|
On November 03 2013 09:32 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The problem with it is the lack of choice. There is only 1 way for the story to unfold and the actual RPG elements are crap. The dialog choices amount to near nothing and the speech feats you can buy don't even have an effect on the story development. Its all, talk to npc - check all dialog options - go the next npc - repeat. There is no real Roleplaying in it, there is no choice and consequence. Its an action game.
|
On November 03 2013 09:32 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes, if you made a list of elements the game has and then a similar list of elements that RPGs often have, there would be shared items on both list. That is nothing but a semantic argument, though. You offered nothing of substance to counter any of the claims I made. You could just as easily (using the same sketchy semantic argument) argue that SR is a sports game or a racing game.
Shadowrun Returns does not feel or play like an RPG at all. One of the most defining characteristics of RPGs is player agency through choice. Affect what others in the world think of you. Affect the outcome of conflicts and controversies. Affect the attitude or "alignment" of the main character. In SR, there isn't even a reason to replay the game once you beat it unless you want to experiment with the classes in the highly mediocre tactical combat offered by the campaign. Your character is the same character. Other characters in the game view you the same way. You solve the same problems by reaching essentially identical outcomes. There is no meaningful player agency in this game whatsoever.
Another defining characteristic of RPGs is world interaction - discovery and exploration of characters, places, relics, monuments etc. This is just completely absent from SR. SR is an on-rails adventure game with well-designed but badly-utilized tactical combat. You move from A to B to C to D with no meaningful or interesting deviation.
You like Shadowrun Returns? That's fine. You think it's a good game? I won't disagree. You like it better than Skyrim? Well I like orange juice better than chess, but that seems like a complete non-sequitur. Skyrim and SR are not comparable in any reasonable way.
Is SR an RPG? If it's trying to be, it fails dramatically at that. But it is a very good adventure game akin to the classic point and click ones imo.
|
On November 03 2013 09:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 09:32 -Archangel- wrote: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. The problem with it is the lack of choice. There is only 1 way for the story to unfold and the actual RPG elements are crap. The dialog choices amount to near nothing and the speech feats you can buy don't even have an effect on the story development. Its all, talk to npc - check all dialog options - go the next npc - repeat. There is no real Roleplaying in it, there is no choice and consequence. Its an action game. many rpg games are like that including games like baldurs gate 1 or icewind dale games. Many levels can be done in more then one way depending on your chosen character abilities. Your character does not change with the story, true, but neither does in most games. Only mass effect and witcher 2 had some real changes out of recent games.
|
On November 03 2013 10:31 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 09:58 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2013 09:32 -Archangel- wrote: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. The problem with it is the lack of choice. There is only 1 way for the story to unfold and the actual RPG elements are crap. The dialog choices amount to near nothing and the speech feats you can buy don't even have an effect on the story development. Its all, talk to npc - check all dialog options - go the next npc - repeat. There is no real Roleplaying in it, there is no choice and consequence. Its an action game. many rpg games are like that including games like baldurs gate 1 or icewind dale games. Many levels can be done in more then one way depending on your chosen character abilities. Your character does not change with the story, true, but neither does in most games. Only mass effect and witcher 2 had some real changes out of recent games.
I played Baldur's Gate 1. You choices had more effects then they do in Shadowrun, Your alignment changed depending on your actions and people would react differently to you based on that. Thats already more then Shadowrun does.
Its not a bad game and I had fun while playing it but I wouldn't call it a good roleplay game.
|
On November 03 2013 10:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:31 -Archangel- wrote:On November 03 2013 09:58 Gorsameth wrote:On November 03 2013 09:32 -Archangel- wrote: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. The problem with it is the lack of choice. There is only 1 way for the story to unfold and the actual RPG elements are crap. The dialog choices amount to near nothing and the speech feats you can buy don't even have an effect on the story development. Its all, talk to npc - check all dialog options - go the next npc - repeat. There is no real Roleplaying in it, there is no choice and consequence. Its an action game. many rpg games are like that including games like baldurs gate 1 or icewind dale games. Many levels can be done in more then one way depending on your chosen character abilities. Your character does not change with the story, true, but neither does in most games. Only mass effect and witcher 2 had some real changes out of recent games. I played Baldur's Gate 1. You choices had more effects then they do in Shadowrun, Your alignment changed depending on your actions and people would react differently to you based on that. Thats already more then Shadowrun does. Its not a bad game and I had fun while playing it but I wouldn't call it a good roleplay game.
