Seems there's a new shadowrun game being made by a bunch of the origninal creators:
Jordan Weisman, the creator of Shadowrun, is back and Shadowrun Returns (for Apple & Android tablets and PCs) is the game that Shadowrun fans have been waiting for a long time. A graphically rich 2D turn-based single player game with deep story interaction, meaningful character development, and highly-contextual tactical combat, Shadowrun Returns is not only going to make some old geeks (like us) very happy but it will introduce new players to a dynamic gaming universe that is beloved around the world.
As well as:
Michael A. Stackpole Mike Mulvihill Tom Dowd Malik Toms Mel Odom Jason Hardy Stephen Kenson
Created almost 25 years ago, Shadowrun remains one of the most original and cherished role-playing settings. The game world’s origin story mashes-up the dystopian Cyberpunk future of a Blade Runner with the high fantasy creatures and races of a Lords of the Rings in an organic way that produces iconic characters, environments, and situations.
So check out the kickstarter page, there's more info there, and update videos and such.
On April 09 2012 05:38 Bigtony wrote: hrm...15$ for the download is almost worth it by itself. Still a little weird that kickstarter getting so populary for this type of thing.
It's not. I've personally backed 4 projects so far, mostly revivals of old-school genres. No surprising at all, players of these genres probably all have stable incomes now. Also, no one else is making them.
I love everything about it, but the whole "PC and tablets" thing makes it more or less unbackable for me. There's no way they can have the depth in the game I would expect when it runs on frickin telephones.
On April 09 2012 09:00 Tobberoth wrote: I love everything about it, but the whole "PC and tablets" thing makes it more or less unbackable for me. There's no way they can have the depth in the game I would expect when it runs on frickin telephones.
have you ever played shining force 1/2? genesis level tech can have tons of depthy
Sci-Fi Street Samurai Elves and Gnomes? Count me in. Had me at that but then I see Stackpole on the list and I'll have to get in on this because quite frankly I am all for cool games like this.
Didn't played the first Shadowrun Game, is it more like an Single or Multiplayer game? But anyways it seems like its worth his money, i like this style.
shadowrun on SNES was amazing, I also played the RPG (table top) with my friends older brother when I was in about 5th/6th grade. It was so awesome. I'll definitely back this!
One of the recurring themes in the stories we hear is how the music of the Sega and SNES Shadowrun games stays with you after all this time. Whenever we read your comments and whenever the team talks about it, the conversation always comes back to, “Wouldn’t it be cool if we could get the guys who wrote the original music?”
So we did.
Today, we’re incredibly excited to announce that Marshall Parker, who wrote the music for the Super Nintendo game and Sam Powell, who wrote the music for the Sega Genesis game, have agreed to COLLABORATE on the music for Shadowrun Returns.
Nice.
Doc wagon card concept:
Also, good news for the shirts:
Reading through the comments about the Backer T-shirts, we see lots of fans for all three designs, so we’ve decided NOT to survey backers about which shirt back you want most. INSTEAD, backers at the $60.00 level and above get to choose which shirt they want!
Just threw in my 15$ contribution, i still remember the Sega Genesis version being my favorite game of my childhood; the first game i played with an open world, and the first with a compelling and adult story. And while i tried to get people to play the pen and paper version it never beat out d&d or paranoia (both good but not shadowrun ). So this project is like a direct line into my nostalgia center of my brain. plus this post gets an excuse to bump this thread up. 4 days left guys, this game has reliable and awesome people making it and it deserves your support.
Just wanted to bump this real quick. Only a few hours left on the kick starter, and well the tiers are pretty fleshed out in regard to rewards ontop of just the game.
Well. This sucks. Got all my hope up for nothing. Shadowrun the FPS was a FANTASTIC multiplayer game and was one of the most competitive FPS's ever made on the 360. The possibilities of what you could do were limitless, it was insane. Since it came out, every fan's been hoping for a sequel. Sucks that this is the one for the fans of the FPS ;\
The map that they shown are made in the map editor. So People can make their own scenarios and adventures, sick!
I'm already getting hyped for this game
That looks really awesome actually, I'm getting hyped myself all of a sudden. I really like the graphics style and it seems like they are trying to make a decently deep game.
The map that they shown are made in the map editor. So People can make their own scenarios and adventures, sick!
I'm already getting hyped for this game
That looks really awesome actually, I'm getting hyped myself all of a sudden. I really like the graphics style and it seems like they are trying to make a decently deep game.
Couldn't agree more. It's awsome that the guy behind it is one of the creators of the original Shadowrun
I've been burning through RPGs over the past month, looking for something to capture my attention, and this might be it. Preordered on Steam already. A quick glance at their forums indicates to me that there are at least a few people working on modules too, so hopefully there's more to do at launch after finishing the official module.
