Talk:System Shock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Where could i buy this?

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

You can download it here.

Legally? GOG.com. --168.245.214.226 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

So called POV line

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

The removed sentence is just as POV as your last two examples; interjecting the phrase "is considered by some people" is just a cop-out. The sentence still reflects one editor's opinion (or the collective opinion of a number of editors). If you want to turn it into fact, then you need to cite some sources. Provide links to reviews of the games, or articles naming one or both of them as some of the greatest games ever, a la the article on Half-Life 2. Also note that the HL2 article does not begin with "many people consider this to be one of greatest games ever made", even though many in the game community have attributed such accolades to the game. Perhaps you should review Wikipedia's official NPOV policy, and some NPOV examples, while you're at it... — EagleOne\^Talk 02:07, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, fair enough. I tracked down a couple reviews. Mind you, they aren't the greatest. The SS1 review is just of the disk version, so no assessment of the CD enhancements. I guess that a lot of the old review sites from that day are long gone now. As for the SS2 review, its by IGN, if that counts for anything (negative or positive), and it is pre-patch.--DooMDrat 11:33, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Using your standard of defining "cop-out", I detected quite a few examples in the first three paragraphs of the wikipedia article on Osama Bin Laden. Stuff like "is widely believed", "is usually considered", and "the popular assumption is". I submit that you are trying to hold wikipedia to an unreasonable standard. For one thing, being a gamer and having mostly gamers for friends, I can assure you I've never personally met a gamer who didn't agree that SS2 is a masterwork. Factually speaking, it *is* what most people say about it, or would say if the issue ever came up in conversation. Why is reporting on what people say non-NPOV? As it currently stands, the article reports on a lot of negative "criticisms", which also are just stuff people said about it. Why should the criticisms be NPOV but not the praise? The article as it stands is unfair because while it vaguely mentions "critical acclaim", it goes into great detail about the game's flaws. Once I get some sleep, I'll see about hunting down some old reviews to write a Praises section. -Kasreyn

Hmm. For anyone who's confused (because I sure was), this comment is in re: the article on System Shock 2. I have no idea how it wound up on the talk page for System Shock. I have removed the unsourced POV criticisms from the System Shock 2 page. Happily, the System Shock article seems to already be balanced and encyclopedic, so it doesn't need work from me right now. -Kasreyn 09:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

On Removal of Doom 3 References

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

In regards to the whole Doom 3 -> System Shock 2 thing, there have been many who have felt it to be so. Now I've not played Doom 3, but I'll make a few points.

• I post at a major forum in the System Shock community, and after Doom 3 came out, we got a fair number of new users (rare in the best of cases), who "played Doom 3 and wanted to try that game people said it ripped off".
• I think I once read somewhere that someone at id themselves said that they were inspired by Shock 2, but I can't remember where I saw it, so disregard this point if you like.
• Finally, a quote: "id's storytelling, too, has come a long way. Someone over there played and loved Irrational's System Shock 2, working the notion of e-mails and audio diaries into the experience." - Tycho from Penny Arcade [1].

I'll ask some others in the shock community, who have played both, about this whole thing so they can add their own input, but later. It's 4AM here, and I need sleep badly. Oh yeah, thanks for those boxart images, I'll just resize the images in the article to take up more of the infobox. Looks neater IMO.--DooMDrat July 2, 2005 18:12 (UTC)

