Talk:System Shock 2/Archive 1

Where could i find this game?

I would like to play one of the greatest games of all time (besides HL1 :P) Where could i get to play System Shock 1 and 2? i have Windows XP, what that create a problem? Thanks!Greenday5494 22:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this page is for discussing issues on the System Shock 2 page only. Try a site with a forum devoted to the game (like ttlg.com) if you have questions of this kind in the future. In answer to your first question, try looking on eBay, Amazon.com, or some other similar site. These games are really not that hard to come by. -- Grandpafootsoldier 23:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry......... thx anyways Greenday5494 23:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Uhh, what's the cryptic and vague sentence "A later scripted event is built up in advance, but by that point it is so isolated it seems out of place" in the criticism section supposed to refer to? Three galloping dogs 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that is terribly vague. It could be referring to any number of events in the game. Also, I have never heard of a complaint before regarding a scripted sequence. Perhaps this sentence should just be removed. -- Grandpafootsoldier 22:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll take it out as it makes no sense at all. If anyone wants to cite criticism of the SHODAN reveal (which I assume it is referring to, although I've never seen any such sentiment in my travels) it can be reworded. MuJoCh 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removal of "Criticism"

Hmm, this is odd. My old comments about this section appear to have been moved to the System Shock article's talk page. They can be found at Talk: System Shock. As I mentioned in my edit summary, the section was full of weasel words, none of the criticisms cited had any sources, and the article lacked any equivalent section for critical praise of the game. In the interests of NPOV I have removed the criticism section. When I get a chance I will attempt to research and include a section with balanced critiques of the game, citing sources. -Kasreyn 09:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to the npov version that includes criticisms. Completely removing the criticisms section along with the comments "good riddance" is a flagrant pov violation. Instead of blanking content with the promise of research and balanced critiques, leave the section as is until you are ready to edit to the balanced version. 152.163.100.11 09:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The article as it stood was not NPOV. It contains only criticisms and no praise, which is a negative bias. Furthermore, the criticisms are all unsourced and stated in weasel-words, making it clear that they are merely the personal opinions of whoever originally wrote them.

When I made the edit I was under the impression that my original comment on the flaws in the criticism section had been on the talk page for months. Apparently it has somehow been moved to the System Shock article talk page, and so it may appear that I made the change without warning. It's inexplicable to me but I swear I posted my comment to *this* talk page, not that one; I *thought* that I had given sufficient warning.

The fact that I said "good riddance" as I did so may reflect poorly upon my temper, and for that I apologize, for whatever it's worth. It does not, however, invalidate the appropriateness of my action. The section is POV in nature and cannot be rewritten until sources are found, and they haven't been found yet. The article will be more NPOV without the section, and that being the case, it is better off blanked. NPOV first, information second. -Kasreyn 09:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

POV or not, there is still valid (and potentially retrievable) info in there. Don't just delete it casually. SS2 is one of my favourite games, but I'm not blind to it's problems. Granted, I don't really consider them problems, but I can see where the complainers are coming from. Hell, I wrote half that section, or thereabouts. Yes, it needs sources. As for POV, I had to partially clean up the section some weeks back after someone made some very negative POV changes to it. I'm waiting until after I play through the game again, before I really go to work on this article. As for the placement of comments, the two articles used to be one, and I split them at the suggestion of another user. I've pasted the deleted section below, for easy access without history messing.--Drat (Talk) 10:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, and one I should have thought of, or might have if I had thought before editing. The saved section will be useful for attempting to find sources for its criticisms; maybe Googling some keywords from the complaints can result in industry reviews addressing the issues. I will admit that I'm not this hyper-sensitive to NPOV in every single article I view; I happen to personally consider SS2 among the five finest computer games ever made, and I own hundreds. I doubt playing through yet again will help me to understand the criticisms, since every time I only enjoy it more. I'll try to find some old reviews and see what has been said, both good and bad. -Kasreyn 11:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted criticisms section

"While lauded as excellent by devoted fans, gamers of the more casual persuasion have criticised certain aspects of System Shock 2. Most of these criticisms are said to be reasons that the game never caught on outside of the devoted fans.

Most of the complaints take issue with the gun degradation system. Designed to add tension to the game, many feel that the quality of any gun drops far too quickly. Moreover, many weapons the player finds are in low condition to begin with.

Coupled with the relatively low ammunition stores found in the game, it is commonly joked that the number one weapon used by most players is the wrench. Despite being used as a weapon, it never suffers wear like the other weapons.

Another issue is spawning. Unlike most current games, System Shock 2 frequently spawns enemies in areas that have been cleared. These enemies then come looking for the player. Seemingly added to keep the player "on edge", the end result prevents some players from being able to determine where they had previously been, and forces players to waste precious ammunition to dispatch extra enemies.

In light of these complaints, the patched version of System Shock 2 allows players to optionally tone down (or remove) some of these aspects of the game.

It also appears that Irrational Games was running out of time on System Shock 2, due to the interior design of the Rickenbacker, the second ship in the game. The areas appear hastily constructed, disjointed, and a lot of the Von Braun textures are reused (even though the ships are supposed to be different). This section of the game is also very short, which left some players wondering if there was supposed to be more.

Finally, System Shock 2 has been given a very small amount of criticism (by a few experienced players who have played both games) as holding the player's hand very slightly at certain points, in regard to how problems in the game are solved, in comparison to the first game."

The above was deleted from the article. Retained here for potential future use.--Drat (Talk) 10:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of these items are talked about in practically every review of the game. In particular, the weapon degredation system is almost univerally complained about. For instance, if you type "system shock 2 weapon degradation" into Google, every single relevant hit I followed on the first two pages complains about this "feature". In fact, one of them is a blog entry from one of the original developers, who notes "If I had it to do over again, I would have drastically reduced weapon breakdown".

Another common complaint is that the player cannot use some of the weapons until certain "skills" are learned, but in some cases this simply doesn't make any sense – if you can load ammo into a automatic pistol, you can figure out how to load a submachinegun (it's the same ammo, after all). I would say that these comments are both widely supported and easily verifyable, and add to the quality of the article. Although the line of reasoning above has some validity, I would argue that the "Reception" section more that fills the role of "Praise".

I am going to re-add this section, but given that it was removed largely on the basis that there were no cites, I'm not sure what to do. Certainly linking to the hundreds of pages that complain about these problems is not feasible. But by the same token, if I add only one, I could be accused of being undersupported.

