Shadowrun has online party system, further damages Epic's claim [update 1]
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Dec 7th 2006 at 2:55AM }
Xbox 360 Fanboy has done us the good service of plucking the juicy details out of Major Nelson's recent blogcast featuring Shadowrun Lead Designer John Howard. What we learn is that the development team is implementing a friend-linking party system for its online Live Anywhere launch title. It's about time. No studio has attempted this since Bungie debuted its 'Party System' in Halo 2 (back in 2004).Epic would have you believe that the lack of support for party systems is Microsoft's doing. But with Halo 3 and Shadowrun both confirmed to support this feature, Epic's excuse isn't holding up. Our guess is that a Gears of War team-play patch for ranked games (and maybe an apology) is definitely in the works.
Update: Shadowrun forgoes TrueSkill for 'party' play, Epic told the truth
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Enigma @ Dec 7th 2006 3:06AM
How does this confirm it will be in RANKED matches?
MSFT clearly has it listed in the docs for Live that ranked matches can not have friend invites.
zewone @ Dec 7th 2006 3:47AM
Saints Row also has a party system, even for ranked matches.
Tre @ Dec 7th 2006 3:58AM
To add to Enigma's comments, in that same interview with Major Nelson, John Howard says that there will not be any ranking system in Shadowrun. At least not one that is visible.
This supports Epics claim that Microsoft doesn't allow matchmaking in ranked games... However, as Zewone says, Saints Row had a party system for ranked games, contrary to Epic's statement. Also, Bungie will implement a matchmaking system in Halo 3, without a doubt. The question is, will you be able to play ranked in matchmaking? I would assume so as in the latest Bungie Update there is a stats page visible of Frankie and Tung's latest multiplayer session complete with individual levels next to each players name.
pickassoreborn @ Dec 7th 2006 4:32AM
I think the words "rushed through for certification" cropped up somewhere UnrealEd-related. To be honest, the online mode of Gears is a bit of a joke. Want to change the game mode without disbanding from your party? Tough.
Would be nice if they sorted out it in a patch, though this is probably the reason they rushed it through in the first place. Gears definitely feels kinda unfinished in the campaign more too - the last level definitely didn't feel like much of a last level to me.
PhillyMike101 @ Dec 7th 2006 4:46AM
I agree with the last poster that said the game feels rushed. The mechanics of the game are, for the most part, very smooth but the single player seems awfully short (I guess to either pump the GoW cash cow in the future, or it was rushed) and the online settings arent quite up to par (Map/Gametype changes). Many things in GoW seem to point towards rushing the release to the PS3 release date, things were overlooked such as the voice glitch.
Onto ranked modes - I think Epic took them out, if there was no MSFT intervention as they would have you believe, because most of their achievements deal with ranked matches and how it is a point game. You can be on the losing team with the most points and get rewarded. The ranked needs to cater to teamplay and not just loneranger behavior. Having friends on your team certainly helps the fun factor and the teamwork.
SmellyIrishMan @ Dec 7th 2006 5:04AM
@2 exactly, that's what I was going to say. It was a pretty good one too. Perhaps I am missing some nuances of "party-systems" but it let you invite friends to games and stick with them for the day, isn't that a party-system?
Anonym @ Dec 7th 2006 9:05AM
Splinter Cell have the Squad System wich is linked to accounts because you invite players on their gamercard.
sploy @ Dec 7th 2006 6:47AM
I don't get why you aren't allowed to have party systems in ranked matches anyway, I mean yeah playing with your friends gives you an advantage, but teamwork isn't exactly cheating.
JPRacer @ Dec 7th 2006 8:41AM
sploy, the reason is some people have no life. They will invite their friends and put them in the opposite team. Guys will stand still and people can boost their stats.
SmallFry @ Dec 7th 2006 8:47AM
Microsoft are planning on supporting parties/clans at the Xbox Live level. I'm _sure_ that will be done in time for Halo 3 to use it!
I personally think MSFT are being a little over-zealous in stopping cheating like boosting. But every 360 game I've played disallows inviting friends to ranked matches, so I think it might be Saints Row which is the odd one out...
Gears is really a SP/co-op focused game - I don't think it was ever intending to beat Halo as the 'next big MP game'!
Scott E @ Dec 7th 2006 9:32AM
Could't the whole boosting thing be fixed by forcing party size max of 4 and forcing players on the same team?
The way it stands now in Gears its easier to cheat than with a well constructed party system. I can make a ranked game with an obscure number of rounds (19) then have eight of my friends search for my game (search options: min rounds=19, max=19), my game is sure to show up on their server list, and they can all join. Now we also have complete control over the teams. One team helps the other get large points by downing and reviving.
Microsoft needs to come up with a good implementation of a party system and require it in online games. The whole "No friends in ranked matches" is a cop-out so they don't have to develop a sound ranked system. This is my only gripe with the xbox360.
