and functionality don't feel fourteen years old. Only the poly counts really show it's age. Sound design would embarrass most modern AAA titles.

I understand if you're not interested, but of you haven't played it, you aren't really in a position to criticize how it had aged or whether it is still relevant. At least when I rip on Ocarina or FF7 I do so from firsthand experience and clear memories of NOT being impressed even "back in the day."

BusyBadger wrote:If the game is that good then make it again with the same mechanics but take advantage of the new technology(ies) that are available.

I absolutely agree. But it's not going to happen. I'm still quite happy to be able to play the original again.

My apologies for not getting back on this sooner, it's been an eventful week. I also apologize in advance for the post, it's going to be a little long and rambling, only real gamers will get enjoy the read, others will consider it a big TL; DR wall of text. f*** 'em.

First off, your second response was far better than the one that sounded like it came from a 12 year old troll...

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Goldeneye was a s*** game from the start. Shock 2 was a brilliant game.

...we both know you can do better than that.

It's funny you bring up tabletop games...the most recent release of Space Hulk was its third edition, Warhammer 40K is on its sixth edition and Warhammer Fantasy is on its eighth. They're all still the same idea as they originally were, along with basically the same broad mechanics (I refer to this as the game engine or the machine). There are always some rules tweaks (for better or worse) and playability modifications but the models and presentation have been improved over the years - like new graphics on an older videogame.











Furthermore, tabletop gaming is a social activity, videogaming doesn't have to be and in the case if you and Ace (and sometimes me) it isn't. Part of the charm of Goldeneye was the memory of stepping out of the box of being a solo activity and getting together with a group of friends and going at it, the good times didn't necessarily hinge on the quality of the game. A big part of me actually regrets the addition of broadband to the current crop of consoles. Once upon a time you had to cart your rig and your tv over to a friend's house for a big Halo party - and it was an event that was much larger than what happened on the screen. It's not like that anymore and in a way, it's sad.

Back in my bachelor days my roommate and I had a gaming table in the living room that was bigger than even the local hobby stores. Between the two of us we had more than enough terrain pieces and models to make every event unique, not to mention no customers, no set closing time and a fridge full of food and drink. Word got out about the table and everything else, then we had all sorts of gamers asking to come over and play. We quickly developed a rule of thumb, we weren't going to spend four to six hours gaming with someone that we wouldn't normally just sit down and have a beer with - our time was more valuable than that. For me that's a lot of what I remember from Goldeneye, or Doom, or Quake and the whole host of other FPS games from that era, that's nostalgia talking. But while I miss the camaraderie I'm not about to go set up a LAN party on a quad of old 486's just because I miss the "good old days". I'll look for something new.

I've played System Shock, don't remember finishing it though, same with Shock 2. I'm a long time LGS fan (way back when they were Blue Sky - Ultima Underworld needs a reboot, speaking of old games), I even made it a point to track down Warren Spector at an E3 show (when E3 was still cool and not the vapid swagfest it is now) and he was kind enough to chat with me for a couple of minutes about Thief. Odd that you mention Bioshock wanting to grow up to be System Shock since Ken Levine had a major hand in both of them, I think if he'd have wanted Bioshock to be like System Shock he would have done that...I'd like to get his take on that.

I do however completely understand the copyright implications and the fact that a game that has not been available for quite some time once again will be.

I had more in mind for this but I'm a little distracted (maybe some coffee), I'll back to it when it gets back to me.

I've had a stupid week as well, or I would have added to the thread sooner.

I dunno...I just don't see the obsession with graphics. Remakes are one thing. But simply selling an older title is a whole different story. If walmart started selling old boxed copies, would you get complain about bad graphics then?

Graphics CAN improve enjoyability and immersion. CAN. But they are far from the most important thing to a game experience. System Shock 2 is a great example. A better one is Metroid 3. An SNES title that's more atmospheric, more beautiful, and more detailed than many (I'd even say MOST) modern high-res, high-poly, high-shinies games. A lot of people are crying for a 2.5D remake of it on the 3DS, but would honestly RATHER have the original released as a virtual console. The original was amazing. I don't want a remake
As you noted, tabletop game updates often come with rule changes that are not for the better. Though I am not fond of D&D (far too structured and not enough room for storytelling) I'm very familiar with the 3.0 "WoW clone" fallout. Any re-release risks this. I'd rather play what is ALREADY good than risk ruining the original formula by "updating" or "modernizing" it. With a game as old as Shock 2, the original team will NOT be involved. It'll be someone else. That's like asking Toyota to modernize the Lotus 7. It's just not going to work. The 7 is fine as it is. It doesn't NEED to be modernized.