Frankly I'm unhappy to be doing work that the original editor, Kasreyn, should have done for themselves. If you didn't like the section because it was uncited, you could have started by seeing if you could find those cites yourself. Certainly the 5 seconds it took me could not be considered overly taxing. Maury 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Professional sources should be used, so no random forums or random blogs. Xemu's comment would count for something.--Drat (Talk) 14:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right; I could have done a better job. I was still somewhat new to WP back in January. These days what I do when I find a section I have an issue with is to open talk page dialogues and look for sources; I'm a good deal more patient than I was then. I allowed my personal admiration for the game to dictate my behavior. I apologize. Kasreyn 19:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

music genres

i was looking for genre information on some of the music in the game, and found this page http://www.vgmix.com/song_view.php?song_id=2656 which identified two of the tracks i'm interested in by genre as such; 1.) Med/Sci: Science Sector (Psytrance) 2.) Operations D (Drum 'N' Bass)

the first track is the first one you hear played in the game when entering the med/sci sector, and the second is played on level 4/operation, sector D. my question is, can anybody confirm/correct those genres and perhaps name some bands that have similar sound? Tani unit 17:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You might find Chicajo interesting. Mostly, he does remixes of music from the first game, but then the two locations you're describing seem to be from the first. http://www.chicajo.com/ --Mdwyer 12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have alredy looked at his site as checking the music from the first installment was the next logical step. The tracks I was referring to are from the second game though. I guess as a genre they are too game-specific to be found anywhere else. Thanks for the help though. Tani unit 15:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

There is no explanation here on the Talk page or in the box on why the tagged section may require cleanup. --70.142.40.34 14:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is explained in the relevant edit summary. Sorry.

(→Plotline - unencyclopedic writing style. Refer to WP:MOS) --70.142.40.34 14:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

I've removed:

• SHODAN entry: This page isn't about SHODAN. That information is already in the SHODAN article.
• XERXES entry. Again, there is a disambiguation link in the XERXES article. The significance of who killed the real man (suggesting SHODAN weakening XERXES is a nod to that) is original research without a source.
• Von Braun has an article.

I left in the bit about Nurse Bloome. But that'll need a citation. Saying "She looks like the actress" will not be enough, and is Original Research. The font entry goes without saying. Ultimately, all of it should be found a place in the prose (or gotten rid of if it cannot), and the section removed.--Drat (Talk) 06:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please revert Drat from Wikipedia entirely? Clayhalliwell 08:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I've got a little bit more experience as to what makes a good article than you do. By the way, you can simply copy article titles when making new links; you don't need to copy from the address bar. Makes for cleaner looking links.--Drat (Talk) 15:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Experience != good judgement. Yes, there are already entries for SHODAN, XERXES, and Von Braun. So what? By your logic, all references to them should be deleted from the entire article. Obviously this would be silly. A little redundancy is a healthy thing in any reference work. The point of a Trivia section is to collect trivia under a common heading. Your overzealous edits have defeated that purpose.

The Nurse Bloome bit is not *ORIGINAL RESEARCH OMG!*. It is sourced from here --> [1]. "chumpface", the author of that message, is Ken Levine. Ken Levine was the Lead Designer on SS2.

Why did you put a on "1138" appearing in the game? The "citation" is the game itself. One could just as well demand proof of ANY aspect of the game mentioned in the article. Which, again, would be silly.

And finally, no, I do not agree that it goes without saying that the game's font isn't valid trivia. Just because you don't care, doesn't mean nobody else does. This sort of information is valuable to anyone interested in making Shock-related graphics or imagery. If not in Trivia, then where?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clayhalliwell (talk • contribs) .

Well thanks for providing a source for the Nurse Bloome bit. The section can stay. Have a look under the organisation section of the CVG Wikiproject for more info about trivia sections. The font is pretty much a random fact. Not everything belongs in an article.--Drat (Talk) 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think it will all be staying. Nobody appointed you king of this article. Clayhalliwell 22:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Clayhalliwell, you might want to take the time to read wikipedia's policy on the topic. Simply put, the trivia you are adding to the article is considered original research. To give an example, citation is not needed for the fact that 1138 is in the game, but rather for the fact that it is a reference to THX. Also user-posted comments on the internet forums are not considered to be published by a reliable source. The whole trivia section would most likely be gone if the article ever caught the eye of a knowledgeable editor. Getting defensive about your edits and challenging other editors who follow policy is generally not a good idea. PLease take more time to read the policy on OR and videogame articles in general. Thanks. Tani unit 12:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that statements can be sourced to forums, if it can be proven that a notable person made them. The problem is that someone else could, for example, claim that there is no proof that Chumpface is Ken Levine (that we know he is isn't enough). I think a solution in that case would be to have Ken state somewhere official that he is Chumpface on those forums (and Irrationallevine on TTLG, etc.)--Drat (Talk) 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Further to the SHODAN bit: SHODAN was not created for this game. The acronym is never expanded in this game nor the manual (AFAIK). If it is relevant anywhere, it is on the System Shock article, where the acronym is already explained. The significance of the other possibilities behind the name are only relevant if that somehow had an influence on the name being chosen by the devs (the mention in the SHODAN article being for other uses of the word). And a source would be needed to prove it.--Drat (Talk) 18:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Drat, your notion that every fact should appear exactly one time on Wikipedia is being defied on most pages of this site. But even more than that it's a slap in the face of every user looking for a complete description of any subject. That being said, I agree that the Von Braun starship article really belongs into this one.

Also you bespeak the very idea of Wikipedia as a cooperational effort by only ever deleting stuff. You can't win here. We are Many and you are alone. Kolya 22:54, 7 August 2006 (GMT)

Okay, maybe I've been a bit overzealous regarding some entries. If you want to include some of that info in the article, you can just put it in the prose anyway. Why put the factoids about the Von Braun and Rickenbacker in a seperate section when they can be mentioned in the plot? I have already explained why the alternative meanings of Shodan are irrelevant. If you've got a source saying, for example, that the SS1 dev who came up with her name was really into Judo or Go, and that lead to that choice of name, then by all means, cite it!--Drat (Talk) 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Kolya, when you speak of "complete description" of the subject I certainly hope you are not referring to including your own OR such as so-called "facts" about SHODAN in reality standing for "sho dan". Yeah, it may be that those two words incidentally form it. Are you trying to tell the readers that the developers actually intended it that way, and came up with "Sentient HyperOptimized Data Access Network" to throw everyone off? I would certainly love to see some proof of that. Posting your own OR as facts, now that is a slap in the face of every user looking for a complete description of any subject. Tani unit 10:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

One trivia related issue that seems to have been neglected is that much of the MMPORPG Neocron (http://ng.neocron.com/) is identical to System Shock2, and is clearly inspired (at least in part) by it. Comparable elements are "hacking", "Psionic" abilities of different catergories made possible by a gauntlet like device, a similar UI (tab to pull up a menu that allows access to skills, inventory, abilities, etc), the ability to research things, etc etc. Not sure if a "legacy" section, or similar might be merited. Ace42 14:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, that's original research.--Drat (Talk) 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I see that I have to step in and take action because it seems that some of the editors outright refuse to follow basic policy when writing articles. Before anyone removes the tags (which I will put back whenever that will happen), I would like those that feel those "references" are factual tell me why they think Rickenbacker was named after that particlar person and not a guitar brand (or anything else using that name) that one of the developers liked for instance. Just because you may think that it makes sense for the ship to be named after that pilot doesn't meant that it was. Unless one of the developers states that that was in fact who the ship was named after, all of this is purely speculative and does not belong in an encyclopedic entry. Tani unit 11:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have a citation for the name SHODAN having the connotation "Sho dan" as in Martial Arts. I thought it was rather selfevident.

