EPTThe framework has really awesome potential but as of right now it definitly feels very limited. They made this game in a year (more or less since their kickstarter campaign ended), which I believe is a shame. I wish they would have given themselves more time and made a really huge world, in the vein of BG, or at least something similiar to fallout (1 or 2) even if it had meant charging 50$.
Shadowrun Returns - Tactical Squad RPG Kickstarter - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Substandard
Italy270 Posts
The framework has really awesome potential but as of right now it definitly feels very limited. They made this game in a year (more or less since their kickstarter campaign ended), which I believe is a shame. I wish they would have given themselves more time and made a really huge world, in the vein of BG, or at least something similiar to fallout (1 or 2) even if it had meant charging 50$. | ||
|
JazVM
Germany1196 Posts
- the saving system isn't a big deal contradictory to what all the people say on various forums. The game automatically saves on every area change, and the area changes quite frequently. - same for the lack of voice acting. While this might be a more personal matter, I don't think that voice acting makes games necessarily better, they are just different. Frankly, I prefer reading over voice acting. I find myself skipping through the actual voice acting cause I have subtitles enabled anyway - what really bugs me is the lack of choice. The missions are completely linear and no puzzles or anything so far. - playing on the hardest difficulty, I gotta say that its really easy so far. Haven't had to reload once. - the story itself is really nice so far. I enjoy the plot and the dialogue a lot! | ||
|
Microchaton
France342 Posts
| ||
|
Kaal
Djibouti2514 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 26 2013 21:43 Microchaton wrote: Agree with most of the comments, it feels like a limited beta. Which I guess is alright considering the price and the user campaigns to come. Its a platform and shows people how hard it is to do an limited RPG or any game really. The lack of VO is not suprising, actors cost money and recording useable audio cost even more. Hopefully they can get it into the steamworkshop and we can have unlimited adventures. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
Also, it's particularly taxing to do that in RPGs that normally have a huge number of different characters, and not end up in a situation like Skyrim where you hear the same dude's voice around every corner, often saying the same line (*cough* knee *cough*) too. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
I love the setting, graphics, music and the characters. The dialog is mostly well written. But the dialog tree and consequences doesn't seem that advanced. Dialog choices mostly seem to be there for immersion rather than reactivity. The game overall seems very linear. I like to think of more like an animated graphic novel with great tactical combat thrown in. It's a great game and so far has been fun to play. It is especially impressive considering the budget and development time. I'd give it a 8/10 and I'm looking forward to the user generated content. I think the best kickstarter RPGs are still to come though. I expect more from Wasteland 2, Project Eternity and Torment. | ||
|
TokO
Norway577 Posts
| ||
|
carraway
264 Posts
On July 26 2013 22:33 Kaal wrote: I dunno why people are complaining about the save thing, unless they are just save scummers. I don't know what you mean by save-scumming, but part of the joy of playing a more old-school isometric tactical RPG like this, with dialogue choices that can influence gameplay, is being able to experiment without replaying parts that I don't want to replay. In particular missions in the included campaign, time between autosaving can range from 15 minutes to a full hour. One could argue that this is only an issue with this campaign, and designers of modules in the future can work around it, but if I were to design a module myself, I would have to keep that limitation in mind -- that I can't create long stretches of gameplay in one map because of the possibility of causing someone to lose all that progress if s/he makes a critical mistake. Here's part of my checkpoint list, showing part of the second half of the campaign: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5oXvtSa.png) The save system didn't affect my ability to clear the campaign, but I found myself subconsciously veering toward "safe" choices, knowing that I didn't want to reload at all. One could also argue that it encourages multiple playthroughs, which is possible. From my perspective, however, this is the difference between giving players positive reinforcement -- "play again because you had so much fun and want to see other parts of the campaign" -- and negative reinforcement -- "play again because you were technically incapable of seeing other parts of the campaign without redoing long stretches of gameplay". What it really comes down to is that the developer ran out of time and resources and were unable to technically implement a more robust save-system, which is unfortunate, and could affect the longevity of the game for me. | ||
|
snotboogie
Australia3550 Posts
| ||
|
JacobShock
Denmark2485 Posts
| ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
On July 26 2013 18:25 Substandard wrote: I really love the mechanics and art of the game. Unfortunately the game is very short, there is very little exploration, very little meaningful choice (dialogue options have mostly same effect) and no loot. Basically it's a modernized old school rpg without a lot of the things that made those games so great (i. e. Baldurs Gate). The framework has really awesome potential but as of right now it definitly feels very limited. They made this game in a year (more or less since their kickstarter campaign ended), which I believe is a shame. I wish they would have given themselves more time and made a really huge world, in the vein of BG, or at least something similiar to fallout (1 or 2) even if it had meant charging 50$. I wouldn't be surprised if the main campaign is a port of an inhouse tabletop campaign that the devs play. A lot of work went into the engine, so I expect that in a year or so, we'll get a campaign that does what Mask of the Betrayer did for Neverwinter Nights 2. | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
On July 28 2013 11:22 JacobShock wrote: Hey guys, anyone completed the game yet? I kinda want to know an estimated length of the game, before I decide to buy it. It's 10 to 12h for the campaign. It's short but the editor provided will probably give many more campaigns. | ||
|
EMIYA
United States433 Posts
| ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On July 27 2013 10:29 carraway wrote: I don't know what you mean by save-scumming, but part of the joy of playing a more old-school isometric tactical RPG like this, with dialogue choices that can influence gameplay, is being able to experiment without replaying parts that I don't want to replay. In particular missions in the included campaign, time between autosaving can range from 15 minutes to a full hour. One could argue that this is only an issue with this campaign, and designers of modules in the future can work around it, but if I were to design a module myself, I would have to keep that limitation in mind -- that I can't create long stretches of gameplay in one map because of the possibility of causing someone to lose all that progress if s/he makes a critical mistake. Here's part of my checkpoint list, showing part of the second half of the campaign: The save system didn't affect my ability to clear the campaign, but I found myself subconsciously veering toward "safe" choices, knowing that I didn't want to reload at all. One could also argue that it encourages multiple playthroughs, which is possible. From my perspective, however, this is the difference between giving players positive reinforcement -- "play again because you had so much fun and want to see other parts of the campaign" -- and negative reinforcement -- "play again because you were technically incapable of seeing other parts of the campaign without redoing long stretches of gameplay". What it really comes down to is that the developer ran out of time and resources and were unable to technically implement a more robust save-system, which is unfortunate, and could affect the longevity of the game for me. That's exactly what save scumming means: When you make choices with the safety of reload instead of risk-reward. It's abusing the save system. When you're given choices in an RPG, you're not supposed to save and test each choice before you decide, you're supposed to roleplay it and live with the consequences. | ||
|
grs
Germany2339 Posts
On July 28 2013 18:37 Tobberoth wrote: That's exactly what save scumming means: When you make choices with the safety of reload instead of risk-reward. It's abusing the save system. When you're given choices in an RPG, you're not supposed to save and test each choice before you decide, you're supposed to roleplay it and live with the consequences. And who are you to deceide how people like to play single player RPGs? | ||
|
Kronen
United States732 Posts
On July 28 2013 20:18 grs wrote: And who are you to deceide how people like to play single player RPGs? His name sounds like an Cthulhu Elder One dude, I wouldnt mess with him. But seriously, it is a different way to play that adds spice to the gameplay. It's the exact same reason people suggest playing Ironman mode in Xcom (though that isn't for RP reasons persay), the choices you make just seem to matter more. If that style of gameplay just isn't for you, then it isn't. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On July 28 2013 18:37 Tobberoth wrote: That's exactly what save scumming means: When you make choices with the safety of reload instead of risk-reward. It's abusing the save system. When you're given choices in an RPG, you're not supposed to save and test each choice before you decide, you're supposed to roleplay it and live with the consequences. This isn't something developers should concern themselves with, and even when they are it should be added as some sort of customizable ironman-like mode. Design shouldn't take away the choice of how to play the game, especially in a multi-faceted genre such as RPG that can be approached in many ways by players who want different things from the game. Getting into the mindset where the designer decides how the game is supposed to be played is an extremely flawed approach that can cause a lot of trouble. Living with the consequences isn't the issue, it's the issue of dying and having to repeat the same content anyway - except you end up repeating A LOT of the same content. That stuff is fine in platformers, it's fine in strategy games, since the repeated content is usually fun to play through over and over again, because it's still challenging and your fun doesn't depend so much on progression. It isn't fine in a linear story-driven game where you have to click through the dialogues and run your characters around and pick up items all over again only to get to the fight that killed you, only to have it kill you again. Repeating content in an RPG is more often than not not fun, it also takes the player completely out of the roleplaying mindset, thus defeating the purpose of trying to force that roleplaying mindset to begin with. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On July 28 2013 20:18 grs wrote: And who are you to deceide how people like to play single player RPGs? I'm not? People can cheat or even not play games at all for all I care, some people prefer to look at cutscenes. I was just explaining what save scumming means and the reason why it has negative connotations and I can definitely see why a game designer would want to actively combat it. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On July 28 2013 20:44 Talin wrote: This isn't something developers should concern themselves with, and even when they are it should be added as some sort of customizable ironman-like mode. Design shouldn't take away the choice of how to play the game, especially in a multi-faceted genre such as RPG that can be approached in many ways by players who want different things from the game. Getting into the mindset where the designer decides how the game is supposed to be played is an extremely flawed approach that can cause a lot of trouble. Living with the consequences isn't the issue, it's the issue of dying and having to repeat the same content anyway - except you end up repeating A LOT of the same content. That stuff is fine in platformers, it's fine in strategy games, since the repeated content is usually fun to play through over and over again, because it's still challenging and your fun doesn't depend so much on progression. It isn't fine in a linear story-driven game where you have to click through the dialogues and run your characters around and pick up items all over again only to get to the fight that killed you, only to have it kill you again. Repeating content in an RPG is more often than not not fun, it also takes the player completely out of the roleplaying mindset, thus defeating the purpose of trying to force that roleplaying mindset to begin with. Being a game designer is all about dictating how people play the game, that's why games have rulesets: So that you're forced to play them the way they were meant to be played. That doesn't mean there can't be freedom and flexibility. Take GTA. If you want to drive around in races, you can do that. If you want to do missions, you can do that. If you want to blow people up with a rocket launcher you can do that. But you can't fly, you can't become invincible, you don't have infinite ammo, you can't instantly teleport around, you can't do any mission you want in any order... because that would be cheating and breaking how the game is intended to be played. Does it suck to replay boring parts of a linear RPG? Hell yes, that doesn't mean you can't appreciate when a game designer tries to combat save scumming, even though it was apparently quite badly implemented in this game. | ||
| ||