• All above points can connect about any game to any game. One propably not-so-seriuos speculatory reference on a web comic site on one gamplay/story telling feature and some posts on Trough the Looking Glass forums (my assumption, wasn't a recular reader around Doom 3 release) are hardly siginificant enough connections or notable general perceptions. You might as well claim Doom 3 to be a "spiritual successor" to Resident Evil due flash light and "survival horor" style gameplay. Some people migh claim such things, but that doesn't mean it shoul be mentioned in a encyclopediac article. These kind of things are a dime on a dosen. If there is a verified iD Software quote about SS2 as notable influence and/or mentions of SS2 as an influence on Doom 3 on significan number of mediums notable enough, then writing about this influence would me merited. Not under "Future of the System Shock series" section tough, but in a paragraph about SS influencing other games. - The Merciful 2 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
• When I first loaded up Doom 3, and received my first in-game "email", I immediately thought back to SS2. There's no doubt in my mind of connection between the two games, at least in terms of the plot devices (emails, audio logs, the "benevolent overseer") and in terms of the survival-horror aspect (though D3-SS2 are by no means unique in that aspect). However, WP is not the place for speculation and original research, so I support the removal of the D3 references. At least, until we can get some verifable material from id. — EagleOne\^Talk 02:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the 2 games into 2 articles

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

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

Genre

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

Number of copies sold

The following claims that 170,000 copies were sold: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/systemshock2/review.html

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

Request info!

I have a windows ME

and i have the original Mac CD of this game

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

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

Copyvio

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

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

Plot

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

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

• I see. I don't have any access to that stuff, which is why the section is currently full of holes. It's must-have information for the article, if you can get your hands on it. Also, I had a similar issue with the cyborg/mutant part, and just decided to leave it as-was for the time. I'll try to figure something out about that. JimmyBlackwing 18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• The backstory you're mentioning is in the "System Shock I.C.E Breaker" (official hint book ISBN:017814100628) as "Investigative Report #209" on page 7. Specifically, it says: "Bianca Schuler, an undercover security specialist, determined that Diego intended to market Citadel's mutagenic virus as a biological weapon." Throughout the rest of the hint book other reports and emails flesh out the rest of the back story, including a reconstructed memo from Diego's computer on page 77 that explains that Diego was selling the virus to a terrorist named Oscar Kamar.Mullub's dimi 20:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments regarding GA-status

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

• Many thanks. JimmyBlackwing 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

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

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

Why is this article protected?

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

Looks like two editors started a is-not is-too war about whether the {{spoiler}} template should be used, ever. 64.132.59.83 19:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's now two weeks later - why is this still protected? Time for unprotection methinks. MojoTas 03:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been long enough -ZFGokuSSJ1 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Citadel Station

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

Why not add a reference to Bioshock?

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

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

Reference material

I found the following material:

Reviews

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

Previews and other material

• Bielby, Matt (May/June 1994). "System Shock; You're All Alone Now". PC Gamer US (1). Pg. 14-16. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Simmons, Alex (June 1994). "System Shock". PC Player (7). Pg. 90-91.
• High Score!
• The Making Of: Harvey Smith
• Warren Spector, years later
• Warren Spector on legal issues
• Weise, Matthew (February 25, 2011). "Looking Glass Studios Interview Series - Audio Podcast 1 - Austin Grossman". Archived from the original on April 30, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
• Text version
• The Lost History of System Shock

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

Apparent reference to Les Miz.

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

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

The "Spiritual Successor" line at the top

Can someone explain why Deus Ex and Dead Space are supposed to be spiritual successors? For Deus Ex, both have technology in a cyberpunk future setting. In Dead Space, it happens in space, but there's no cyborgs and no mutants, just alien zombies from human hosts and aliens. If what is being used as evidence is what I think it is, it's tenuous connections at best. You can say any game that came after it with anything involving space or cyborgs, like Rage, is a System Shock spiritual successor. And we could also say System Shock is a spiritual successor to Doom. You could say call of duty is the spiritual successor of battlefield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.216.93 (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

TFA request

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

moar screenshots

This article needs more screenshots. In fact, all Wikipedia articles on videogames need more screenshots. That would make Wikipedia more useful, which I think is something Wikipedia wants. Right?--68.230.65.159 (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If the KS succeeds...