Alignment only affected guards and commoners, not the story. Story always happened and ended the same no matter what you did during the game. Only difference was that you could make it so you had one less guy to fight during last battle, nothing else.
|
On November 03 2013 10:31 -Archangel- wrote:
many rpg games are like that including games like baldurs gate 1 or icewind dale games. Many levels can be done in more then one way depending on your chosen character abilities. Your character does not change with the story, true, but neither does in most games. Only mass effect and witcher 2 had some real changes out of recent games.
Comparing the new Shadowrun, as it was released, to Baldur's gate is.........questionable to say the least. BG is a CRPG, Shadowrun is a tech-demo  .
|
Does anyone know if there's any user-made content worth playing atm for this game?
|
I'm wondering the same thing!
|
On November 03 2013 21:30 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2013 10:31 -Archangel- wrote:
many rpg games are like that including games like baldurs gate 1 or icewind dale games. Many levels can be done in more then one way depending on your chosen character abilities. Your character does not change with the story, true, but neither does in most games. Only mass effect and witcher 2 had some real changes out of recent games.
Comparing the new Shadowrun, as it was released, to Baldur's gate is.........questionable to say the least. BG is a CRPG, Shadowrun is a tech-demo .
I did because someone mentioned Infinity games and someone else said this game offers no options. So I needed to compare it with something that is very well respected. Overall BG1 is a better game, but as far criticism towards SR:R story, same can be said about BG1 story.
Also people forget SR:R is a indie game that costs 20$. It is not meant to be of same size, quality and options as 60$ AAA games. And games like BG1 were AAA of its time.
|
Non sequitur again.
Being an indie game does not make an adventure game with tactical combat addon into an RPG.
I've been trying to avoid hyperbole, but SR is like clicking the "Next" button over and over until you get to the "Finish" button - but with some combat sprinkled in between clicks. The level of railroading and linearity is extreme. The world just does not react to anything the character does - doubly noticeable on the second playthrough when nothing you do differently changes the state of anything! It's been a long time since I've played BG1, but comparing this game to Icewind Dale is either deluded or extremely dishonest.
I'm trying to properly inform people who might buy the game about what they're getting into, but I feel you're setting up a defensive posture motivated by your opinion of the game because I refuse to believe that you truly think this game is not an on-rails adventure game as you seem like a pretty reasonable person. SR isn't a bad game. It's got some spots that could be cleaner (encounter design in particular). But calling it an RPG and comparing to Icewind Dale is misrepresenting what the game is like.
|
On November 04 2013 15:58 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
Non sequitur again.
Being an indie game does not make an adventure game with tactical combat addon into an RPG.
I've been trying to avoid hyperbole, but SR is like clicking the "Next" button over and over until you get to the "Finish" button - but with some combat sprinkled in between clicks. The level of railroading and linearity is extreme. The world just does not react to anything the character does - doubly noticeable on the second playthrough when nothing you do differently changes the state of anything! It's been a long time since I've played BG1, but comparing this game to Icewind Dale is either deluded or extremely dishonest.
I'm trying to properly inform people who might buy the game about what they're getting into, but I feel you're setting up a defensive posture motivated by your opinion of the game because I refuse to believe that you truly think this game is not an on-rails adventure game as you seem like a pretty reasonable person. SR isn't a bad game. It's got some spots that could be cleaner (encounter design in particular). But calling it an RPG and comparing to Icewind Dale is misrepresenting what the game is like.
Your description of what you believe an RPG to be would exclude almost every single JRPG in existence from Final Fantasy series to Suidoken to Tales of series. Choice in a programmed game is an illusion - all games are railroads. What separates a RPG from other games is the focus on progression of character (equipment, stats, skills, story development, etc.), character driven story (telling a narrative through the medium of a video game) within an arc, and that's pretty much it. What does tactical combat have to do with RPG's? RPG's have used many different systems of combat and there isn't 'one' to identify with RPG's.
Tactics used what I would call a more tactical system via grid and movement restricted platform. Then there's the active combat of Tales series of games, and of course turn-based, then there's first person or third person combat like Morrowind and the Elder Scrolls series. That's not even delving into a bunch of other different RPG's.