Your use of Halo re-release screenshots prove my point: Halo's problem was NEVER its graphics. It was simply mediocre overall. Putting shinies on the same old mediocrity doesn't make it any more enjoyable. That holds true for shinies on excellence as well. And, to be honest, Halo Anniversary's visuals still look like crap. But I guess that's what you get on a console with less texture memory than my phone, so I guess I can't hold it against the game.

Another comparison I could draw is to books. What if every re-publication of a classic title had to come with "updates" and "modernization"? That'd be EFFING NONSENSE. Imagine how terrible The Space Trilogy, or Dune, or the War of the Worlds would be when "modernized!" I'm not claiming that bad graphics are a core part of what makes Shock 2 what it was, but I AM suggesting that things don't need to change in order to remain enjoyable.

As for Goldeneye, I can see what you mean with the "social" aspect, but that game just never did anything for me. I've discussed why on numerous occasions, so I won't get into that here, beyond pointing out that there are more than a few parallels between the popularity-despite-mediocrity of Goldeneye and Halo. But Goldeneye is not a good comparison point as long as we disagree on that point.

Shock 2 has co-op. I've never played it (most of my friends' parents were terrified of videogames back when the game came out, so they all came over to my place to play the game on my Pentium machine). But I can't imagine it being anything other than a blast, especially considering that many of the skills that aren't practical to focus on with a single character are very complimentary.

BusyBadger wrote:Ultima Underworld needs a reboot, speaking of old games

As an owner of the original, I wholeheartedly agree. Fortunately, so do many others. Take your pick:
http://www.olderbytes.com/buy-underworld
http://www.grimrock.net/

BusyBadger wrote:Odd that you mention Bioshock wanting to grow up to be System Shock since Ken Levine had a major hand in both of them, I think if he'd have wanted Bioshock to be like System Shock he would have done that...I'd like to get his take on that.

Not odd. Intentional. I know Levine was involved with both, which is exactly why I brought it up. You can't NOT know, since he spent ages leading up to the release of Bioshock talking about how it's System Shock 2's "spiritual successor". Which set bars very high for people who loved SS2. And then he went and did exactly what you said: he made it NOT like System Shock 2. Which IS ABSOLUTELY FINE, except that he had just finished telling everyone that it was supposed to be like SS2. It jaded a lot of opinions. But regardless of whether Bioshock was really supposed to be like System Shock 2 or not, it's an example of how "modernizing" a good formula can ruin it. The approachability and simplification of every SS2 feature that made it into Bioshock might have helped it sell more and reach a wider audience, but it DID NOT make for a better game. Nor did the better graphics. It made a different game, sure. But that's my point: if I wanted to play a game that's not System Shock 2, I wouldn't want to play System Shock 2! Which is why I don't give a damn about remakes and am perfectly happy to play the dated, ugly, fifteen year old original.

BusyBadger wrote:

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Goldeneye was a s*** game from the start. Shock 2 was a brilliant game.

...we both know you can do better than that.

In all honesty, it WAS just a bad attempt at sarcastic trolling. You poked fun at the excitement around the Goldeneye rerelease, so I jumped on board a chance to poke fun at one of the most irritatingly over-popular games in history.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:I dunno...I just don't see the obsession with graphics.

This. This this this this this this this this this x129871294.

One of my favorite games ever is Star Fox 64. A ton of my favorite games are on N64. It's not about graphics, or else I'd want some new, shiny, realistically-lit game. Nope, it's about how fun it is to play. Or with Zelda, the storyline. OOT is ten times the game of Skyward Sword, and has sh*t graphics comparably.

For SS2, I'm sure it's about the experience. The feeling you get while playing it.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:The copyright issues also meant that a lot of people who didn't get onboard originally were out of luck if they wanted to try it out later on, which means this gog release is a extremely welcome...

Graphics CAN improve enjoyability and immersion. CAN. But they are far from the most important thing to a game experience.

I didn't know that this was an issue. Makes sense that people are excited. Is System Shock like Deus Ex? A great title that no matter what it looks like, it's still a game you want in your library?

I agree about the graphics comment. I have never played System Shock so my guess is that it is a classic that plays well but looks aged and now can be purchased legally for the first time in a long time.

Ace2cool wrote:For SS2, I'm sure it's about the experience. The feeling you get while playing it.