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

Good point, but I don't think there is quote enough information for that yet. Lordtobi (✉) 19:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The KS has passed its base goal with about 2/3rds of its time left to go [2], and that Draft:System_Shock_(2017_video_game) has been created by @Syssho: which I think is ready to be moved to mainspace at this point. But I'll wait for input on this. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The draft seems solid, might need some minor touch-ups. We would then move everything over, I guess. Lordtobi (✉) 10:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the draft looks good. Should be fine to mainspace it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Role-playing game

What makes this game an RPG? I thought only the sequel was an RPG. SharkD  Talk  01:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Am going to change it to 'first-person action adventure', per the Allgame link. --Markhoris (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

First person shooter

Per this edit. To not say System Shock is a first-person shooter is pretty ridiculous. Please provide some evidence that it isn't a first-person shooter. There are plenty of RSs who say it is.

• IGN - "Genre: First-Person Shooter", "System Shock is a First Person Shooter but it isn't your traditional run and gun game."
• GameSpot - "When the crowdfunding campaign for a remake of classic first-person shooter System Shock began, only PC and Xbox One versions were confirmed."
• Gamasutra - "I would argue that 'pre-Shock', shooters defined a narrow category of player experience more or less unchanged since the days of Wolfenstein 3D. It wasn't until the genre was 'post-Shock' that richer titles - in terms of game mechanics, story design and emergent gameplay - started to appear (notably Half Life and Deus Ex)."
• IGN again - the article is called "History of first-person shooters".
• Gamastura - "I would like to see games use some elements of pre-Quake FPS games like Ultima Underworld, System Shock or Terra Nova."
• Kotaku - "By no coincidence, the fictional Black Arts Games makes an immersive first-person shooter with 1994-era technology, and thus YOU was my chance to develop the System Shock that could have been!"

Some more ambiguous comments:

• Gamasutra - "The gameplay of system shock is that of a first-person shooter merged with an RPG and an adventure game, much like that of Ultima Underworld, but with an enhanced role playing system."
• GameInformer - "The game combined first-person shooter with role-playing systems, encouraging the player to proceed with caution through a space station’s dangerous corridors and think carefully about their every move."

I had a hard time filtering out mentions of System Shock 2, which seems to get talked about a lot more. SharkD  Talk  20:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Metroid Prime isn't a first-person shooter, either, despite being in first-person and containing shooting. People have called Shock all kinds of things over the years. PC Gamer named it 1994's best adventure game. Computer Gaming World wrote: "at first glance appears to be yet another Doom clone. But its first-person action is fleshed out with adventure elements in an elaborately detailed 3-D world." From a Gamebytes interview in 1994:

GB: So this is not a straight shoot-em-up like Id's Doom?

DC: Hey, we made it to question two before mentioning Doom! System Shock
is different in many ways, in fact almost all. It's really more an
outgrowth of Ultima Underworld than anything else, without as much of the
"Joe sends you to Bob" conversation-based quests, and instead pushed more
towards action. But the real focus is on creating a world in which to
immerse the player.

Of course, there is plenty of action in System Shock. For a while all the
code that was running was basic running around and shooting and getting to
the next station level, and everybody was having lots of fun just doing
that, so you can play it that way. But System Shock isn't about continuous
combat so much as continuous tension, where we try to keep you wired and
wondering what's around the corner... we want to suprise the players while
we scare them, and give them plenty of things to play with too.

By contrast, Doom is a very focused action game: run around, get the
powerups, win the combat, solve the level. When writing a game like Doom
you want an outrageously playable combat system and powerup system, and in
Doom's case those two elements work all but perfectly; the folks at Id did
a great job, as usual.

And here's Desslock talking about it in 1999:

Some erroneously discounted it as a Doom clone, even though it was actually the offspring of a line of games that preceded any  of id Software's first-person shooters. Other players dismissed it as a derivative first-person role-playing game that arrived on retail shelves just after a parade of Wizardries and Might and Magics. In fact, System Shock was a game that defied pigeonhole classification because it borrowed elements and themes from a variety of genres. Yet it was precisely because of its creative design that it is now commonly, belatedly, regarded as one of the best computer games ever made.