And since you asked about SHODAN's second meaning being made up by the developers to "throw everyone off" (Hello speculation!) I might answer that a backronym being made up here for needs of a backgroundstory by the devs seems far more likely considering it's supposed to be a manmade AI and all. But what do we actually care about the developers' reasons!

The name SHODAN is in fact expanded in the manual for System Shock 2 as "Sentient Hyper-Optimised Data Access Network" despite what Drat said. (System Shock 2 manual, Chapter 2.0., SUMMARY OF EVENTS, second paragraph). You can download the manual in 3 languages here. (Will someone tell me how to cite that?)

You know what throws me off? It's the fact that someone who deletes stuff instead of doing a minor effort to back it up (as Drat even knew where to look) are being lauded as adhering to the Wikipedia priciples by you, while knowledgable people like ClayHalliwell who add content are being admonished. (No offense Drat, I read what you said above.) All I'm asking is that we first try to help each other and then when no citation can be found we might delete someone else's work. Whatever Wikipedia's guidelines might say about this, that's just basic respect and courtesy. Kolya 12:40, 8 August 2006 (GMT)

Okay, help me understand something here-- where does Wikipedia draw the line between "Original Research" and "The Bleeding Obvious"? For example, it's been disputed above that "1138" (in a sci-fi game) is a reference to the notable sci-fi film THX 1138. On the other hand, had the text been "All Your Base Are Belong To Us", would anybody question what that was a reference to? What's the rule here? Clayhalliwell 19:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not condone deleting stuff either, but some editor actually went to the bother of removing the "citation needed" tags from those trivia. Posting said trivia and refusing to back them up (removing citation requests) is just as bad as deleting it. Now, I do agree that deleting things outright without discussion is not a good idea. So let's help each other, and try to source what we can.

As far as SHODAN goes, I fail to comprehend your logic. If I were to make up a word there is a good chance that it would match a word or combination of words in one of the known languages. Such coincidence is hardly a useful piece of trivia, especially if it was not deliberate. If it is deliberate I would still like to get some kind of proof of that.

Clayhalliwell, I'm quite dumbfounded at your question. Do I really need to explain that what may for whatever reason seem obvious to you may be completely wrong? Such as 1138 being a dev's mother's birth date or the time he last went to the bathroom or something else of that nature? Not everything is a deliberate reference. Tani unit 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Instead of expressing dumbfoundedness, it would be more productive if you actually answered my question. Since you ignored my last example, here's another one-- What if the text was instead, "Ask not what your country can do for ewe; ask what ewe can do for your country." Would it be Original Research to assert that this was a reference to something JFK once said? Clayhalliwell 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be even more productive if instead of making faulty analogies and ignoring what I wrote you would take the time to think about it. Do you really not see the difference between an incidental four digit number and a whole sentence? If you think this THX thing is so blatantly obvious that why don't you find some sources that would support it? Shurely something like that would have been noticed by reputable game sites and such. Also, you if haven't read the article on Original Research, I will reiterate - the degree of obviousness, however great, is irrelevant if that material (trivia in question) has not been previously published by a reliable source. if it's so obvious - it should be verifiable. Tani unit 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a mixed message here. First you imply that a "whole sentence" carries more weight than four digits, yes? (which is a questionable claim-- "666" is even shorter, and "42" shorter than that, but both are recognized as specific references) But then you say the degree of obviousness is irrelevant. So which is the overriding factor? Clayhalliwell 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It has to be cited from a reputable source. Reading the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR should answer all your questions. This has to do with quality standards that articles ideally are brought up to (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment). As far weight goes - if we are dealing with a whole sentence, an argument could be made, more so then with a short series of digits. But in order for the article to be considered of a higher rating it has to follow the standards more strictly, for instance when bringing an article to Featured level most everything that cannot be sourced is cut. I suppose we all want for this article to be of high quality, no? Tani unit 00:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tani, SHODAN matching the rang in Japanese martial arts is hardly the kind of coincidence that you are talking about. Sure, making up some word it might match a word in some other language. But it would be just as easy to think up a word that doesn't match any language's corpus. (Just begin with consonants only.)

Now we are talking about SHODAN matching a word of Japanese here. One of SHODAN's primary developers was of Japanese descent. citation As you may read in the same post by Michael Ryan (one of the SS2 developers) he planned at one point to let the final fight take place in a Japanese Dojo. (The kind of place where you can gain a "Shodan" rang.) That Dojo level is available for download. The released game shows SHODAN wearing a Kimono.

Seriously, have you ever played these games? Have you read anything about them besides this article? You may say that this isn't necessary to apply the rules. But then you said SHODAN matching Shodan was merely coincidence a few lines above. Do you still think so? I think that at least a general knowledge of the subject is necessary to apply some rules of Wikipedia correctly. Kolya 02:50, 9 August 2006 (GMT)

To answer your question - yes I have played and beat the game. The thing is though, I represent the kind of editor who might not know much of the subject, and wants to see the legitimacy of things written in the article (hence my point about a possibility of a coincidence), hence the whole sourcing thing. And you seem to have done a good job doing just that. So now all we need to do is work those sources into the trivia section. I do hope you understand that I wasn't trying to be on anyonce's side here, but rather wanted to point out that things that may be obvious to you may be anything but obvious to others and they may want to see that the information is legit.

Edit: To give an example look at the number of sources (and things being sourced) in the article on Shadow of the Colossus, which is currently being nominated for FA status. Tani unit 10:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that people are reasoning: “Because there was an idea toyed with during development of SS2 that one of SHODAN's fictional developers was of Japanese descent (although this didn't make it into the final game) — Info from a developer — and there was a Dojo level made (which was soon scrapped as "Ken didn't like the idea") — Info from a developer — and because SHODAN's avatars wear Kimonos — no disputing that, I agree that is a remnant of the Dojo/developer idea — AND because “SHODAN” is very much like “Sho dan”, therefor “SHODAN” comes from “Sho dan”!" But did Michael Ryan work on SS1? He does state that "[he] was on the team during the last nine months of the development cycle"[2], but he is referring to SS2. I'm sure he'd have mentioned if he also worked on SS1. Did this Japanese developer idea originally come up during SS1's development? Because that's when they came up with the name. Maybe SHODAN's name DID come from the martial arts thing, but like I said, near as I can tell, the sources regarding the martial arts thing (citability notwithstanding), seem to concern SS2 only.--Drat (Talk) 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I have to spell it out for you? This is the article about SS2. Even IF the idea of SHODAN being a Japanese ref. only had come up during the production of SS2 it would still be valid information here.