You're kidding yourself if you think graphics doesn't play any factor. I never played through the entire OoT but I have played through the 1st 20mins or so. I played it 10 years after release and it played well but the graphics brought my experience to a halt (N64 textures, cringe). You played OoT shortly after release so the graphics weren't a barrier and you had an amazing experience. Now when you go back to playing it you have graphics horse blinders on because of your nostalgic experience.

RCA wrote:I didn't know that this was an issue. Makes sense that people are excited. Is System Shock like Deus Ex? A great title that no matter what it looks like, it's still a game you want in your library?

Absolutely. Although I would feel like Deus Ex's borderline-cheesy pulp-noir visual style (that's not a criticism...for many it's an appealing trait) has helped its visuals age more gracefully than System Shock's less stylized look has.

RCA wrote:I never played through the entire OoT but I have played through the 1st 20mins or so. I played it 10 years after release and it played well but the graphics brought my experience to a halt (N64 textures, cringe). You played OoT shortly after release so the graphics weren't a barrier and you had an amazing experience. Now when you go back to playing it you have graphics horse blinders on because of your nostalgic experience.

I both agree and disagree here. Even when OoT was brand-spanking-new, the texture resolutions STILL made my eyes bleed. However, the gameplay was not undermined by that. I certainly wasn't impressed by the visuals. But it was a fun game despite the low-res textures. OoT is one another of those games whose high praise has always confused me a little. It's a VERY fun game (I own four copies of it, all different versions). But I never held it up as the standard by which all Zelda should be judged. Link's Awakening and Link to the Past were both superior before it, and Windwaker and arguably even Majora's Mask were superior afterward.
I had a similar experience with FF7 when it was new as well. I remember playing it when it was new and thinking "Damn, those static backgrounds look terrible!" And those cube-hands!
Same with Resident Evil.
Bad or dated graphics are certainly NOTICEABLE, but I do maintain that they don't interfere with enjoyment unless they're severely broken or something like that.

RCA wrote:You played OoT shortly after release so the graphics weren't a barrier and you had an amazing experience. Now when you go back to playing it you have graphics horse blinders on because of your nostalgic experience.

No I didn't. I played it last week, and it's still f*cking legit. I didn't have an N64 until the Xbox 360 was initially released. I didn't play OOT until about the same time. (didn't play it on N64 though, cause I was too cheap for the expansion pack.) I played it on Wii virtual console when they first released it, and understood what I was missing. It's an amazing game, and stands the test of time. If you're one of those graphics are everything type people, that's what's killing originality and re-playability of games.

I STILL play Starfox 64 (played that last week as well) and all kinds of emulators on my PC.

Another one: Final Fantasy VII. I have a standalone version of that. So awesome. Played that all the way through while on deployment last year. Along with Legend of the Dragoon for PS1. Both had miserable graphics, but they're probably two of my favorite games of all time. (Legend of the Dragoon probably IS my favorite game of all time. It single handedly got me into RPG's.)

There's just something about the older gen games that just had better playability to them, mainly because the system didn't have the power to make the graphics good, so they compensated with awesome story.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:I dunno...I just don't see the obsession with graphics.

From the PS4 & Next Xbox Reveal thread:

MinisterofDOOM wrote:The good stuff:
A CONSOLE FINALLY HAS ENOUGH VIDEO RAM TO DO SOMETHING WITH!!!! AND IT'S GDDR5!!! AFTER FOUR GENERATIONS of wondering what the HELL the designers were thinking when packing in so little texture memory, I'm finally looking at specs that make sense. Someone FINALLY woke up and realized you can't drive HD or 4k video at decent framerates without a lot of memory. 2GB is WAY more than I could have hoped for (more than my midrange videocard has!!!)

And I found this when I was trying to remember when I went on record here about the unimportant level graphics played in a videogame, in this case it was Halo: ODST

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Also, the character faces look TERRIBLE. I've seen better from PS2 games.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:All the more reason for it to not look like s***.Plus...Halo 3 (and even Halo 2) never had any problems rendering faces in more detail than that. Why does this guy have a 4-poly beak-nose and two flat eyes and nothing more? The Aliens-ripoff Sarge dude certainly had better facial detail than this squad leader guy does.

...and then I noticed the dude's 7-polygon face and cringed...

Then you admit to viewing a low-res trailer, snap decision much (based on limited information no less)? But still, there's this...

MinisterofDOOM wrote:The low res trailer was partly to blame. I downloaded the high res one at home (bandwidth at work is crap) and everything looks a lot better. Still, the detail in Nathan Fillion's digital face is pretty lacking.