The genre confusion gets worse from here. There are certainly people who call Shock a first-person shooter (just as certain people call Metroid Prime one), but there is no consensus in the sources for that label. This article has batted genres back and forth for a long time, pretty much since I got it featured in 2007. Sometimes people list it as an RPG, which has been done by reliable sources over the years, but it's not prevalent enough to warrant it here. Ideally it would list no genre, because the sources can't agree, but I think action/adventure is vague enough to work. In any case, it's not a first-person shooter. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record, PC Gamer also called Shock an "action/RPG", as seen here. In fact, later on, the writer calls it the game that revived RPGs! The sources are filled with this stuff. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The PC Gamer article doesn't say SS1 is an RPG. It just says it "casts a long shadow" over of action games and RPGs, and groups it together with Half-Life and Thief. The Gamebytes article doesn't specify first-person shooters at all; it says "shoot-em-up". Lastly, not being a "Doom clone" does not disqualify a game from being an FPS. There are plenty of FPSs that aren't "Doom clones", such as the aforementioned Half-Life. SharkD  Talk  22:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, we should not be relying solely upon the genre definitions of 1994-1999. We should also be considering the genre definitions of 2017. SharkD  Talk  22:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, the PC Gamer article most certainly does call it an action/RPG—check the sidebar. You've also ignored the fact that PC Gamer called it an adventure game. As for Doom, that was the industry's reference point for first-person shooters in 1994, so defining Shock against Doom meant that, whatever it was, it wasn't what people saw as a first-person shooter. You can see that reflected Desslock's comments as well, when he recalls the history.

As for 2017, I'd be more than willing to change the genre to "first-person shooter" if there was some sort of new scholarly consensus about it. But a handful of passing mentions by writers totally unfamiliar with the literature on Shock isn't good enough. I could provide dozens of recent sources that call Warren Spector the creator/mastermind of Shock, or even Thief, but all it shows is that most writers don't do their homework. Markhoris's suggestion below regarding immersive sims is a possibility, if there are serious sources that call it one (the label was only created in the last few years). Otherwise, it should stay at action-adventure, or possibly just action. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Doom, that was the industry's reference point for first-person shooters in 1994, so defining Shock against Doom meant that, whatever it was, it wasn't what people saw as a first-person shooter." That's an interesting footnote. But that's all it is. We're in 2017 now.

Here is a Gamasutra article (which you've also cited) asking dozens of developers which games they thought were most influential within the genre, and then choosing the best responses. This passage is very good:

"In terms of shooter mechanics, System Shock was the first FPS to really attempt to create physical immersion beyond just the camera POV. It introduced a full range of movements (most of which we take for granted now) and avatar hit location to give impact to damage effects. The weapons system, in addition to giving unprecendented levels of customization, also offered greater control modality than had been seen previously. System Shock wove in enough elements borrowed from adventure/RPG to elevate its design beyond the basic shooter tropes [ed. of the time]."

There really isn't much "scholarly" work you can cite about video games, but Gamasutra comes pretty close. SharkD  Talk  00:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of people call it plenty of things, and they always have. As I've shown (although you keep ignoring the many examples with almost no argument). You can keep posting that Gamasutra source from 2006, but it doesn't represent some new consensus in what people call Shock. Here's a GI history-of-Shock article from 2015 that calls it a "first-person adventure", and here's USGamer in 2014: "System Shock straddled the line between shooter, RPG, and graphical adventure. Besides Ultima Underworld, its closest antecedent was Bungie's 1993 first-person adventure Pathways Into Darkness". In 2003, the book Postmortems from Game Developer called Shock a "critically acclaimed action/role-playing game". Polygon in 2017: "the original System Shock, hailed as an innovative action role-playing game". Even the pitch document for System Shock 2 (reported on here) said, "Primarily, Shock was at heart a real role-playing game, not an action shooter."

If you want to talk really scholarly, here's Eludamos, an academic game studies journal:

• "Though Looking Glass made games using the first person perspective during the same time period as Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake and Half-Life it never made games that could accurately be called first-person shooters. Looking Glass had its own trajectory of first-person game design independent from first-person shooters."

