|
On July 28 2013 21:03 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 20:44 Talin wrote:On July 28 2013 18:37 Tobberoth wrote:On July 27 2013 10:29 carraway wrote: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. 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. 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.
There's also no reasonable analogy between save game and cheating. Which is why save game is not and has never been cheating. And just for the sake of argument, all GTA titles had cheat codes built into the game so you could do any of those things if you felt like it.
That also isn't what freedom and flexibility is. If that was what it was, only non-linear open world games would ever have those qualities, whereas every well designed game should have those qualities to an extent. It's about the player being able to customize their experience with the game to suit their needs by maximizing the qualities of the game they enjoy, while minimizing those they don't.
That should be even more apparent in a roleplaying game, because that's how actual roleplaying is done in general. You can be the most hardline DM possible, if you sense that your group isn't going to play optimally and won't have fun with your way of running sessions, you're going to lay off the proverbial DM stick and instead run the kind of game they can have fun with. If you don't, you're an awful DM. The same is true for game designers.
On July 28 2013 21:03 Tobberoth wrote:
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.
I don't really see a reason to appreciate design that creates unnecessary experiences that suck. Everything about that screams "bad" to me.
I don't even see a reason to appreciate the motivation behind it. Every title Shadowrun was inspired by had the save game feature. It was never widely considered a problem that needs solving. The term save scumming has been coined by gaming elitism - the most irrational source of inspiration possible. Making something like that a design priority is only going to hurt the game.
|
I'm disappointed with how shallow this game feels.
Like, there just doesn't seem to be any interaction with the game world which ruins any feeling of immersion.
it's like 'do you want to buy a donut' WELL OF COURSE I DO because it's an option in the game so i kind of have to.
The non-combat section of the game basically revolves around finding interaction icons and then clicking on them.
|
Did anyone try the user generated content thats out so far? What is the playtime of Life on a Limb?
|
On July 28 2013 23:09 ShloobeR wrote:
I'm disappointed with how shallow this game feels.
Like, there just doesn't seem to be any interaction with the game world which ruins any feeling of immersion.
it's like 'do you want to buy a donut' WELL OF COURSE I DO because it's an option in the game so i kind of have to.
The non-combat section of the game basically revolves around finding interaction icons and then clicking on them.
Agreed, I'm actually surprised at how positive the reception for this game is. The combat is good, the writing is decent, but the rest of the game is so lacking for me. It feels like a glorified tablet game. I think it's really cool that it comes with an editor, but the game is so limited that I don't see how anyone can create anything cool, it just lacks too much basic functionality as a game.
I know "it's only $20" but so was Torchlight 2, and other games with higher quality were even cheaper, like Call of Juarez Gunslinger, Blood Dragon, etc. To me it's not even a $20 game by today's standards.
|
I'm actually very disappointed to see the hate for the FPS, one of the most underrated games ever. Shadow run for xbox was AMAZING. One of the most dynamic, skill based, well balanced FPS I've ever played. Saddens me that they are not interested in a sequel.
|
On July 28 2013 22:13 Talin wrote:
There's also no reasonable analogy between save game and cheating.
Sure there is, which is why quick-save/load isn't allowed in a lot of games: Because it's abuseable. Saves are supposed to help people who want to quit playing to do something else, and not be punished for it. It's not supposed to let you optimize everything that happens in the game.
Using something in a way it wasn't intended to get an advantage is IMO cheating. "There's no such thing as an advantage in a single player game", yeah, but then there's really no such thing as a cheat in a single player game either. There's no difference between between scumming your save before any semi-relevant decision in an RPG, and quick-saving before every room in an FPS: it cheapens the experience by removing any form of consequence or punishment, any sense of risk or tension, which is why games like Prince of Persia 360 are so ridiculously boring: who cares that you die if you respawn in the exact same situation you were in when you died? Why even have a die mechanic in the first place?
|
Saves are supposed to save your progress so you can continue on from that point. It is not comparable to cheating, as loading still requires the player to beat the challenge presented by the game. It just allows for improvement and learning without forcing excessive repetition.
Saving doesn't cheapen anything. How many reviews and comments of, say, XCOM did you read where people complained about the existence of save game mechenic? How many reviews and comments about Shadowrun did you read where people complained about the absence of save game mechanic? I'll bet you anything you want the latter were much more numerous than the former.
You're projecting your own taste onto a very large audience. There's no evidence that a save game mechanic has ever been a problem. In fact, there's no evidence that the existence of cheat codes has ever been a problem either. So even if you do think the two are the same, both are still present in the vast majority of PC games, and neither has ever been considered very controversial.
On the other side, there are plenty of PC games that have been criticized for the lack of an at-will save game option. It's a convenience feature that has zero impact on gameplay, and allows the players to use it the way they feel is best for them. If everybody wants a feature, and only an extreme minority has a problem with it, then guess what - it ain't a problem, it's a good feature.
|
If the designers of the game had specifically set out to structure their game in a particular way, and had done so more successfully (see my checkpoint list: that's not encouraging for reiterative gameplay, and I love bullet-hell shooters despite being terrible at them), then I'd be all for it. However:
[A-02] Q: What will the save system be like?