On July 20 2013 05:11 Yacobs wrote: Looks pretty good and I'm a backer but I suspect the game is going to be dreadfully short.
on the forums it is stated that the playtime is around 10-12 hours for the campaign. But note that an editor comes with the game allowing for great community content. Personally, I don't know if it will be worth spending money on the game. I will check twitch tonight and look at some actual gameplay footage.
This really looks like the ultimate CRPG+Tabletop hybrid. It plays just like a tabletop game while having the potential to deliver a similar gameplay experience to a CRPG like Baldur's Gate. Looking forward to this. Can't wait to see what kind of awesome stories people will cook up with the editor.
I am so very tempted to get this, art style looks great, and i love turned based RPG's, the original X-com is one of my favorite games of all time, along with Bulder's Gate. There are a few reviews floating around, and they seems generally positive. And the metacritic reviews are good as well. Might just have to get this one. Though i will wait to see what some TL'ers have to say, as i trust TL more than other websites haha.
On July 26 2013 03:20 rebuffering wrote: I am so very tempted to get this, art style looks great, and i love turned based RPG's, the original X-com is one of my favorite games of all time, along with Bulder's Gate. There are a few reviews floating around, and they seems generally positive. And the metacritic reviews are good as well. Might just have to get this one. Though i will wait to see what some TL'ers have to say, as i trust TL more than other websites haha.
Same here. In the mood for a good story driven tactical rpg but I'd rather wait to see some TL opinions first lol.
If the world creation and story-telling elements are truly open in the workshop creator, I can see myself really enjoying that process. Right now I'm tampering with a setting of Dan Simmon's Hyperion for a Shadowrun TTRPG and that would transfer just perfectly to here.
If anyone has used the campaign maker, please please let me know what your experience has been re: its limitations and freedoms with world creation and plot/story-telling management.
Have played a couple hours: - Immersion is really nice, I like the graphics and dialogues so far. - Combat is OK, I would advice to play on the hardest difficultly setting though because even then it's not particularly hard so I would imagine Normal mode is pretty boring. Maybe the tactical side of things becomes more relevant when you have more party members and enemies but I doubt it's gonna reach heights. - A few cringe worthy issue: no save game, inventory and loot system is non existent...
Gameplay is actually pretty fun, makes you want to get in fights rather than encounters feeling like a nuisance or filler between story parts (which I didn't particularly get to care about to be honest). Feels pretty polished.
Pros: -Really interesting and engrossing world -Great art -Isometric -Good soundtrack -Legit writing
Cons: -Constrained areas -Constrained interface -Arcane cover rules and general lack of information transparency/accessibility -Some of the cover and LOS blocks aren't really apparent on-screen, and often enough characters can shoot through what look like solid objects on the map. -Sometimes the game keeps you in turn-based combat mode during exploration, due to the area still having enemies that can ambush you (sometimes not even). Results in a lot of needlessly tiresome turn-taking during routine exploration. Would prefer a more seamless combat/exploration experience like in Infinity Engine games.
-One of my biggest gripes is that I have to read the text via right side of the screen. Very close to the right side. -Old school formula/style. Yes it stays true to its roots but not everything needs to be true old school. Sadly some elements that are annoying exist in the game. -Old school style of RPG is actually a nice change from modern RPG (reminds me of DnD/fallout 2) -Pretty good writing and story. -Some mechanics in the game is iffy. Hide behind a box and you lose LOS. Hide behing a pillar and you still get aimed at (and vice versa). -Solid game imho. Probably write more about it later.
Just finished the campaign for Shadowrun Returns on Very Hard – took about 10 hours or so. Had to restart levels a few times; my most prominent criticism of the game is its reliance on checkpoint-based saves. It's pretty fucking bullshit to have a tactical RPG that penalizes experimentation this harshly. The writing is decent, and the mechanics are solid; it was enjoyable despite some readily apparent bugs and tons of typos.
I ran with almost pure quickness/rifles, some charisma for conversations, and some body to survive. Just looking at the skill trees after I'd already invested a ton of karma, and talking to a friend, pretty sure pistols are overpowered right now. Typically I did missions with my character on point doing 95% of the killing, a second quickness/guns guy, and a shaman for haste/healing/support.
Hopefully Harebrained is fast with patches and hopefully people come out with some new modules soon. I'm looking forward to the SNES campaign port in particular.
Beat the game. It is not a great game by any means (still better then the Xbox FPS). SNES and Sega versions are better. I like the Shadowrun universe, so I dont mind paying $20. Not the end of the world. Hopefully, I learn how to use the editor and make an actual good campaign.
On July 26 2013 14:03 carraway wrote: Just finished the campaign for Shadowrun Returns on Very Hard – took about 10 hours or so. Had to restart levels a few times; my most prominent criticism of the game is its reliance on checkpoint-based saves. It's pretty fucking bullshit to have a tactical RPG that penalizes experimentation this harshly. The writing is decent, and the mechanics are solid; it was enjoyable despite some readily apparent bugs and tons of typos.