Before you deleted stuff because prove could only be delivered for SS1 (although it's the same game series). Now you delete stuff because you think it might apply to SS2 only?

I'm getting sick and tired of having to persuade every selfstyled Wiki-Cop of the same blindingly obvious facts again and again.Kolya 17:46, 9 August 2006 (GMT)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox to post your own personal theories. If you add things to the article, fail to source them, and they get disputed, why exaclty are you surprised? Time and again you fail to properly source those those "blindingly obvious facts", and your arguments are not very strong either. Name SHODAN originated in System Shock 1, so how exactly all this stuff about SS2 have any relevance? Tani unit 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the name of a character/enemy/thing in a Sci-Fi game is derived from a Japanese martial art rank, especially when the instruction manual says otherwise, is most definitely original research if not sourced, and should be removed. Please take the time to read the veriability policy -- Steel 21:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it isn't. The instruction manual is talkign abotu hwo it was derived in-universe. We need to deal with the out-of-universe perspective for an enclopedia article. As far as I can tell, this is like claiming that A.N.S.W.E.R.'s acronym is just a coincidence. Word definition are facts that do not need sourcing. Ace of Sevens 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F suggests otherwise. -- Steel 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Tani unit, I added the results of my research that I had discussed with you here before. Your statement can still be read above, where you said, I had "done a good job" sourcing the fact that SHODAN is a reference to the Japanese martial arts rank. Now you call the same fact my own personal theory. This is getting ridiculous as I had been sourcing a fact someone else had put on the page originally. So if at all it's not a personal theory, is it?

And I had not failed to source the fact. Drat deleted the source as he thought it wasn't enough. Mind you, it was the same source you had approved here before.

And while the name SHODAN originated in SS1 of course, it is still the same fictional character in the same game series and game universe made by many of the same developers who had already worked on SS1.

I thought it was stupid that we had to source SHODAN being an acronym again - a fact that had already been sourced for SS1 - I still did it. Seperate sources for each game? Stupid imo but okay, let them have it like they want it.

But now you dismiss the prove that SHODAN is a reference to the Japanese word because the name was made up for SS1 and my citation refered to SS2. That is you are simply contradicting yourself. Because even if the Japanese reference was made up later by the SS2 developers it still is true for SS2. The game that this article is about. The article that should have it's own sources according to you.

And yes, a word, even a name can have different meanings at different times, especially if it's that of a fictional character. In SS1 SHODAN might have been just what the acronym says. (Personally I doubt that but I don't have a source for more.) In SS2 they build on that and added the Japanese reference. I have sourced this exhaustingly above.

LOL at: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" Kolya 00:49, 10 August 2006 (GMT)

I got ahead of myself and said you did a good job sourcing before I actually looked at the links. Call me stupid for giving the benefit of the doubt. Your assessment about the Japanese reference being made up later (after the name was already created years prior) is ludicous, and that's what I'll leave it at. Yes, this article should have it's own sources, but somehow you still fail to comprehend the meaning of being "published in a reputable source". Not to mention that almost nothing in the final game supports that assertion. Oh, and wikipedia really isn't your personal soapbox, but I guess that fact eludes you for whatever reason. I hope you will eventually read the policy and reassess the situation. Regards Tani unit 02:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I specifically said that I personally doubt that the reference was made up later, but I only got references for SS2 by now. And since when is the final game the only source to draw from? The Dojo level was made for this game by a teammember of the SS2 developers during production time for SS2. For me that's straight from the horses mouth. The Dojo level is still downloadable from the developer's site: Michael Ryan.

So we have SHODAN in a Dojo, SHODAN in a Kimono, her name matching a Japanese word. My personal theory. Yap, sure.

The reason I laughed at that soapbox remark was because this page is a genuine soapbox - not the article. Kolya 04:45, 10 August 2006 (GMT)

I reworded the trivia entry to say that the sources I came up with suggest that the devs were aware of the matching name/rank. I hope this is something that everyone can live with. Kolya 18:49, 10 August 2006 (GMT)

Myself, I think it's a gross distortion of Wiki policy to stamp stating a fact as Original Research. Trivia sections, practically by definition, present unrelated but interesting information. Simply stating the in-universe definition of SHODAN, followed by the real-world definition, with no attempt to correlate the two, should be entirely acceptable by any *reasonable* interpretation of the rules. Clayhalliwell 14:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I restored the fact tag to the Von Brawn bit as a random wiki isn't exactly a reliable source. It doesn't state where that information came from. Let's just say (as a silly example), that the page instead said that it was a reference to Doc Emmet's line in Back to the Future Part III about his family history. Would it then still have been used as a reference?

And as for what precise role Half-Life had in SS2's lack of sales, that needs citing too. A difference of nine months isn't exactly all that close (though admittedly not an incredible gap either). Besides, taking Scumbag's logic here, one might as well suggest Everquest killed SS2. It came out even closer to SS2, and would be remembered by more people. It's not like HL was the sole factor anyway. Other factors are casual gamers, lack of recognition (not as many remember SS1 as remember Doom), etc. How was EA with the marketing? There's probably some retrospective articles that make suggestions why the game didn't sell so well.--Drat (Talk) 12:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

For the Von Braun bit, I asked yesterday or the day before on the talk page of the reliable sources policy whether H2G2 Edited Articles are sufficiently good sources. Edited Articles are, from my recollection, stable versions, unlike much of the material on H2G2. I, too, am skeptical of the source, though not willing to dismiss it off-hand. Captainktainer * Talk 13:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask that you don't dismiss it at all. When it comes right down to it, you're not going to find "professional sources" to list the bleeding-obvious stuff like the VB name. The best you can come up with is sources that don't have Tanis on it, demanding citations for information that needs no citing. And in response to your argument about Everquest - nine months is close for releases (and given that Half-Life was known far more already), and both games are First Person Shooters. Saying EQ killed SS2 is like saying VHS killed the sales of oranges. HL's defeat of SS2, on the other hand, is accepted by every non-Tani gamer that knows a bit about HL/SS2. Scumbag 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two problems with that. For one, if something is "bleedingly obvious" but not mentioned or shown anywhere, then it probably shouldn't be listed, and should be left to the reader to figure out on his/her own. For another, if Half-Life's defeat of System Shock 2 is accepted by every non-Tani gamer, then it should be very, very easy to find a reliable source willing to say it. For myself, I'm not as convinced; there were a number of very strong games that came out that year, along with a number of shifts in game buying demographics not just limited to the computer games market, but which rippled throughout the entire industry. Captainktainer * Talk 17:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it amusing that there was these itchy trigger fingers on the gun pointed at the trivia section, then appears a long list of awards with barely any reference in the bunch and not a word. At least the nit pickers are fans and won't question good notices, I guess. (I don't doubt the list for a second btw. SS2 would be a contender in any year around then, but '99 was particularly lean) MuJoCh 07:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Idea for the 'lack' of citations