Does the truskill system play any effect in gears?? I haven't seen it. My buddy is ranked 3000 or so while i hardly ever play, when we search for ranked games together, we can both see the same games.
I thought Halo2 set the bar for a robust multiplayer system. The options you have when hosting a player match are limitless and easy to access after each game. The party system is a quick and easy way to play all day with 3 of your closest friends. It wasn't perfect, but just needed some tweaking. Microsoft, instead of spending time on figuring out how to make it work, just scrapped it entirely.
I blame Microsoft, not Epic for their lack of features. Microsoft's goal should be looking for ways to set itself apart from sony and nintendo's free services by offering a guarantee of options and features (including a party system) with every online game.
Brian (the REAL Brian) @ Dec 7th 2006 9:47AM
I'm still mad that this isn't going to be an RPG.
They're taking the name of a great cyberpunk RPG and turning it into another *yawn* FPS.
Jayslacks @ Dec 7th 2006 12:43PM
One, Gears wasn't rushed. It's a different game. And it is only short if you play on casual. Try playing on hardcore or insane and see how long it takes you to get through it.
Two, yeah, I wish we could play team games ranked. However, I have seen zero cheating with modes or standbying in Gears. Zero. If I get matched up in a ranked game and they are doing something chingy, they usually tell me and I leave. I do wish that ranked games were more randomized, and not controlled by the host, and I do believe that a patch is needed to enhance rank games. But GRAW had the exact same problems and no one said anything about it. This just shows that people want to play Gears because it is an awesome game.
Three, What else do you want from a game? I'm tired of hearing gamers complaining about one of the best games of the year. What do you guys want? Cheese? Candy packaged in the wrapping? Girlfriends?
Sanchinos @ Dec 7th 2006 10:29AM
You guys have it all wrong about friends being allowed in ranked matches. This isn't surprising since that Joe Graf guy at Epic spread so much misinformation about it (and people took his word for it). The truth is that ranked play with friends IS allowed. Inviting friends into a ranked game in progress is not. The only way a ranked game with friends is allowed is if the team gets ranked according to team parameters (ie: you win or lose as a team). One of the developers of the Trueskill system that MS uses wrote an article on this because of all the misinformation floating around. Here's a link:
http://blogs.technet.com/apg/archive/2006/11/05/team-play-in-trueskill.aspx
Enjoy. =)
Corey @ Dec 7th 2006 11:10AM
With a matchmaking ranked system like Halo2s it is much harder to boost and that when you aren't allowed to see what games are out there. I am extremly turned off by games that have crappy multiplayer systems. Chromehounds probably has made it the easiest to play with your friends but still wasnt nearly as streamline dand easy as Halo2s. The rest of the games its either impossible or really freaking hard.
Tim Marman @ Dec 7th 2006 8:04PM
2 comments. AS #7 said, the concern I think is not with having friends play together in a ranked game, but having friends be on separate teams and ultimately help the friend on the other team improve rank.
The other thing I'll point out is that both Halo 2 (and obviously Halo 3) and Shadowrun are developed by Microsoft Game Studios or Microsoft subsidiaries. (Assuming, for a moment, that the XBL rules have not changed for ranked games since 360 was released). This could mean the Microsoft game companies know the rules better, or it could mean they can get a game through certification easier even with this. Or it could just be a coincidence.... but it does seem like it might be relevant.
Miniboss @ Dec 7th 2006 1:12PM
@ 5.
"I agree with the last poster that said the game feels rushed. The mechanics of the game are, for the most part, very smooth but the single player seems awfully short (I guess to either pump the GoW cash cow in the future, or it was rushed) and the online settings arent quite up to par (Map/Gametype changes)."
I like how people who aren't in the game industry think that developers are lazy or are rushing to get their game out the door without any thought of quality.
I really hope some of you die and are reincarnated as game testers.
PrismRa @ Dec 7th 2006 1:28PM
Why is this license being wasted on a fucking FPS? How insane would an HD, Shadowrun RPG be? With the gameplay mechanics of the Genesis version (free form adventuring, open-ended) and the story and music of the SNES version?
I love what Microsoft is doing with the 360, but, come on!
Skullivan @ Dec 9th 2006 3:06AM
I don't remember where I read it but Bungie backed up Epic's claims, saying that Gears features the basic online support that Microsoft provides for developers. Anything above and beyond that they have to code themselves.
So Rein wasn't lying but he wasn't exactly being honest. Epic wasn't barred by Microsoft from making the online not suck but they weren't helped either.
It just makes no sense to me that no one at MS (being that they ponied up a big chunk of cash for the game) thought maybe their premier online title for the next year, needed more to it's online than less what Mechassault had back in 2002.