I ran with almost pure quickness/rifles, some charisma for conversations, and some body to survive. Just looking at the skill trees after I'd already invested a ton of karma, and talking to a friend, pretty sure pistols are overpowered right now. Typically I did missions with my character on point doing 95% of the killing, a second quickness/guns guy, and a shaman for haste/healing/support.
Hopefully Harebrained is fast with patches and hopefully people come out with some new modules soon. I'm looking forward to the SNES campaign port in particular.
Karma spent: 198
10 hours for an RPG, seems really short... Hell, it took me longer to beat Antichamber (awesome game btw).
I really love the mechanics and art of the game. Unfortunately the game is very short, there is very little exploration, very little meaningful choice (dialogue options have mostly same effect) and no loot. Basically it's a modernized old school rpg without a lot of the things that made those games so great (i. e. Baldurs Gate). The framework has really awesome potential but as of right now it definitly feels very limited. They made this game in a year (more or less since their kickstarter campaign ended), which I believe is a shame. I wish they would have given themselves more time and made a really huge world, in the vein of BG, or at least something similiar to fallout (1 or 2) even if it had meant charging 50$.
- 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!
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.
Better to have no voice acting than terrible voice acting (even games with a hefty budget get these sometimes).
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.
I'll just repost this short "review" from 6 hours of play that I posted on reddit earlier:
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.
For people who are complaining about lack of exploration and the narrowness of the game; please consider the perspective that the story comes first, and the story is framed in a specific way where time is delicately handled. It's not a sandbox RPG like we are used to, and in many ways it is definately closer to a visual novel than the RPG's we are used to, and more relevantly tabletop rpg's that it attempts to emulate (I haven't played tabletop rpg's so I can't comment with 100% certainty).
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:
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.
I can't remember the last time a game grabbed me right off the bat to the degree this one just did. Then again, maybe that's just because I'm head over heels in love with cyberpunk.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
And who are you to deceide how people like to play single player RPGs?
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
and there's fight 1 that's not too hard, some exploration, then fight 2 that's a bit harder, some more exploration and talks and at some point, + Show Spoiler +
a door and two fucking machine guns behind it that shoot me right away
and all of a sudden, my character is fucking dead and I have to start all over again, from scratch, including spending my karma points, how is that not the dumbest thing ever?
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
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 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 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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 .
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.
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 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?
(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.
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?
(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 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?
(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 16:48 -Archangel- wrote: 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).
I'm about 6 hours into Dragonfall right now, and yes, it's amazing. I especially love the fact that it feels like I'm getting to know the characters over time. Glory especially is a really interesting, well-written character. And all the runs I've been on so far have been superbly designed. + Show Spoiler +
(Especially the one with the MKVI killing machine, man that was excellent)
I think the main issue many people have is that of reactivity, as in the world doesn't "react" to your decisions. I would have to disagree, however. Even though the game doesn't react to you mechanically (as in your choices don't necessarily "change" anything), it does react to you via dialogue. I.E., if you act like an asshole, people will act like an asshole right back. This is why I brought up older CRPGS like Icewind Dale, because it's effectively the exact same issue.
Scouring the Shadowrun forums, I found that Harebained Schemes has plans for an announcement. Of course, that was last month, but still.
I've never done a pre-order before, but if they announce a new campaign I'm pre-ordering it, no questions asked. Dead Man's Switch made Shadowrun Returns *one* of my favorite games ever, but Dragonfall was next-level shit, and now it's my favorite game of all time.
The next campaign can only be bigger and better. I hope it doesn't feature the astral-bugs (a Chicago expansion was a rumor, which would focus on said bugs), but even if it does I'll probably still enjoy it.
I'm playing through user-created content at the moment, and I have to say some of them aren't half-bad. A Stitch in Time is well made, if rough around the edges. Really makes use of some of the less popular etiquettes, like Street and Academic (as in, I've seen them once so far, which is one more than I saw in either of the official campaigns). It's really perfect for a Street Samurai. The creator also did some nifty changes, like allowing you to access your stash from anywhere and redistribute items to your runners. There's also stealth mechanics, but I haven't done it yet successfully.
Well I would not call the games best ever as too many mechanics are missing for that (like better inventory, stealth) and missing story elements like quests for companions from Dragonfall. Also the campaigns are too short.
On July 23 2014 01:34 -Archangel- wrote: Well I would not call the games best ever as too many mechanics are missing for that (like better inventory, stealth) and missing story elements like quests for companions from Dragonfall. Also the campaigns are too short.
Well, regardless of whether it's the best or not, it's still my favorite game of all time (for the moment). The inventory is no worse than, say, the original Mass Effect, and though stealth would be an interesting addition to the game, I just don't know how it could work. The lone "stealth" mission in Dragonfall (the Aztechnology mission), was more about finding a disguise than actually avoiding detection.
