This is the official prayer thread. Let's pray these games come to fruition and that when they do, they are of equal quality to their predecessors (well, in the case of DE3, I'm referring to Deus Ex).

i recall reading an article saying that system shock 3 would be bad. So Bioshock was it's successor but not its sequel.

EA renewed the System Shock copyright, so there are rumours it may be a future project

EA... NOOOOO
Down with Command and Conquer 4!... er I mean...

Sadly, they own a ton of stuff now.
Mass Effect, Deus Ex, System Shock... a lot of my favourite IPs are owned by them. I just have to hold faith that the developers will make quality games.

Well Deus Ex 3 is currently being worked on, but who knows how it'll turn out.
SS3? I'd rather they didn't, and just gave SS1 and SS2 a graphical/audio face lift ala the Monkey Island 1 (Yea I know two completely different companies, but one can dream right?).

The mods are plenty for me.

My feelings on DE3 are mixed right now. Some ideas I like, some I wish they would do without.
Too early to say now.

My prediction: both are good games. everyone online complains about them endlessly.

Just pretend it's not happening. (SS3)

Deus Ex 3 does sound like it's pandering to the console market. It might still be good. But it won't be a true successor to the first game, even if it is a true successor to the lamentable console fodder sequel.

I think you mean Deus Ex 3 and Thief 4, as both are currently in development. Better forget about a new System Shock: it seems the license was divided into several part, each given to a different company, so unless we got Link willing to reassemble the Triforce, it won't really happen.
If you loved the original games, better forget about these: early interviews show that they will be catering for the frictionless gameplay crowd.

I think the thing I've heard about DX3 that irritates me the most is how they say it will occasionally shift to third person to show your character "doing cool stuff" (their words), such as when taking cover (apparently it's a cover-based shooter) or when using certain biomods (like the conceptually ridiculous "multi-kill").
The first two games went to third person during dialogues and cut scenes, which is fine and seems to fit with the overall presentation, but switching to third person during gameplay based on context is something that really aggravates me in first-person games (see also: Turok). I find it jarring to be arbitrarily yanked out of my character's head and then crammed back into it.
If the defense here is that certain gameplay elements wouldn't work well in first person, then those elements should not have been part of the design in the first place. When making a first-person game, I feel that maintaining the first-person perspective (at least during gameplay; maintaining it at all times is a bonus) is vital to the feel of the game.
Interestingly enough, I don't generally feel this way about third-person games that have first-person modes for aiming, or crawling through tight spaces, or other situations where third person wouldn't work well. I guess I see first-person as an attempt to place you, personally, into the scenarios you're playing through, whereas third-person puts you more in the role of an observer; thus, while an observer's position doesn't really matter, having your viewpoint removed from your body is disorienting and breaks the flow of the game.

I remember that line. I have trouble thinking of many weak moments in DX1; even the safe zones were fun and memorable, and helped balance the presentation of the game. One of my favorite parts of the game, actually, is when you arrive in Hong Kong for the first time; after spending a lengthy amount of time under fire, you finally have a chance to take a breather in this atmospheric little town with awesome music - but not for too long.
It's not just my rose-tinted memory, either. I just played through the game again a few months ago. It's still great.