The point I am making is that your description of what a RPG is, is wholly defunct. As for SR...I've never played it, but what you're describing certainly wouldn't declassify it from a RPG (story on rails...hello JRPG!).
|
On November 04 2013 17:30 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2013 15:58 DefMatrixUltra wrote:
Non sequitur again.
Being an indie game does not make an adventure game with tactical combat addon into an RPG.
I've been trying to avoid hyperbole, but SR is like clicking the "Next" button over and over until you get to the "Finish" button - but with some combat sprinkled in between clicks. The level of railroading and linearity is extreme. The world just does not react to anything the character does - doubly noticeable on the second playthrough when nothing you do differently changes the state of anything! It's been a long time since I've played BG1, but comparing this game to Icewind Dale is either deluded or extremely dishonest.
I'm trying to properly inform people who might buy the game about what they're getting into, but I feel you're setting up a defensive posture motivated by your opinion of the game because I refuse to believe that you truly think this game is not an on-rails adventure game as you seem like a pretty reasonable person. SR isn't a bad game. It's got some spots that could be cleaner (encounter design in particular). But calling it an RPG and comparing to Icewind Dale is misrepresenting what the game is like. Your description of what you believe an RPG to be would exclude almost every single JRPG in existence from Final Fantasy series to Suidoken to Tales of series. What separates a RPG from other games is the focus on progression of character (equipment, stats, skills, story development, etc.), character driven story (telling a narrative through the medium of a video game) within an arc, and that's pretty much it. [1] Choice in a programmed game is an illusion - all games are railroads. [2] What does tactical combat have to do with RPG's? RPG's have used many different systems of combat and there isn't 'one' to identify with RPG's. [3] The point I am making is that your description of what a RPG is, is wholly defunct. As for SR...I've never played it, but what you're describing certainly wouldn't declassify it from a RPG (story on rails...hello JRPG!).
You're right that I've been lax in using precise terminology here, but there is some context you're missing from the discussion I think. SR is being sold and perceived as "Baldur's Gate except with Shadowrun rules and vibe". Notice that games like BGII, Final Fantasy, and Morrowind all have common elements, but they don't play or feel the same as each other. Almost everyone in an RPG-based community would call Final Fantasy a JRPG. BGII would be called an isometric CRPG (to distinguish it mainly from "blob-based" RPGs such as Wizardry). Morrowind would generally be called a "Western" RPG or perhaps even WRPG.
All the points I was talking about earlier apply to CRPGs. They get their attitude and feel from the way that player agency is handled. The world is presented as a complex interlocking series of puzzles. The way the player solves these puzzles (do I befriend this particular NPC or rob them blind or have nothing to do with them?) affects the world in the sense that the world reacts differently to your character/party/faction/whatever than they would have if you did B instead of A. It's certainly no illusion that you can do many different playthroughs of CRPGs and have paths through them that are different enough to be interesting.
SR is not like this at all and thus should not be compared to CRPGs and should not be understood to be a CRPG. That's the only real message I'm trying to get out there. SR is more like an adventure game with RPG elements than it is any of the codified XRPG types.
[1] Just to demonstrate the issue with itemized lists in order to "qualify" for being something: what kind of RPG would Dreamfall be? It meets all the requirements you've listed, but it's quite clearly an adventure game. It's better to classify games by their overall feel than by checkboxing different items. Dreamfall is an adventure game with slight RPG elements.
[2] I know you know that this is hyperbole in the extreme, but I also wanted to point out that the sentiment is bizarre at best. Games like Dwarf Fortress demonstrate that complexity of choice and outcome imitate "real" choices enough for the difference to be questionable.
[3] I dunno, I didn't talk in depth about tactical combat or conflate CRPGs and tactical combat at all. Read over what I wrote once more.
|
I don't have the time to make a fancy new OP for this game, but after 2 hours in I gotta say I am hooked. Deeply engaging story with tons of replay value is what really drew me in, and I should mention the graphics are pretty well-done too with a very low system requirement (I'm running the game in 1680 x 1050 windowed on a laptop with integrated graphics at a constant ~40 fps, gotta love the ability to alt-tab windowed games at work).