Mass Effect is not a good comparison of RPG mechanics. It had very basic mechanics (and then those basic mechanics got removed in ME2), better to compare it to full deal RPG games like Baldur's Gate that had inventory, all rogue abilities (including stealing from anyone outside combat) and complete freedom to go almost wherever.
Having permanent inventory for your guy and all companions as well ways to share loot between party members would be #1 step. Then having defeated enemies generate loot is #2 step. It does not need to be much, but some money or a health kit here or there could be good (or a cool weapon taken from a boss). #3 more missions around companions. It is cool to talk about their background but more cool if you actually got to do something about it. It hurt even more because all of them had cool backgrounds and you only got to interact with nephew of one of them in somewhat related story to their background. #4 stealth as a way to scout ahead, together with vision cones of enemies. This way they could rely less on cameras everywhere giving you vision. The missions are often too scripted, there need to be mechanics that give benefits outside of "click here" locations and stealth works well here (upcoming Wasteland 2 has the same problem) #5 bigger game with more exploration and non mission related content to provide more immersion.
It's funny, because I like SRR as much as I do in part because it lacks those very things. Managing a rogue in Icewind Dale was a fucking nightmare. And looting became a chore of picking up vendor trash.
That being said, I absolutely agree with points 1,3, and 5--bigger is always better. But as far as mechanics go, to each his own. I prefer it like this. It plays *like* a CRPG without the complicated micromanagement of bloated mechanics.
On January 27 2015 14:28 jeeeeohn wrote: I'm really, really looking forward to this.
TAKE ALL MY MONEY.
Seems you weren't alone: $706,910 pledged of $100,000 goal
Considering if I should back it or not. I kind of liked the first game but mostly only kickstart to get something made that wouldn't be otherwise...
Well, there are many reasons why you'd want to Kickstart it.
1. If you were going to get it anyway, why not get it on the cheap while contributing to its development? 2. According to the Kickstarter page, if they reach 1,000,000, they'll add an additional mini-campaign. 3. Dragonfall was awesome, and you should play it. 4. If I were independently wealthy, I'd personally fund ten games. 5. It's awesome.
So two reasons, really, but they're very, very good reasons.
I backed Shadowrun Returns and enjoyed both it and Dragonfall (I tried playing Director's Cut recently since I beat Dragonfall before and I just remembered HATE HATE HATE how Line of Sight works in this game). I still won't be backing Hong Kong due to the fact I cannot understand how a company with 2 very successful games (SRR and Dragonfall) can possibly have money troubles making a sequel using the same engine and likely a lot of the same assets.
Their counter is that they can "make a base game but want to make it better" which makes even less sense and brings up nasty memories of Double Fine and feature creep.
On January 27 2015 15:20 Silvanel wrote: Any mods You guys would recomend? I am looking for some additional stories/campaign.
the Antumbra Saga is awesome. Used the Dragonfall version. You even notice the creators learning curve. So game got better and better hehe. Got some interesting characters in it.
On January 28 2015 01:45 deth2munkies wrote: I backed Shadowrun Returns and enjoyed both it and Dragonfall (I tried playing Director's Cut recently since I beat Dragonfall before and I just remembered HATE HATE HATE how Line of Sight works in this game). I still won't be backing Hong Kong due to the fact I cannot understand how a company with 2 very successful games (SRR and Dragonfall) can possibly have money troubles making a sequel using the same engine and likely a lot of the same assets.
Their counter is that they can "make a base game but want to make it better" which makes even less sense and brings up nasty memories of Double Fine and feature creep.
It depends on how you define "success."
Were the Kickstarters successful? Undoubtedly. But are the games bestsellers post-Kickstarter? No. Critically acclaimed, sure, but not bestsellers. Have you ever checked their forums? It's basically a ghost town. Anyone who wants these games are kickstarting them, not buying them outright (unless you're me and forgot about them).
Edit: Finally playing through the Director's Cut, and the new music is awesome. Blitz's theme in particular is fantastic (and his side mission actually elicited an emotional reaction from me, namely rage, because he's incompetent and I hate him), and the battle theme that plays during "Trial Run" is great too.
Edit #2: Found it:
Really set the mood for a run gone horribly wrong and the subsequent scramble to complete it. These new missions are fantastic.
Edit #3: Haters gonna hate. I've beaten DMS twice and this is my second time through Dragonfall, and they're my favorite CRPGs ever made. And this is without knowing / caring about Shadowrun prior to their release. Something about them just sucks me right in; it's like I'm playing through a William Gibson novel, it's perfect.
Edit: Also, talking to Lucky Strike reveals that she runs with Racter (a new character from Hong Kong) and has a pretty extensive history with Hong Kong and the Yakuza. I don't think this was here before, because from what I've read on forums re: Lucky Strike is that she has one conversation with you then stops talking. Maybe they included it with the last patch.