And on and on. There's simply no disputing this: sources do not agree, and never have agreed, on what System Shock's genre might be. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A game can be an adventure game, and a role-playing game (in the case of SS2 or Deus Ex), and a first-person shooter, or contain any of these genres' elements. There's no reason to settle upon just "action-adventure" and leave it that. (BTW, GameInformer does "file it under" first-person shooters and several other things.) I never said the game was *just* a first-person shooter. I may make a chart or graph showing the different sources' use of the varying terms. SharkD  Talk  03:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Calling Shock a first-person shooter in its lead section violates WP:NPOV, given that this is a decades-old controversy with no consensus (except the consensus that Shock is nothing like most games called shooters). Calling Shock an action/adventure probably violates NPOV, too, but it's vague enough to be almost meaningless and therefore safer. Piling up qualifiers and sub-genres in the lead ends in a mess, so that's out.

At one time, I believe I removed all genres from the lead and infobox, and referred to Shock simply as a "first-person video game"—the only true consensus among the sources. Since it seems like staying with the current revision is out, I move that we return to "first-person video game" format, and leave the Gameplay section to handle the rest. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Would it be an option to just use Immersive sim in the genre field? --Markhoris (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If a [ed] certain game is an FPS, action-adventure, and immersive sim all at the same time, why must we pick just one instead of calling it all three? The game can't be realistically pigeonholed into one single genre, so we shouldn't insist on having to do so in the article. SharkD  Talk  00:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

By nature, an immersive sim should be an FP"S" (how much shooting goes on, that's up in the air). In other words, if you call the game an immersive sim, it is also thus an FPS. Very few immersive sims are not action-adventure either (since it's about the narrative). The only reason to avoid immersive sim, though , is that that was not a term in use at the time. (Though I do see we call Unreal an FPS despite the fact that at the time it was "Doom-clone"). --MASEM (t) 01:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree the game is an immersive sim. Not sure I agree with calling it just that. Regardless, we need to find a different citation for the genre field in the article, because the allgame source says it's a "first-person action adventure", not "action-adventure". WP:SYNTH SharkD  Talk  01:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is a table of the sources that have been put forward so far in this discussion. The "Elements" column means that the source discusses these terms not as genres but as gameplay elements. Feel free to edit it. SharkD  Talk  04:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Publication	Link	First-person shooter	Adventure	Action	Action-adventure	Role-playing game	Elements
IGN	[3]	x
GameSpot	[4]	x
Gamasutra	[5]	x
IGN	[6]	x
Gamasutra	[7]	x
GameInformer	[8]	x	x
Polygon	[9]			x		x
Gamasutra	[10]	x	x			x	x
GameInformer	[11]	x				x	x
CGW	[12]	x	x	x			x
Gamebytes	[13]	x		x			x
Gamespot	[14]
PC Gamer	[15]			x		x
US Gamer	[16]	x	x			x
Postmortems	[17]	x		x	x	x
Eludamos	[18]	not an FPS
allgame	[19]		"first-person adventure"		"first-person action adventure"

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/20160322202550/http://scans.roushimsx.com/CGSP_1995_05_pg080.jpg
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160322190936/http://scans.roushimsx.com/CGSP_1998_05_pg068.jpg, https://web.archive.org/web/20160322202125/http://scans.roushimsx.com/CGSP_1998_05_pg069.jpg
• https://archive.org/details/pclife002/page/n117

Mac OSX GOG Linus Support

Under "Sequels and Remakes" the article cites mac and linux support for the "Classic" version of the game. "The release also includes the original version of the game, titled System Shock: Classic, with support for Microsoft Windows, OS X and Linux.[73]" However, the citation it links to as well as the game page in GOG, (https://www.gog.com/game/system_shock_enhanced_edition) make it clear that GOG only supports a windows release Adragon16 (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adragon16 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)