Stupid little idea that just came to mind. There's a lot of stuff that a scarce few Wikipedians are demanding citations for; information that never had official sources. This was, as stated by others, the information was either painfully obvious, or left unstated to give the player a sense of learning / understanding. So, I was thinking something along the lines of a warning - "Some of the information listed here has never been professionally confirmed by the creators of this work, and is unlikely to ever be so. However, they are listed here because the relevent communities have accepted them as fact, and the creators have never disputed these interpretations. Unlike some die-hard Wikipedians, I think the typical user will understand that Looking Glass Studios never bothered to write down "hay guys, we named the ship after a rocket ship desginer". Granted, this prolly doesn't follow Wikipedia policies, but it's clear to me that the policy is not working properly in this instance. Scumbag 15:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there's something fundamentally flawed in Wikipedia policy when it comes to certain works, such as video games. For example, while a DVD for a movie may come with hours of director/writer/actor commentary, video games often just come with the game and its usually sparse manual. Many things are included in games as easter eggs and homages to other games, and are left in as surprises. Most people that would play the game would likely immediately understand the reference, and as such the developer feels no need to outright list all references in writing. For example, there's a ton of references to the Dopefish in games, and it's pretty obvious what they are, whether or not there's any credible citations. --Rodzilla 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As I posted above, my suggestion would be to simply state two facts in proximity to one another, and not attempt to assert any correlation beyond that. For example, "The TriOptimum starship in SS2 is named the Von Braun. Wernher von Braun was a German rocket scientist." That sounds weak as hell, but doesn't seem to break any rules. Now, ever better would be "The TriOptimum starship in SS2 is named the Von Braun, a probable reference to German rocket scientist Wernher von Braun." But that leaves the option for someone to stick a after "probable". Clayhalliwell 23:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Page is broken, HELP!

I can't see why it's happening, but after my edit the portion of the page below what I added cannot be seen in the article. It appears fine when you Edit it. Can anyone figure this out? Maury 16:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, don't forget to close your refs, or else! Maury 17:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, not closing your <ref> tags tends to do things you didn't want to do. A note to avoid the problem in the future if you're using previously named tags (i.e. <ref name="Example">Reference Data</ref>), when using a tag that's already been used, simply insert <ref name="Example"/>, but be sure to include the trailing slash. --Rodzilla 17:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Tech Issues

I know this isn't tech support or anything like that. But my recent $5 AUS copy of system shock won't run. I'm on an XP and I thought that had something to do with it simular to the problems with the original with 98. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.126.129 (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

The problems with the original and 98 are due to the original being a DOS game. You can find help for both games here.--Drat (Talk) 08:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Abandonware?

I was told by someone that this is indeed abandonware. Now I don't think it is, and that he just linked me to a warez site, so my question to you is "is System Shock 2 abaondone ware. 67.164.177.202 05:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is still sold, and besides that, abandonware is complete bullshit. The term has no legal recognition whatsoever.--Drat (Talk) 07:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for a confirmation link, leading to a site where you can purchase a copy, and it is STOCKED. And while abandonware has no legal base, it's generally recognized by game developers, who don't really mind System Shock 2 being available for free. Mikael GRizzly 11:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Games Warehouse in Australia stocks it, and the shipping shouldn't be much. $1 AUS should be about $.76 US at the moment. The distribution they have contains two copies, I believe; one prepatched, the other unpatched. Why? Good question.--Drat (Talk) 12:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I live in Poland. Mikael GRizzly 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Then 1 Australian dollar = 2.26 Polish zloty. Bamboo marimba 12:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:D

I'll get this legitimate copy when I can Mikael GRizzly 13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Player Character Name in SS2

Lambda '00' 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Guys, check the first cutscene (The letter for the soldier's transfer to the Rickenbacker), the trooper's serial # is clearly visible. (SOLDIER G65434-2) -Lambda

Nice. I'd always heard him being referred to as 'Goggles' by the SS2 commuity! The Kinslayer 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I also added "Goggles" to the name, someone should clarify as who calls him that (I can't describe it well enough T.T) -Lambda

"Goggles" isn't an official name, it's just a fan nickname, so it doesn't really belong in a plot summery of the game. Oh, and Lambda, if you want to sign your posts you just need to type four tildes ("~") and your name and when you posted will be displayed. There's no need to manually type it out every time. -- Grandpafootsoldier 02:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

From memory "Goggles" was the internal nickname the development team had for the character, but they probably revealed it in a message board post or something so its hard to cite. MuJoCh 04:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation style

AFter briefly loking through the pages of stuff written by Drat, Tani & others; well done for getting (what appears to be) everything cited people, but can we stick to one style? I refer to WP:MOS on this point... _> MonstaPro:^{Talk:Contrib.} 11:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

System Shock 3?

The information in the article regarding the sellout of the IP of System Shock, aswell as supposed information on System Shock 3, seem to be largely if not entirely unverifiable and lacking veracity. What is the status on System Shock 3? Where does the information on the selling of the IP come from? Why are there no citations made? 72.49.194.69 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Too many links

I suggest that the majority of links be moved to the Open Directory Project. SharkD 02:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Multiplayer

I added some information about the multiplayer component of the game, since there was only a brief mention of it. I guess it might deserve its own section, but this is one of my first edits so I didn't want to mess around with things too much :) Dominare 18:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone added Tommy Suarez's name to the ending. Should we delete It?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.113.184 (talk • contribs)

What are you talking about? Suarez is in the final scene of the ending.--Drat (Talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Revamp

After looking at the Bioshock and System Shock articles and seeing that they were at FA status, I noticed that the System Shock 2 article is in horrid condition. I took it upon myself to revamp the article and have done so (around 90% has been rewritten). My hope is that System Shock 2 will achieve FA status as its Shock bretheren already have. I have expanded the gameplay, development, and story sections and cut out independent research and fluff out of the other sections. I have also added citations for almost all statments.

If people want to edit this article I want certain things kept in mind so as to not to spoil this article's chance at becoming a FA.

• Cite your references!
• Write in prose!
• Only add things that significantly contribute to the article!

After working on this thing for a week, I feel now is the time for a peer review and for other wikipedians to get involved.

Sections that may need some expansion:

• Reception, most of it is quotes.
• development section could have some more added.