I guess you have more interest for the game than most other people on this forum. I personally havn't started any threads about several games I like because they would be an OP only thread.
As for the new game. I'll wait and see. If it is good enough I'll pick it up a year or so after release. I like the game but can wait for the patches to polish it up before playing. Very few games now a days that I get at release, they always get better and cheaper as time passes.
yeah lucky strike didn't talk to me all that much when i played through dragonfall first time, i mean, she mentioned the yakuza and i talked a bit more about it with her, but anytime i would try to talk with her again later she just wanted to drink and smoke, mb i'm not that interesting :D
there've been two patches now, mb i should play through it again.
btw i found the berlin a really fitting place for the story, the bear with the ak47 flag is awesome :D
I pledged 35 bucks (can't beat a game, a novel, and the pen and paper beginner's box), but would have pledged 55 if the sourcebooks had been a little more enticing. Most of them can be found on Amazon for like 9 dollars used.
Also, at the end of Dragonfall: Director's Cut, you can choose to side with the villain. That's pretty badass.
Newest Kickstarter update sheds some light on Hong Kong's soundtrack. The composer has done some fantastic work on the first two campaigns (really kicked it up a notch in the Director's Cut, which is where those two tracks came from), so I'm really excited to hear new musicks.
Final weekend is here! If you guys haven't checked out the sweet new updates, I suggest you take a look! The latest one shares some concept art of the revamped / sculpted matrix sections.
Well, after seeming impossible to achieve, the 1 million dollar mark is fast approaching, and with it the promised mini-campaign that takes place post-Hong Kong.
Mini-campaign is funded, and the kickstarter has now reached 1.1 million and some change. Where you at HATERZ.
Edit: Still 15 hours left to get on board. For 15 bucks you'll get what I anticipate to become one of (if not the) best tactical RPGs of all time. If you're into those types of games, it's really a no-brainer. I know some people have a problem with HBS using Kickstarter to "co-fund" their newest game, but because of crowd funding they're realizing Hong Kong's full potential (and feeding themselves to boot).
For instance, take the matrix revamp:
Instead of Dragonfalls relatively bland matrix set, HBS is creating set pieces specific to Hong Kong's corporations, called "sculpted matrix space." In addition, they're adding new mechanics to the matrix to make it more varied than combat, combat, combat (a prototype could be Blitz's bonus mission in the director's cut, where conversations take place in the matrix).
Without kickstarter, that would not have happened. We also get new characters, new magics, etc.
Kickstarter is now finished, but those who missed out can become a second-chance backer on the website (they've already collected about 1,000 bucks from second-chance backers). All told, they broke the 1.2 million mark.
I can't wait to get my pen-and-paper beginner's box ^.^
Wonder if anyone on TL would like an online Shadowrun campaign?
Hong Kong's steam page has been created, and the game itself is slated for a late July / early August release. They're hitting feature complete at the end of May (if they already haven't, then in the next few days), and have their first trailer--which doesn't show much, unfortunately.
this was my first game I ever preordered. Don't make me break my rule again Harebrained Schemes. Also the wait for a release date after preordering killed me. Which helps me to do that never again.
On August 14 2015 01:59 FeyFey wrote: this was my first game I ever preordered. Don't make me break my rule again Harebrained Schemes. Also the wait for a release date after preordering killed me. Which helps me to do that never again.
Keys have been released in a new update. You can claim them by going to your backerkit account and following the directions specific to the platform you chose during the Kickstarter.
So, the HK soundtrack was put on Backerkit either today or yesterday. It's worth a listen, for sure, but I recommend sampling the tracks so as not to spoil them too much.
Also, if anyone wants a copy of the album signed by Jon Everist, the composer, you can follow this link:
Only two days until Hong Kong's release, so it might be an interesting interview. Maybe we'll get answers to the whole "Whistleblower debacle." For those who don't know, Whistleblower is the last track on the Hong Kong soundtrack, and it's basically every other song mashed together. Why this was done is a source of debate on the Kickstarter page at the moment. The leading theory (and mine) is that this is the final boss music and has been masked to prevent spoilers. HBS hasn't commented on it.
Edit: If I hear anything interesting I'll put it here.
Edit2: They upgraded all the animations without telling anyone, apparently. Gobbet and Is0bel know one another at the start of the game and have gone on runs before. Took a long break to hang with roomies; burgers were hella undercooked so hopefully there's such a thing as a medium-rare / rare burger. Sooo...I missed the interview, basically. Sorry! >.>;;
I feel yall's pain, have to go knock out this work shift before I can start playing. ^.^
Also, new trailer is out. Rock Paper Shotgun has a pretty lukewarm review, but that doesn't surprise me since they've been lukewarm throughout the series. The digital wallpaper has been distributed through backerkit and it's pretty sick, check it out!