For someone that doesn't care a lot about graphics you certainly seem to frequently post about them.

It's just fascinating the way you play both sides of the fence, seemingly disregarding older, now sub-par graphics, as is the case in SS2 or Metroid but holding them of large import in a franchise that you don't much care for, i.e., Halo.

I don't have the time or energy to address the Halo mediocre argument, even if it did singlehandedly solidify the Xbox's presence in the marketplace, show that an FPS could work on a console, nail down an aggregate 97% on Metacritic (console version only, the PC port from Gearbox got an 83%) where it doesn't have a single mixed or negative review. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Personally I think that Dune is the most overrated piece of sci-fi ever written. Speaking of books, I can't even believe you tried to make that argument, two different medias completely.

You'd have been far better served by using the George Lucas' comment about the colourization of old movies in your argument...

George Lucas wrote:"I am very concerned about our national heritage, and I am very concerned that the films that I watched when I was young and the films that I watched throughout my life are preserved, so that my children can see them."

"Would color distract from their comedy and make it not as funny anymore? Maybe just the fact that they're in black and white makes it funny, because their humor is dated. By putting it in black and white, it puts it in a context where you can appreciate it for what it was. But you try to make it in full, living color and try to compare it to a Jim Carrey movie, then it's hard for young people to understand."

Couple of games for you & Ace since graphics aren't that important...

Zork

And if that's too modern for you, here's an older one, most people that played both were exposed to Zork first, but Adventure came first. On a mainframe...in the 70's. In a way it's the precursor to MUDs, MUSHs & MOOs, which in turn was the precursor to Everquest, Dark Ages of Camelot and, eventually, WoW.

Adventure

Ha, satire. I like it. I played Zork, and got killed by the f*** bandit so many times it wasn't even worth the frustration.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Bad or dated graphics are certainly NOTICEABLE, but I do maintain that they don't interfere with enjoyment unless they're severely broken or something like that.

Ace2cool wrote:No I didn't. I didn't have an N64 until the Xbox 360 was initially released. I didn't play OOT until about the same time. (didn't play it on N64 though, cause I was too cheap for the expansion pack.) I played it on Wii virtual console when they first released it, and understood what I was missing. It's an amazing game, and stands the test of time.

There's just something about the older gen games that just had better playability to them, mainly because the system didn't have the power to make the graphics good, so they compensated with awesome story.

Wow, I have a much higher threshold for graphics. I am upset with myself because my first Elder Scrolls game was Skyrim. The game looks so good that my immersion is immediately broken when playing Oblivion. From my research Oblivion is a great game and I can't even enjoy it. Also from what I've read Morrowind is even better but I throw up watching video from it, let alone playing it. I can't even finish one of my favorite games growing up, Vice City. It's a great game but I couldn't enjoy playing it. I did play through the entirety of Aladdin on a SNES emulator. I didn't enjoy the game as much as I enjoyed still remembering every hidden area and how to beat the bosses. Growing up it took me like 5 months to beat that game, as an adult it took me like 3 hours.

On the subject of Halo, I only use it as an example because it's a good game to demonstrate that graphics were never its problem. The graphics never held it back. It rarely looked particularly good, but also managed to age gracefully. It wasn't really in NEED of a visual update. The perfect example to prove my point: merely shining up the graphics makes little difference.

BusyBadger wrote:It's just fascinating the way you play both sides of the fence, seemingly disregarding older, now sub-par graphics, as is the case in SS2 or Metroid but holding them of large import in a franchise that you don't much care for, i.e., Halo.

I'm honestly not really playing both sides of the fence. There's a difference between expecting MODERN showcase games and hardware to meet certain standards, and defending the playability and relevance of older games with necessarily aged visuals. There's also the "reviewer aspect" of a lot of those quotes: not necessarily stuff I personally care about, but stuff worth criticizing. Like the terrible passenger entertainment system in the Caravan I rented over the summer. I don't particularly care about it, but it is nonetheless a terrible design, which is worth noting. You'll find that most games I criticize in that way are games that have positioned themselves as icons, so I judged based on that arrogance.

The comment about the PS4's graphics horsepower comes from generations of consoles claiming to be new revolutions in gaming capability, but in reality being nothing of the sort because they hamper themselves with bad hardware decisions. It's not a matter of wanting better graphics from my games. It's a matter of building the console RIGHT. They did that. It's praiseworthy, even if it is their fourth attempt.