A: We're planning a checkpoint system. No one on the team likes checkpoints better than save any time you want. But we're a small team with a LOT to do and save games are complicated. Thanks for understanding.
They felt technically incapable of creating a more robust save-game system. I understand they were out of money and time, but this still seems like a large oversight. I preordered the game anyway, giving them the benefit of the doubt, and there were certain parts in the game where I wanted to take a break but couldn't due to being halfway through a 45-minute chunk of gameplay.
|
I guess it for a large part also explains the lack of consequence in the choices you make. Its not saving if you looked at picture X because outside of the level itself there is no interaction with that fact.
So the only thing they have to save now are very broad points instead of having to save all the states in a level
|
No save is absolutely killing this game, 100%.
Like I'm somewhere near the end of the game when + Show Spoiler +you attack a stupid laboratory to get something to be able to kill the bugs a door and two fucking machine guns behind it that shoot me right away
This is not like Dark Souls. Dark Souls is awesome, you die a lot, you have to redo the same portions of the game again and again but it's not frustrating (not too much at least  ) because you know you're making progress.
This game is frustrating and it could have been avoided.
I guess the devs are well aware of it by now but I just needed to vent...
Decent game otherwise
|
So worth getting? Never played the first Shadowrun, but I watched some of TB's WTF video and it looks interesting.
|
On July 30 2013 12:47 PaqMan wrote:
So worth getting? Never played the first Shadowrun, but I watched some of TB's WTF video and it looks interesting.
If you like the gameplay of Fallout 1 & 2/Tactics, X-Com, and/or Jagged Alliance, you will probably enjoy the gameplay of Shadowrun Returns at least to some extent. If you like the Shadowrun setting, or that of the novels Neuromancer and/or Snow Crash, you will probably enjoy the setting and story of Shadowrun Returns at least to some extent; the narrative of the built-in campaign, Dead Man's Switch, begins with noir stylings and gets into some kinda-hokey sci-fi stuff later on. I actually expect the game's community to write better stories (or adapt better stories) as time goes on.
As to whether that's worth your $20, that's up to you. The game was fun for me, and worth that price, but has a lot of problems. I don't expect it to have much staying power beyond its extremely loyal community. The mechanics are fairly shallow, and the way the game is coded is fairly limiting, though the editor is robust.
|
On July 30 2013 13:41 carraway wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 12:47 PaqMan wrote:
So worth getting? Never played the first Shadowrun, but I watched some of TB's WTF video and it looks interesting. If you like the gameplay of Fallout 1 & 2/Tactics, X-Com, and/or Jagged Alliance, you will probably enjoy the gameplay of Shadowrun Returns at least to some extent. If you like the Shadowrun setting, or that of the novels Neuromancer and/or Snow Crash, you will probably enjoy the setting and story of Shadowrun Returns at least to some extent; the narrative of the built-in campaign, Dead Man's Switch, begins with noir stylings and gets into some kinda-hokey sci-fi stuff later on. I actually expect the game's community to write better stories (or adapt better stories) as time goes on. As to whether that's worth your $20, that's up to you. The game was fun for me, and worth that price, but has a lot of problems. I don't expect it to have much staying power beyond its extremely loyal community. The mechanics are fairly shallow, and the way the game is coded is fairly limiting, though the editor is robust.
Alright, thanks! I loved Fallout 1 & 2 and the X-Com games. I'm just not familiar at all with the Shadowrun setting, besides what I've seen from TB and Steam. Going to get it and try it out though.
|
I just completed the Dead Man's Switch campaign included with the game. I enjoyed it. The writing and music are top-notch for this game. The gameplay was enjoyable, but it could be tweaked in a number of ways to really take it to the next level.
I hope the community makes some decent campaigns to play. I also hope a more robust polished sequel is released in the next 3 to 4 years; The Shadowrun license and these developers have the potential to create a truly special game the likes of Baldurs Gate if given enough time.
Considering the price of the game, I'd recommend everyone buy it to try it out. $20 well spent.
|
Been playing this game lately, and I love the set and setting (reminds me of Android: Netrunner art), but story seems short and linear. Also, I hate that I can't save when I want.
|
On July 29 2013 03:19 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 22:13 Talin wrote:
There's also no reasonable analogy between save game and cheating. Sure there is, which is why quick-save/load isn't allowed in a lot of games: Because it's abuseable. Saves are supposed to help people who want to quit playing to do something else, and not be punished for it. It's not supposed to let you optimize everything that happens in the game. Using something in a way it wasn't intended to get an advantage is IMO cheating. "There's no such thing as an advantage in a single player game", yeah, but then there's really no such thing as a cheat in a single player game either. There's no difference between between scumming your save before any semi-relevant decision in an RPG, and quick-saving before every room in an FPS: it cheapens the experience by removing any form of consequence or punishment, any sense of risk or tension, which is why games like Prince of Persia 360 are so ridiculously boring: who cares that you die if you respawn in the exact same situation you were in when you died? Why even have a die mechanic in the first place?