RIP Chi Focus, it got bumped to 5 Qi Casting from 3
Just finished the first 5 mins (the docks thing) -- first thing I noticed is that the sound effects seem to have been toned down? I remember the guns sounding way louder and rawer in the first two.
Looks like they've put a ton of work into adding stuff to the engine. I'm stoked to see where this goes.
I played for 1.5h yesterday. First impression are good. I spent most time slowly reading all dialogue so I didn't get far (going to talk to Chang now).
Matrix changed alot. I like it. Might get boring in the long run though. Can't wait to play more. And tell a friend that she got implemented into a game.
i liked the first two games a lot but while story and atmosphere of the games were great, i thought that the combat was way to basic and left a lot to be desired, not to mention that the difficulty of the first game was non existent.
On August 21 2015 23:33 hfglgg wrote: how is the tactical gameplay?
i liked the first two games a lot but while story and atmosphere of the games were great, i thought that the combat was way to basic and left a lot to be desired, not to mention that the difficulty of the first game was non existent.
Well combat is similar to Dragonfall but enemies seem to better use their AP on Hard.
Also you can now go into turn based yourself instead of waiting for enemy to do so and you can manage inventory of everyone in your party during the game (means freely switch items from one person to another).
There are new things to level up your people in and lots new spells and weapons and cyber. Also there is a bleeding effect now and grenade launchers.
Hm thats a problem many games have with the difficulty. As they make it so that its doable with a non combat main character, that still goes in gun blazing and ignores all the sidequest. Atleast thats how every game feels to me lately. I wonder what they think is the purpose of easy mode. But again you can help yourself. By not going for battle talents to ramp up the difficulty.
Started the game on Normal as I do with all and didn't do alot of combat, so can't say much about it. But don't expect it to be different from the first games, just improved. As long as Grenades aren't thrown over a house bumping on the ground and through a window with 100% precision I am happy with it. I so wish they make an option in X-Com 2 for grenades to behave differently.
I'm not sure we really want the AI to be much stronger. The cover mechanics heavily promote turtling, fights would get super boring if bad guys didn't YOLO run out of cover once in a while.
The main thing that annoyed me about the previous games is that it feels like I'm gimping myself if I don't roll a gunner, because none of the npc chars can reliably hit anything. So far hong kong feels the same way. Foster bro is supposed to be a rifle specialist and Eiger a special forces veteran, but Esports still ends up doing 90% of the party's damage. Hell, they made elf gunner even better because you can take cobra totem.
On August 22 2015 07:57 renlynn wrote: The main thing that annoyed me about the previous games is that it feels like I'm gimping myself if I don't roll a gunner, because none of the npc chars can reliably hit anything. So far hong kong feels the same way. Foster bro is supposed to be a rifle specialist and Eiger a special forces veteran, but Esports still ends up doing 90% of the party's damage. Hell, they made elf gunner even better because you can take cobra totem.
edit: new matrix is cool
Man, Eiger always wrecks shit for me in Dragonfall, lol.
Finally got to play Hong Kong for a substantial amount of time today, and while I really like it, I'd put it just a hair below Dragonfall--which makes sense because DF is like top 3 all time for me. That being said, I do remember feeling some hesitance when I first started playing Dragonfall, so I think it's the same situation. I'll probably end up loving Hong Kong just as much when I get further into it. I will say that I prefer Paul Amsel to "Auntie."
multiple choice conversations have been done to death in gaming, but having to pick the right answer for two at the same time is genius
hong kong feels way less combat heavy than dragonfall. so far I've done 4 missions. 2 of them had no fighting at all, third only had one fight at the end. fourth had 3 fairly small pulls, which is still far better than the agony of the dragonfall corporate runs. Which could be good, because I'll be able to replay as a non min-maxed character without getting angry at Eiger's miss chance. Could also get boring tho.
i really loved Dragonfall and I'm enjoying Hong Kong so far. I've heard mixed stuff about Returns but I'm thinking about playing it after I'm through this one. Is it worth it?
Encountered a few bugs as well, but no surprise there. And not only Eiger was crazy strong in Dragonfall, Glory was cool too. Which is why I decided to go Glory like this time around and I really hope I didn't put myself into trouble seeing how the story progresses so far.
Has anyone tried Dragonfall on android (i'm using an xperia Z2 so, although it's a big screen for a phone, it might still be awkward)? I'm torn between picking up that to play now, or Hong Kong, which I wont be able to play for a bit.
finished first playthrough. Very, very similar to dragonfall. I'd rate dragonfall's missions and story slightly higher, but hong kong had slightly better characters.
returns is the first entry for the series. I'd say dragonfall and hong kong are solid improvements over the first in very minor aspects. I could see an argument for it purely being for the atmosphere and story, but I think the only redeeming quality of returns is the frequent combat.