Worth checking out, I'm running an elf ranged/mage setup with a focus on pistols and high charisma for magic, so far having a good time:D
Edit: also should mention that if u have a jailbroken/rooted mobile device, don't bother trying to get the game for free - you can install it, but there is a one-time Apple ID / Playstore ID activation. I feel a bit bummed since I paid for the steam version, and it would have been better actually to have the game on the go instead.
|
Skimming just the last few posts, I see a lot of negativity. But I don't care about that. I got hooked on the Seattle campaign and beat it in two days. It was fucking awesome. I honestly felt like I'd just stepped into a William Gibson novel. From reviews, I expected a tactical combat game with very shallow RPG elements, but what I got was something different.
Anyone play old CRPGS like Icewind Dale? Anyone remember the consequences of having an assortment of speech skills? They amounted to a quicker resolution to problems during conversations. That's it. The Temple of Elemental Evil is exactly the same way.
I went into this game expecting a linear cyberpunk CRPG, and that's exactly what I got. Why everyone is complaining is beyond me. What kind of wild expectations did people have that they were disappointed with this incredible game?
I loved the story + Show Spoiler + (the space-insects seemed a bit off the deep end but whatever)
|
Its a good game , kind of short but user made campaigns make for its short duration and some are quite good and during the summer sale the pricepoint was a steal.
I got what I expected too , the cyberpunk atmosphere is there and the game delivers , buy it if you like tactical RPGs , as jeeeeohn says its a lot like temple of elemental evil.
|
This game is awesome. Had one of the more interesting stories I've played in the last few years with Fallout 2 type gameplay. One of my favorite indie games of late.
|
So, why are you not playing Dragonfall now? Go, go, it is even better than Seattle.
As for why people complained, most people want open sandbox RPG. This one focused more on story and atmosphere and as a result it was more linear (well the dev team is small). I didn't mind it, the game was cheap even at original price and I finished it 5 times, played on hardest difficulty and tried 5 different characters and tried different responses each time (and I still didn't get to try all combinations).
|
On July 18 2014 02:15 jeeeeohn wrote:Skimming just the last few posts, I see a lot of negativity. But I don't care about that. I got hooked on the Seattle campaign and beat it in two days. It was fucking awesome. I honestly felt like I'd just stepped into a William Gibson novel. From reviews, I expected a tactical combat game with very shallow RPG elements, but what I got was something different. Anyone play old CRPGS like Icewind Dale? Anyone remember the consequences of having an assortment of speech skills? They amounted to a quicker resolution to problems during conversations. That's it. The Temple of Elemental Evil is exactly the same way. I went into this game expecting a linear cyberpunk CRPG, and that's exactly what I got. Why everyone is complaining is beyond me. What kind of wild expectations did people have that they were disappointed with this incredible game? I loved the story + Show Spoiler + (the space-insects seemed a bit off the deep end but whatever) , I loved the tactical gameplay, I loved all the characters that actually had personalities. I loved the matrix sequences and how they interlock with the real world sequences. I was not disappointed one bit.
Ditto.
Plus it's cyberpunk, it's one of the least represented settings unfortunately and it's also my favorite, Q_Q.
Not to mention that after cdprojekt abandoned cyberpunk 2077, who knows when we will get a AAA title in this genre.
|
On July 18 2014 18:06 Steveling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 02:15 jeeeeohn wrote:Skimming just the last few posts, I see a lot of negativity. But I don't care about that. I got hooked on the Seattle campaign and beat it in two days. It was fucking awesome. I honestly felt like I'd just stepped into a William Gibson novel. From reviews, I expected a tactical combat game with very shallow RPG elements, but what I got was something different. Anyone play old CRPGS like Icewind Dale? Anyone remember the consequences of having an assortment of speech skills? They amounted to a quicker resolution to problems during conversations. That's it. The Temple of Elemental Evil is exactly the same way. I went into this game expecting a linear cyberpunk CRPG, and that's exactly what I got. Why everyone is complaining is beyond me. What kind of wild expectations did people have that they were disappointed with this incredible game? I loved the story + Show Spoiler + (the space-insects seemed a bit off the deep end but whatever) , I loved the tactical gameplay, I loved all the characters that actually had personalities. I loved the matrix sequences and how they interlock with the real world sequences. I was not disappointed one bit. Ditto. Plus it's cyberpunk, it's one of the least represented settings unfortunately and it's also my favorite, Q_Q. Not to mention that after cdprojekt abandoned cyberpunk 2077, who knows when we will get a AAA title in this genre.
Wut? Source?
|
Umm, not abandoned per se but they put in on hiatus.
Don't remember the source though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