Anyway, Ill be back regularly to check up on the status of the article. I would like some peer review before this gets sent off for FA review. Thanks. Noj r (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling you're going to insist on squashing any reintroduced Trivia section. In which case, you're going to have to live with a References to Popular Culture section. Also, the references section is bloody huge. Almost as long as the article itself! Clayhalliwell (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia discourages the use of a trivia section, i must contest it, besides I dont believe it added to the article anyway. I want to upgrade this article to FA status, and so far, I see 0 FA articles with trivia sections. I'm not so sure about a References to Popular Culture Section, is there even enough material for one, can they be cited? Yes, I know there are lots of references, but they are the backbone of a good article. If something cannot be verified, how can it be trusted? : ) Noj r (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that remains to be seen. But frankly, I'd rather an article be useful and interesting than Featured. Clayhalliwell (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles are the symbol of usefulness. FA status means it has been recognized as on of the best articles on this site, i.e. is one the best sources of information on that particular item. I suppose it could be argued that FA status is just a star in the corner, but i believe it to be much more. Its a symbol of pride for Wikipedia and the wikipedians who contributed to the article as well as a showing it is an authority on a subject. Noj r (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

"Taking place on board an adrift starship in the year 2114, the player takes control of a lone soldier who attempts to absolve an outbreak of a mysterious and deadly alien infestation." I dont' have time to properly rewrite this at the moment, but it's all kinds of messed up. The Von Braun may or may not actually be adrift, the player doesn't "take control" of anyone, "absolve" doesn't mean what you think it means, and calling The Many a "deadly alien infestation" is a grossly inaccurate oversimplification. Clayhalliwell (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand. An adrift ship is one that is floating around devoid of an operating crew, like the Von Braun. And the player does take control of someone. He is a soldier, and is listed as one in the cutscene, just as the player assumes the role of a hacker in the original System Shock. Captain Deiego even refers to you as a "soldier" when he contacts you on the Rickenbacker. And just how is the Many not a deadly alien infestation? They infest, they are alien, and are most certainly deadly. I don't mean to cause conflict, but I fail to see how this plot synopsis is inaccurate or misplaced. Noj r (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Many aren't aliens. They're a genetically engineered lifeform, created by SHODAN on Citadel Station. They're an intelligent, directed, invading force. Calling them a "dealy alien infestation" sounds about as silly as calling Nazis a "deadly German infestation". Clayhalliwell (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. EDIT: How about this? Taking place on board an adrift starship in the year 2114, the player takes control of a lone soldier who attempts to absolve a genetic infection with the help of a melevolent AI. Is this more accurate/better? Also, do you know why nobody has commented on the article's peer review? Noj r (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes Discussion

As per Krator and Bridies suggestions in the PR, I have made some significant changes to the article. Both believed the Fan and Modification section was unnecessary and pointed out that fan made material is discouraged per WP:NOTE. The only outside reference that I could find on the "SHTUP" mod was an article by Kotaku here, which is barely notable. I have also adhered to the rest of the PR advice and updated the article accordingly, along with some new screen shots. Please discuss changes here, thanks. Noj r (talk) 00:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a shame to lose the information on mods. A quick look at the articles for Doom, Quake, and Half-Life shows that they all have substantial sections on third-party modding. I'd say that's enough to establish that the category itself is notable, without having to establish it on a per-article basis. At the very least, there should be some mention of the ShockEd editor. For what it's worth, an early version of SHTUP (Beta 4, if memory serves) was mentioned in an issue of PC Zone magazine. Clayhalliwell (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason the mod section was deleted was because it lacked any second party sources. And the reason Doom and Quake have mod sections are because they basically gave birth to the present-day modding community, and a Half-Life mod spawned the most popular online action game ever made. They are very noteworthy even though there are almost no citations supporting the extensive mod sections in any of those articles. The System Shock 2 section spoke solely of graphical upgrades, hardly noteworthy when compared to important mods like Team Fortress and Counter-Strike. Even if SHTUP was mentioned briefly in PC Zone, thats hardly enough to build an entire mod section around. Unless sufficient reliable references are found, as per WP:NOTE, there is no reason to list fan made graphical enhancement mods in its own section. Noj r (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, by that logic, most of the data in the infobox should be deleted. The date of SS2's release, for example, is clearly not notable. I'm certainly not suggesting that an entire section be dedicated to SHTUP. I do, however, believe that there should be some acknowledgment in the article of the existence of ShockEd, and the significant fan modification activity that surrounds the game. Clayhalliwell (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You have done a great work Noj r, thanks for it. But I believe some information you've removed should remain. This include, although not limited to, the Fan and Modification too. Personally, I come to Wikipedia to get information, to learn something new. And in this regard the 'Fan and Modification' sections in various game articles I found very useful in past. Something similar applies to the Trivia, Pop culture reference or whatever it is called; it puts the article and its subject into the context of our world. If, now exaggerating a little, the article is cut to the very basics it looses its reson-d'etre. Those who know the game, already know the story and the basic facts around - no point for the to read it. Others hardly come, because of lack of connection to rest of the world. In case this approach prevents the article to gain the FA status, then I gladly exchange the status for the information at the very spot. And I would start to object there is something flawed in the FA definition. Just my two cents. ;-) Rikapt (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, great job so far Noj r. I see you finally started what I have been meaning to get around to for the past 6 months. ;)

Just a few things: I fixed that little niggle in the intro mentioned above. "Absolve" is really not at all the right word to use there (the strict definition meaning "to pardon from guilt, consequence, or duty"), and the infestation is not technically extraterrestrial. Also, in the plot section you incorrectly called the jettisoned grove from Citadel an "escape pod".

I also replaced the screenshot you removed. Feel free to upload another if you don't feel that particular one is up to snuff, but I really think it is a good idea to have an in-game shot without the inventory screen showing - it might confuse the reader a bit. Also, from what I understand, the FA people have become increasingly strict about the number and use of fair-use images in an article, so the BioShock cover image might not pass muster. I'm perfectly cool with it though if they allow it.

Again, great job, and keep up the good work. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, thanks for the compliments. I agree with all your changes, the only problem I have with those in-game screentshots is that they are so dark, its really hard to see anything. Also, the Bioshock pic is from the Bioshock article, so I dont know if that changes things. I haven't been as active lately with school and finals approaching, though I hope to nominate it for GA status soon, and can use all the help I can get. Yeah, a little more work and this will be a really nice article. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it. Noj r (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Fan Modification Section

I understand many of you wish to incorporate the mod section into the article, however, the main issue is verifiability and notability. Clayhalliwell has said he saw an issue of PC Zone that featured SHTUP. That is fine, if we gather enough material that has been featured by reliable sources, a fan section might be possible. Also consider that Wikipedia is not a fan site chock-full of information regarding fan made material, news, and gossip. Those sites exist, but not here.

IN FINALITY: If the fan material in question has not been featured by a reliable source, it is not notable and should not be included. If some material is found to be notable (i.e. SHTUP in PC Zone), but not enough material is found to warrant an entire section, then perhaps we can tastefully integrate it into the legacy section.