Also, FWIW, Metroid's (the original) visuals do get on my nerves JUST a little bit, because some of the color choices are so bright. Later Metroid games were far more subdued and I like them much better. Super Metroid is my particular example not because of personal appeal...it's the other way around: part of the reason it's one of my favorites is that it's magnificently atmospheric.

So, back to my stance on graphics and visuals. Rather than fence-straddling, think of it like this:
You wouldn't criticize a 240z for having drum brakes. But you would criticize a 2013 Corvette if it had them. Times have changed, and if you're going to do a thing, you should do it right. But that doesn't mean the 240z is no longer fun to drive. And, sure, the 240z would be better to drive with discs. But I'm not going to sit around complaining about that when I can be enjoying the drive.

BusyBadger wrote: Couple of games for you & Ace since graphics aren't that important...

Zork

I still play Zork fairly often, actually. I love text adventures. Especially ones in which you are likely to be eaten by a Grue. Also still enjoy some classic King's Quest and Ultima 1 on my old 286 (which currently won't boot because it needs a new CMOS cell )

I've also been playing a lot of TV lately.
http://www.gog.com/gamecard/terminal_velocity
Descent had nothing on TV. Huge, open environments with smaller Descent-like interior levels branching off of them, great sound effects, good controls, and fun music.

BusyBadger wrote:I don't have the time or energy to address the Halo mediocre argument, even if it did singlehandedly solidify the Xbox's presence in the marketplace, show that an FPS could work on a console, nail down an aggregate 97% on Metacritic (console version only, the PC port from Gearbox got an 83%) where it doesn't have a single mixed or negative review. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Personally I think that Dune is the most overrated piece of sci-fi ever written. Speaking of books, I can't even believe you tried to make that argument, two different medias completely.

As to Dune, you might have an argument in regards to the first book alone. The series as a whole, though, is not overrated. It's underappreciated. The best books are the second and fourth (not in that order). I've also never thought of it as scifi. It's philosophy. Even the first one. Maybe especially the first one. But the last two are much closer to sci-fi (the post-Scattering universe is more "clean" and false-utopian).
I only rip on Halo because I feel like the only reason it (and Goldeneye) saw the success they did was because of the couch-co-op capability and the ability to make its way into homes (the Wii Sports of the day, if you will). It wasn't bad. It was good. But it wasn't 97% good (BTW, Metacritic is a WHOLE 'nother thread and something I despise with a fiery passion greater than anything I feel toward Halo). It wasn't groundbreaking and the only interesting thing it did was let you get into Jeeps (not new, but new in the mainstream) and only carry two guns (which was a design limitation that the developers cleverly turned into a gameplay mechanic). It just wasn't amazing. But people act like it was. If it hadn't had Microsoft's backing as the flagship title for their brand new all-important console, it wouldn't have gained the same popularity. But, then, that's not true. Because if it hadn't gotten Microsoft's attention, it would have been a very different PC title. Early previews of the PC version of Halo were more akin to Planetside than what Halo eventually became (and this was back in 1999). Grander in scale with a more strategic feel to the multiplayer.

Well well well...

I might be picking up SS2 after all...
PC modders really went to town on this title.

More details about the mods

http://imgur.com/a/1BjFg

Wow, did they ever. That looks NICE

That does look really good. Seems to be very true to the original look while adding detail to it.

This is worth reading. Impressions of the game by someone who had never played it until just recently. Showing that I really am NOT just suffering from nostalgia. Everything I love about the game remains relevant today.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05 ... m-shock-2/

It is COMPLETELY spot-on. I mean: I REALLY love System Shock 2. But there were many times when I just said "To Hell with this" because I couldn't take the tension or the unending, unswerving, unerring sense of "I am a split second away from death". And that sounds like a bad thing, but it's not. Because it made the game SO MUCH MORE memorable and involving. It made it vastly more personal. How many games leave you genuinely fatigued? Not many. The closest thing I can think of is Amnesia: the Dark Descent, but even that gives you clear, safe stretches of time and space during which to catch your breath. System Shock 2 never lets you breathe. It just lets you fear for your life. And it manages all of this DESPITE the proto-Vitachamber respawn mechanic (which can and arguably should be ignored for an even more nerve-wracking experience).

It's just SO GOOD. It sucks you in and after a few minutes you don't notice the low-polycount models because you're to busy being scared sh#tless that one of them is going to kill the everliving hell out of you.

The comments are more informative than the actual article, because the writers of those have more time playing the game.