<EchOne> pretty good <EchOne> they improved the combat balance and the decking. the music was strong, and there were moments of great art direction. the cast and the writing varied. <EchOne> best characters for me were racter and gaichu. writing had some problems with... slamming the same content way too hard and repeating the same stuff. <EchOne> also for me it lacked the mystery and moral ambiguity of dragonfall. <WreakHavoc> how hong kong is it <EchOne> in dragonfall at the end I was like, "did I do the right thing?" but at the end of hong kong I was just like... + Show Spoiler +
well I killed a demon-god. great.
<EchOne> how hong kong? <WreakHavoc> ah~ <WreakHavoc> like environments <WreakHavoc> ambiance <EchOne> I've never been to hong kong irl so idk <EchOne> the music was great for immersion, and some environments were good, while others gave off an air of... this place is a shithole, lol <EchOne> lacking actual cantonese audio like sleeping dogs hurts a bit <EchOne> shadowrun with voiced dialogue would be godlike <EchOne> but that's an unfortunate limitation of the scheme they're working with <EchOne> also, the isometric perspective doesn't quite give the Kowloon Walled City justice imo <EchOne> it's hard to portray that level of claustrophobia from that perspective <EchOne> but again that's intrinsic <EchOne> tldr; compared to dragonfall, better gameplay, not quite as good writing <EchOne> overall I like HK's runner crew more, even though dragonfall had my waifu glory <EchOne> cuz dragonfall's other crew members were kinda meh for me, especially blitz lol <EchOne> is0bel was way better than blitz
Here's something I wrote on the Kickstarter page, wanna know other's opinions on this:
After ruminating over a cigarette, I've come to realize the actual difference between Dragonfall and Hong Kong: In Dragonfall, *you* were the one driving the action forward, discovering key pieces of information, etc. In Hong Kong, you're basically taking low-paying jobs while you wait for someone else to advance the plot. I'm still having fun, and the game itself is well written, but I think that's what's been bothering me the whole time.
Edit: I still think the game was worth the wait, because I'm going to play it twice (didn't get Gaichu until towards the end and couldn't dig into his character's backstory; but holy shit are he and Duncan overpowered together) and the new assets will enable me to finally do a UGC I've been thinking of for the past year. That being said, it's not without its faults. The missions themselves are fine but you as the player don't drive the action until the end, basically. Also, the missions in Dragonfall escalated in scope and difficulty, whereas Hong Kong's missions are about equally difficult.
Love love LOVE the new soundtrack. I bought the signed physical copy and currently listen to it on my phone sometimes.
After ruminating over a cigarette, I've come to realize the actual difference between Dragonfall and Hong Kong: In Dragonfall, *you* were the one driving the action forward, discovering key pieces of information, etc. In Hong Kong, you're basically taking low-paying jobs while you wait for someone else to advance the plot. I'm still having fun, and the game itself is well written, but I think that's what's been bothering me the whole time.
Edit: I still think the game was worth the wait, because I'm going to play it twice (didn't get Gaichu until towards the end and couldn't dig into his character's backstory; but holy shit are he and Duncan overpowered together) and the new assets will enable me to finally do a UGC I've been thinking of for the past year. That being said, it's not without its faults. The missions themselves are fine but you as the player don't drive the action until the end, basically. Also, the missions in Dragonfall escalated in scope and difficulty, whereas Hong Kong's missions are about equally difficult.
Love love LOVE the new soundtrack. I bought the signed physical copy and currently listen to it on my phone sometimes.
Half of Dragonfall was you raising money for, then waiting for, someone to give you plot sensitive information. I really don't see the argument.
On August 26 2015 02:11 jeeeeohn wrote: Here's something I wrote on the Kickstarter page, wanna know other's opinions on this:
After ruminating over a cigarette, I've come to realize the actual difference between Dragonfall and Hong Kong: In Dragonfall, *you* were the one driving the action forward, discovering key pieces of information, etc. In Hong Kong, you're basically taking low-paying jobs while you wait for someone else to advance the plot. I'm still having fun, and the game itself is well written, but I think that's what's been bothering me the whole time.
Edit: I still think the game was worth the wait, because I'm going to play it twice (didn't get Gaichu until towards the end and couldn't dig into his character's backstory; but holy shit are he and Duncan overpowered together) and the new assets will enable me to finally do a UGC I've been thinking of for the past year. That being said, it's not without its faults. The missions themselves are fine but you as the player don't drive the action until the end, basically. Also, the missions in Dragonfall escalated in scope and difficulty, whereas Hong Kong's missions are about equally difficult.
Love love LOVE the new soundtrack. I bought the signed physical copy and currently listen to it on my phone sometimes.
Half of Dragonfall was you raising money for, then waiting for, someone to give you plot sensitive information. I really don't see the argument.