Is this acceptable? Please discuss. Noj r (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I don't strongly care whether SHTUP is mentioned or not. Anyone interested in SS2 can easily find links to it elsewhere. What I consider more important is acknowledgement of the existence and subsequent release of ShockEd to the SS2 community. Clayhalliwell (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if you can find a reliable source describing the release of ShockEd to the SS2 community and the impact it had, then its ok with me if you integrate "it into the Legacy section. Noj r (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested, I have an old issue of PC Gamer (or maybe it's Computer Gaming World, haven't checked in a while) which has an article about the "Rebirth" SS2 mod and an interview with its creator if you're looking for more verifiability. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats exactly the kind of exposure we are looking for to prove notability with these mods. If you wish to add it to the article, go ahead. Just dont forget to cite it. -- Noj r (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OSA Acronym

Does anyone know what OSA stands for in the game? If they do, we should add it in the article where the OSA is mentioned. 67.208.98.72 (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire time I have spent working on this article, I have never found out what OSA is supposed to mean. Also, please add re-opened topics to the bottom of the page next time. Thanks. -- Noj r (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OSA means Outer Space Army. I haven't played this game in a few months but I still remember it was early on in the starting bit when you trained and were given experiences in different sectors (army, hackers and psi-soldiers, the OSA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.56.200 (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that piece of information. -- Noj r (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally that sounds very unconvincing. OSA were spooks, not army. I think it needs a source to be in the article. Otherwise leave it as an acronym. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 00:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Although it's been a long time since I last played the game, I am very certain it is never explained at any point. There was a thread a few years ago on TLLG about the acronym; no-one there could find anything, either in the game or elsewhere.--Drat (Talk) 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Alright, so I'm not the only one who thought it was never explained. I agree, unless it is cited, it should stay out. Thanks. -- Noj r (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

MOVED this page to the correct spot at the end of the talk page where it should be. -- Noj r (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN on hold

• Check all images for WP:FURG (WP:NFCC compliance)

Done. All images have fair use rationales and are low resolution. -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "has since become a cult classic[5]" - need a comma before the ref

Done -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Afterwards, the actual game begin" - this sounds awkward and almost walkthrough-ish

Done -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Different kinds of ammo are available" - use full word (throught article)

Done -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "If the player wishes" - not really necessary...we assume it's not a requirement

Done -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Shock 2 projected real psychologica" - game title in italics

Done -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "unnamed protagonist — listed in a cut scene as Soldier G65434-2 — arriving at a UNN" - remove spaces around em dashes

Done -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "had been prepped to warn Earth about the disaster" - don't need to wlink Earth - most people know what it is!

Done -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Ken Levine answered that he could not be sure" - refer to them only using surname (throughout)

Done. I mentioned his full name if the section was different but afterwards refer to him by surname. -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "On June 23, Brian Norris of St. Louis, Missouri " - wlink date

Done -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "In PC Gamer's review," - italics

Done -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "has still received some criticism." - stay in past tense

Done. changed to "had" -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• "the developers released a patch" - used "the developers" last sentence. How about "a patch was released"

Done. Reworded. -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• The image in the Legacy section can't really be fair use rationalised...ie. it's not really relevant enough to warrant being used

Done -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 11: pipe the Thunderbolt (website) link

Done -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking mostly good. Leave a note on my talk page when done with this. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All said issues have been addressed. EDIT: I dont know what happened. I made all the changes but it doesn't save them. I guess SheffieldSteel beat me to it. Anyway, if you dont mind, could you look over it again and tell me what could be done to reach FA. I believe this article is truly close. Thanks a bunch. -- Noj r (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I think we went through the list at almost exactly the same time, making the same changes. If you make the same edit as someone else, it won't warn you of an edit conflict, but your name won't appear in the History, and confusion is sure to follow - though usually this only happens when two editors revert vandalism at the same time. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that. I would hit "save" and nothing would happen. I was little irritated at the confusion, but in the end the issues get resolved, so who cares. Anyway, I'm pretty excited, I think this article is gonna be an FA pretty soon. -- Noj r (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Moving on to FA; I don't see anything missing content-wise. It's a pretty complete article. There could be issues with fair use image overuse; you'll need to ask someone more involved with that sort of thing. Otherwise, I can't really think of anything much...just work on prose, put a peer review up, and I'll take another look in a few weeks if you've made significant changes. Good luck! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

GA passed, FA ahead

So, the page has passed GA and is now under PR before attempting FA. If anybody wanted to discuss suggestions for getting this article up to FA, this section is a place for it. Also, if you feel like peer reviewing this article, you can go here. Greatly appreciated. -- Noj r (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: As per suggestions in the peer review, I have made some recent changes. I have removed the presentation sub-section and integrated a horror paragraph at the end of the gameplay section. I have also condensed the large amount of "top 100 greatest games" and "top 10 scariest games" lists into two easily digestible sentences. I then condensed all paragraphs in the introduction of the legacy section. Look at the PR for more suggestions on how to improve the article for FAC. -- Noj r (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have archived the PR because I feel that the issues addressed were minor and that the article meets the FA criteria. I may be a little hasty, but I am confident that it will do fine. You can help support it, here. Here's hoping it passes. -- Noj r (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Yeah, this is for anybody interested in whats going on, I now realize System Shock 2 was not even close to ready for FA status. Working on copy-editing and chopping the thing to bits. Got the lead and gameplay section copy-edited. Any help is appreciated. -- Noj r (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

System Shock 3 section

I won't do it myself as I'm unsure which approach is best and I'd probably bork the layout as I have zero wiki editing experience, but the System Shock 3 section needs either deleting entirely or significant editing. The 'System Shock' trademark is no longer registered actively- cannot direct link to their db, but going to USPTO.gov and using TESS to search for 'system shock' or checking serial 78773880 finds that it lapsed on May 8th, 2007 (secondary, and probably irrelevant now, the filing date for the re-registration cited in the article is incorrect too, per the USPTO info and ought to be Dec 15 2005 rather than the date of the Gamespot article). While I've seen theories that EA's 'Dead Space' was originally slated to be SS3 or that the re-registration of the trademark was preliminary at taking a run at Bioshock for an infringement, there's no credible source to back either up. On balance of evidence and passage of time I think it's fairly clear the cited SS3 rumour articles are... unreliable. 218.101.64.248 (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. The section on SS3 should be deleted. It did not appear at E3 2008 or the Games Convention 2008 in Europe. Dead Space did not start out as System Shock 3, but a different game set in an outer space prison. It has been years since anyone has heard rumbelings about an SS3. The rumors did not turn out to be true. I concur with removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.239.94 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The US Government lists the trademark on System Shock as DEAD, as the previous poster here mentioned, it expired in 2007. It is IMPOSSIBLE that a System Shock 3 is in development anyware. EA would legally be required to renew the trademark and registration, which they have not, since it's been dead since May 2007. Only then would a System Shock 3 even be possible. I assure you that, legally, there cannot be a System Shock 3 at this time and I assure you it is not in development on any level. Gamespot's article about the registration date was completely off, it was not renewed in 2006 but rather 2005. Source is the USPTO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.239.94 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