And here's another review, this time with a dissenting opinion

I actually don't disagree with a lot of his criticisms. But I do feel like the game overall rises above them.

Chiefly, I essentially agree with his "degrading weapons" rant. I have never approved of this "feature" even in RPGs. It's NOT realistic, it doesn't make sense, and it's never well-tuned. In fact, weapon degradation was what COMPLETELY RUINED the Dead Rising games for me--games which would have been fairly brilliant with just this ONE THING removed.
There is a small "but" that is not so much in defense of this feature in SS2 as it is an acknowledgement of a possible REASON it's in the game: trying to balance the "survival" part of the horror feel. Games like Resident Evil (which I have very mixed feelings on...a terrible game that's somehow fun) use all sorts of weird mechanics to keep you feeling vulnerable. The main one is ammo scarcity.
The problem is ammo scarcity doesn't QUITE translate across to SS2. One of the reasons is that, like its descendant Bioshock, System Shock 2 offers you multiple ammo types. None of them are useless, but some are better at certain things than others. Of course there's an incentive to save one ammo type for the right purpose rather than burning through it, but in the end the purposed-ammo mechanic means you can't have the same degree of ammo scarcity as a game like RE. So the weapon degradation steps in to balance that out. Your weapons wear out when you still have ammo BECAUSE you've been effectively using that ammo. It it still a crappy game mechanic, but I feel like it was used as a counterpart to ammo scarcity to make you feel more vulnerable. As System Shock 2 was one of the first RPG/FPS hybrids, there was clearly a lot of experimentation going on in how to make things work. This was one of the experiment's failures.

Another thing I agree with is his criticism of the opening 3-phase stat-building weirdness after selecting a class. As Mr. Walker noted in the article I posted, these decisions are VERY opaque and it's impossible to know what the results will be. Because of that, the choices are meaningless. You can google to find out what the results will be, but that's just nonsense. Googling because you're stuck and don't feel like working out a solution on your own is one thing. HAVING TO USE GOOGLE to know what the game is doing is not excusable. It would have been better off if the game presented you with the stats screen and some spare points like any classic RPG. More transparent if less "immersive" except that there's nothing immersive about not knowing what the @#$% you just chose to do to your character.

One more of his criticisms that I agree with is that melee combat just doesn't usually work in first-person. Half Life's crowbar, System Shock's wrench, and even Morrowind and Oblivions' melee weapons always reduce combat to the swing-backstep-swing-backstep kite dance which isn't really all that fun. I didn't feel like this RUINED any of these games for me, but I certainly would have liked to see something more interesting implemented in its place.

As far as magically-spawning monsters...I disagree IN THIS CASE. Monster respawns are something that must be done EXACTLY RIGHT or they can easily ruin a game. I think System Shock 2 did them right. It's not to the point where you feel like your progress is being completely undone (as in Borderlands, for instance). But it IS there to enough of a degree that you never have that feeling of safe harbor after "clearing out" an area or level.

Borderlands is a great example of POOR implementation of monster respawns. You enter an area with a quest. The quest objective is at the far end of the area. You fight through everything, complete the quest, and turn around to return to the area entrance. And EVERY SINGLE MONSTER IS BACK. Frustrating, broken-feeling, and worst of all it serves to COMPLETELY undermine any sense of progress that might have been established as you cleared the area.

Diablo and Diablo 2 are a good example of where monster respawns can serve a purpose. In Diablo, once you cleared a level, it stayed clear. FOREVER. This meant that you could ONLY progress, and if things didn't happen with perfect balance, that forward progress could be pretty tough. In other words, you couldn't farm experience because there was nothing to farm on. Whether you were ready to move down to the next level or not, there was nothing left to do on the current level. Fortunately, Diablo WAS a superbly-balanced game and a bit of skill could certainly get you over this hump. It usually meant that level "sets" (floors were grouped into types with general monster archetypes assigned to each type) started out tough and got easier...a process that repeated with each new set of levels.
Diablo 2, meanwhile, fixed the issue of perma-clear levels by respawning monsters every time you re-loaded a save. Not the same as respawns WHILE PLAYING, of course, but a formerly cleared Blood Moor would become completely repopulated if you saved and quit and then came back later. This meant that you never got "stuck" and it also meant you could farm or grind if you wanted. It would occasionally get frustrating if you just wanted to run through a formerly-cleared area to a newer one, but the game's level progress usually meant you didn't HAVE to stop to fight if you didn't want to.