It should still be up to the player whether they want to save/load or not and how much. It might cheapen the experience for some players, but others (including myself) actually get a lot of enjoyment out of doing things perfectly. The save/load feature is actually the primary reason why games are better than real life, its because you can redo things the way you want; you get second, third, nth chances. Who would play any first person shooter if when they died their game would delete itself from your hard drive?
I feel like developers have adopted this strange 'forcing' mentality where they believe that players must only play the game in a way that they deem challenging, rather than simply providing users options and recommendations on how they would play the game, but then leaving it open for others to decide for themselves. Maybe include a hardcore mode with limited saves?
The only real counterargument is that it takes time away from other development goals; but when all you're talking about is a save system which exists in some form anyway I can't imagine it being very time consuming at all. Since game developers ostensibly design games *for people* to enjoy and not for themselves, I would think doing the minimum to allow the most freedom to a wide fanbase would be an important principle of game design
edit: By the way I finished this game a while ago, it was short and enjoyable mostly due to the story but also the combat was decent, and this is coming from a Fallout 1 and 2 fan. My only complaint is that I put it on the hardest difficulty and still found it was fairly easy...I'm pretty sure I finished one mission meant for an entire squad with one person (my main character with an assault rifle) - I think it was the one with the basilisks or something. I don't think I healed myself either. It would probably have been a lot harder if I chose to be an engineer though.
The other is that its underwhelming because its short and kind of linear. Basically its just a fun ride, and worth a solid 75% grade.
|
I agree with you radscorpion9. In RPGs I love to speak to everyone and check everything out, but I get stressed that something will come up so I can't save, and I just hurry through the game.
|
The developers have themselves stated that the save game restrictions in this game are there for technical reasons. They specifically cited incompatibilities between the AI engine and the save system where the AI engine would for some reason be unable to store its state properly. The broken save system in this game is not a design choice, it is simply a big black mark against the game.
This game is not representative of a proper RPG. There is so much railroading and so little depth to the (out-of-combat) interactions that it plays and feels more like an adventure game. If you like adventure games, this game has all the makings of a good one. It has well-conceived and well-executed dialogue and story, a very interesting atmosphere, and reasonable characters. The story is not an overarching one, like in most RPGs, it is a moment-to-moment affair in which the player can get caught up.
There are no interesting choices to be made; the choices present in the game are frivolous - and thus it does not resemble an RPG and takes on the feeling and flavor of an adventure game. This seems a strange design decision since the IP is from a so-open-ended-the-bottom-dropped-out pen and paper game, but there's no accounting for taste.
The combat system is well-executed (imo, others disagree), but the encounter design is quite lacking in many places. Thus, combat feels tacked on in many places and seems more a distraction from the adventure-game-type exploration of the story than as a core element of the game.
If you are expecting an Infinity-engine-type RPG, look elsewhere. If you want an interesting adventure game with some combat mechanics added onto it, this might be intriguing to you.
If you are on the fence, I suggest watching a few videos of a Let's Play series. There aren't any big spoilers if you just watch a few as the story is a moment-to-moment piece.
|
Yeah, a real RPG with this set and setting would be fucking epic!
|
On November 03 2013 06:07 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
The developers have themselves stated that the save game restrictions in this game are there for technical reasons. They specifically cited incompatibilities between the AI engine and the save system where the AI engine would for some reason be unable to store its state properly. The broken save system in this game is not a design choice, it is simply a big black mark against the game.
This game is not representative of a proper RPG. There is so much railroading and so little depth to the (out-of-combat) interactions that it plays and feels more like an adventure game. If you like adventure games, this game has all the makings of a good one. It has well-conceived and well-executed dialogue and story, a very interesting atmosphere, and reasonable characters. The story is not an overarching one, like in most RPGs, it is a moment-to-moment affair in which the player can get caught up.
There are no interesting choices to be made; the choices present in the game are frivolous - and thus it does not resemble an RPG and takes on the feeling and flavor of an adventure game. This seems a strange design decision since the IP is from a so-open-ended-the-bottom-dropped-out pen and paper game, but there's no accounting for taste.
The combat system is well-executed (imo, others disagree), but the encounter design is quite lacking in many places. Thus, combat feels tacked on in many places and seems more a distraction from the adventure-game-type exploration of the story than as a core element of the game.
If you are expecting an Infinity-engine-type RPG, look elsewhere. If you want an interesting adventure game with some combat mechanics added onto it, this might be intriguing to you.
If you are on the fence, I suggest watching a few videos of a Let's Play series. There aren't any big spoilers if you just watch a few as the story is a moment-to-moment piece.
Nah, I don't agree with you. This game has all the elements of a RPG. It is only more linear than your average RPG.
I liked it more than games like Skyrim and played it much more. The conversation quality is top notch, anyone that enjoys a good story and conversations/descriptions in their RPG needs to play this game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