US Government citation since everyone asked, here's what it says -

Word Mark SYSTEM SHOCK Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer game cartridges; computer game discs; interactive multimedia computer game programs; downloadable computer game software via a global computer network and wireless devices; computer application software for mobile phones; computer game software and entertainment software for use on mobile and cellular phones, handheld computers, computers, video game consoles, both handheld and free standing, and other wireless devices (ABANDONED) IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Providing a computer game that may be accessed network-wide by network users; providing an online computer game accessed and played via mobile and cellular phones and other wireless devices

Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 78773880 Filing Date December 15, 2005 Current Filing Basis 1B Original Filing Basis 1B Published for Opposition August 15, 2006 Owner (APPLICANT) Electronic Arts Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 209 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood City CALIFORNIA 94065 Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator DEAD Abandonment Date May 8, 2007

Source : Go to www.uspto.gov, go to Trademarks, go to #3 Search TM Database (TESS), go to New User Form Search (Basic), in the search term type 'system shock', click submit query, click on #1 which the US Government lists as "78773880 SYSTEM SHOCK TARR STATUS: DEAD" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.239.94 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is: What does all that mean?

"Filing Date December 15 2005" implies that this is nothing to do with the publication of System Shock 1 or 2 (in 1994 and 1999 respectively). "Published for Opposition August 15, 2006" strongly implies that this document is a record of some legal move or other related to BioShock. Whatever the significance of this document, it cannot be the basis for trademark registration - or indeed any IP protection - of the System Shock brand, since it was filed a decade too late. Even if this document proved that the System Shock brand had no legal protection whatsoever, that would mean not that the franchise is dead, but that anyone could publish a game and call it System Shock 3. I think that the secondary-sourced material previously in the article should be restored immediately, and that the above primary-sourced material should not be added unless a reliable source can be found which interprets it for us. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What it means is that EA does not legally own the trademark for a System Shock 3. Because the trademark they filed expired and they did not renew, because obviously they have no intention of continuing the franchise, which is DEAD. It's the same thing with what happened to the Chrono Break trademark that SquareEnix had, it too expired, yet it was a cancelled sequel that was planned for the Chrono series. SquareEnix cannot make a sequel to the Chrono series until they decided, if ever, to renew the Chrono Break trademark or create a new Chrono (insert word here) trademark, should they decided not to call the sequel Chrono Break. Yet that we would be a different trademark and registration which has NEVER been filed, meaning that SquareEnix is not currently working on any Chrono sequel at all. The same applies here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.239.94 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On the Chrono Break situation "The registrations were preceded by a press report in which Hironobu Sakaguchi mentioned that the Chrono Cross team was interested in developing a new game in the Chrono series, and that script and story ideas were being considered.[13] However, Square did not publish further news, and the American trademark Chrono Break was eventually dropped on November 13, 2003." The same happened here with EA's System Shock. When EA renewed the trademark in 2005, they either did so to protect against infringement of the new Bioshock trademark or they had plans and intentions to do a System Shock 3. If it was the latter, then the game was cancelled very early in production because EA did not renew the trademark in 2007 and instead let it faulter. They may have at one time planned to do a sequel, but if they did, System Shock 3 went the way of Chrono Break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.239.94 (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The above document, if we are to assume that it tells the whole story, says that the word mark "System Shock" had no legal protection between publication of System Shock in 1994 and the filing of the document in 2005. I think it's safe to assume that we are missing some important information from our picture of what happened when.

I also think that the various sources' speculation, rumour, interviews etc concerning a possible sequel are a matter of record, and that as such it is appropriate for Wikipedia to document that information. As and when further information comes to light, it can be added to the article. It would be better to repeat rumours and say they turned out to be wrong than to pretend they didn't happen. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it isn't valid information. For one thing, Gamespot MISREPORTS the trademark renewal as being January 2006, which we know to be wrong from the OFFICIAL documentation I provided. It was December 2005. Gamespot was wrong. Why should we replace wrongfully reported information? The gamespot citation was part of the System Shock 3 section, at least that part should be removed entirely. Furthermore, the document provided does not say System Shock trademark did not exist before, but rather, the trademark was under different auspices at the time, namely Looking Glass Studios. From the time Looking Glass went defunt until 2005, EA had not renewed the trademark, meaning the System Shock IP was in legal limbo. When it expired in 2007, it means it was again in legal limbo. No registration for a 'System Shock' after May 2007 has occured and by no company or persons or organizations. Not EA or any other entity. I have said it before and I'll say it again, the System Shock franchise IS DEAD and the various sources of rumor, speculation and so forth concerning a possible sequel are not a matter of record at all, they are just false rumors being reported. Many gaming publications, most infamously Electronic Gaming Monthly (or EGM), are natorious for spouting rumors that are not true. System Shock 3 did not appear at E3 2008, it did not appear at Games Convention 2008, it will not appear at Tokyo Game Show 2008 BECAUSE EA IS NOT WORKING ON A SYSTEM SHOCK 3. IT IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.239.94 (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. We report what reliable sources say on a subject, whether we personally think it is true or not. Using your own interpretation of sourced information is original research and expressly forbidden by policy. Using information from a primary source and using it to logically deduce something - for example, that a secondary source is "misreporting" something - is a more subtle form of original research called synthesis. The point is that we do not, in fact, have a reliable source saying System Shock is dead - not until EA, a news site, etc. publishes a comment to that effect. As to the contents of the article, I still think that the best course of action is to restore the source material and, as and when sources become available, correct and update it. Do you have any sources? Otherwise the section will pretty much have to stay as it is. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored a revised version of the section, after checking that the wording complies with WP:NPOV#A simple formulation. This means that the article accurately states what the sources say, not that there is going to be a System Shock 3 - something which this article never said, as far as I know. The fact that this section has multiple reliable sources is a good indicator that it is both Verifiable and notable, and as such I would recommend that it not be deleted again, but improved upon. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with SheffieldSteel here. We have reliable sources saying SS3 was in the pipeline at some point which in itself is newsworthy and a valid point to mention in the article. Even if we do get a definite source for it's cancellation there's no reason to delete the whole section. Rehevkor ✉ 21:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You guys are fucking ridiculous. I wasn't argueing for truth. I made a citation for my argument which was the US FUCKING GOVERNMENT, you re-fucktards. Each one of you douchebags should be banned from this site and just to make your life a hell, I'm deleting the System Shock 3 section. IT ISNT HAPPENENING. IT IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY. THere is no reliable sources saying an SS3 was in the pipeline. It was fucking rumor and speculation. A legal document says System Shock 3 is not happening and not possible.

And I verified my argument with a LEGAL US DOCUMENT.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.239.94 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

From the above it seems very clear to me you have no intention of making viable contributions here at all, please remain civil or don't contribute at all. Please consider re-witting the above in a manner that won't deter polite discussion. Rehevkor ✉ 23:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)