Prior to that, you track down Winters and retrieve his information. After Alice (who, by the way, you have to go see yourself, whereas in Hong Kong Kindly Cheng just appears in the background to tell you something) you hunt Apex and then descend into Harfeld. *shrug* Maybe it's just me, but Dragonfall felt much more personal, and I felt more involved in the plot.
You do raise a good point about Alice, but even still, you went on those runs for a *reason*, specifically plot-related. The runs in Hong Kong are just barriers to plot information.
Again, love both games, but they're very different.
I just finished the campaign about ten minutes ago, and I retract my complaints: Hong Kong is definitely about a non-shadowrunner cutting his teeth and coming into his / her own. You're more of a pawn just trying to survive this swirling miasma of conspiracy and chaos than some kind of action hero. You're an outsider in Hong Kong, with no connections, so of course you can't go running off to solve the mystery on your own. I think the last conversation you have with Cheng drives these points home. After the campaign, you're an accepted part of the community, an acknowledged variable; I think that's going to be the focus of the upcoming mini campaign.
I had the opposite experience where I rolled a decker and ended up regretting it. There's just not enough karma to go around to be more than decent at two things. Raymond took me two tries, but the second try was me literally saving every time I passed a section undetected or finished a fight; it's a very difficult run.
I can't wait to roll a chromed-out street samurai :D Right after I finish my UGC, that is.
I know for a fact they fixed Gobbet's "magical pebble" from not appearing. Loaded up a save by accident and there it was, finally. I just hope they fixed all the grammatical stuff. + Show Spoiler +
For instance, the progress bar for Raymond says "rentergration" instead of reintegration, lol.
I just started playing, just delivered Aunty's message to the guy in the walled city.
I don't remember previous SR games having so much narrative text, relative to dialogue. There's so much stuff where it's like [She grimaces. Her eyebrows come together in tight V. You notice that she has 2923 pores on her face.] It's really distracting, and it's unfortunate because if you delete that the dialogue is enough to carry what's going on, most of the time.
However, the characters are already a lot more likeable than in Dragonfall. is0bel and Gobbet are so fucking cute, and Duncan is kinda fun in a bearish kinda way. Way better than Molly-uh-I-mean-Glory's emo crap. Dietrich was pretty cool in Dragonfall but Eiger was only passable and Blitz was just annoying.
This matrix stuff is garbage so far, though. All this clickspamming and puzzly shit was definitely not what I signed on for. The only bright side of it is that It looks fantastic!
I just finished Hong Kong. Very well written! However I felt that it was sometimes a bit easy in the fights, I was only rarely really challenged on the Hard mode. I was surprised about the lack of dragons, I thought all the SR games had some kind of dragon related metaplot. This one ended with a pretty big cliffhanger it felt like, right?
On September 05 2015 05:51 Heartland wrote: I just finished Hong Kong. Very well written! However I felt that it was sometimes a bit easy in the fights, I was only rarely really challenged on the Hard mode. I was surprised about the lack of dragons, I thought all the SR games had some kind of dragon related metaplot. This one ended with a pretty big cliffhanger it felt like, right?
my playthrough was pretty much wrapped up. Unless you mean the fate of your character. But you keep discussing it over the whole game, so I would say its settled already.
And I evedad almost every fight. And the ones I had to take, I usually could prepare something to make them easier. So can't comment on that.
Took forever, but just finished it now. The final mission was pretty straightforward compared to dragonfall, but I'm OK with that.
There were a lot of glitches I found near the end, so I'll save my second playthrough until a patch or three gets applied.
In general, I found that the characters on my team were so damned cool that I didn't mind the lack of plot structure quite as much as I might otherwise have. HBS really did a phenomenal job with them.
Since I'm a proven HBS fanboy, and since this is their crowd, HBS launched their Battletech Kickstarter today. Funnily enough, my friend got me the Battletech miniatures game for my birthday and we've been playing a lot. Made me a big fan, and I can't wait for the PC game! :D
Can't seem to get into SR: returns despite actually paying for it as I couldn't find a working apk/obb.
Graphics are dated as expected for a mobile game, characters are super cliche, story is tiring and the combat seems so bland. Just isn't for me despite actually being pretty hyped for it.
Is there any other game in the series, perhaps on a different platform that's better in the aforementioned categories?
EPT![[image loading]](http://cf.shacknews.com/images/20120405/shadowrun_banner_21655.nphd.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://s3.amazonaws.com/www.harebrained-schemes.com/kickstarter/shadowrun_returns_usb_dogtag.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://s3.amazonaws.com/www.harebrained-schemes.com/kickstarter/tshirtmontage.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://s3.amazonaws.com/www.harebrained-schemes.com/kickstarter/sr_docwagoncard.jpg)
). So this project is like a direct line into my nostalgia center of my brain. plus this post gets an excuse to bump this thread up. 4 days left guys, this game has reliable and awesome people making it and it deserves your support.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5oXvtSa.png)
.
