Metareview: Shadowrun (Xbox 360, PC)
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Jun 5th 2007 at 8:32PM }
As far as weird decisions go, exhuming a popular pen-and-paper RPG franchise and transforming it into a cross-platform shooter isn't nearly as disastrous as you might expect. Indeed, most Shadowrun reviewers concur that the gameplay is enjoyable and pleasingly distinct from your space donut shootouts. As for the decisions that led to a dearth of single-player content and a comically high price tag, well, those are every bit as disastrous as you'd expect.
Read -- Metacritic on the PC version
Read -- Metacritic on the Xbox 360 version
- Eurogamer (6/10) considers Shadowrun to be a "well-designed, well-conceived game," but faults its anemic features and "counter-productive" price. "There's nothing wrong with a game choosing to specialise in either offline or online experience, of course," notes Kieron Gillen. "But if you decide to completely ignore one pole of the experience, you have to offer something generally astounding and/or groundbreaking to justify yourselves."
- Gamespot (6.9/10) feels the game, which is "about $30 too expensive," makes poor use of the Shadowrun license and doesn't offer enough variety. Despite finding the combat unique and the customization choices to be meaningful, Jeff "8.8" Gerstmann ultimately labels Shadowrun as "a pretty shallow experience."
- IGN (6.8/10) loathes the game's presentation, one of many criticisms it piles atop the "well-designed nucleus of gameplay." Charles Onyett finds the whole thing to be unrewarding, explaining that, "As gamers, it's rewards we crave, be it of the narrative variety, in-game items, new options or modes, or something entirely different."
Read -- Metacritic on the PC version
Read -- Metacritic on the Xbox 360 version
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ian Von Porter @ Jun 5th 2007 8:49PM
MS first party IP = HALO ... thats all you need to know... the rest are filler to keep staff busy.
Leonidas @ Jun 5th 2007 8:51PM
lol, when you said "8.8", I knew exactly who the person was based on those numbers alone.
3cubedminus3squared @ Jun 5th 2007 8:55PM
Thats great and all but where are the Forza 2 reviews?
Master X @ Jun 5th 2007 8:56PM
F*** the reviews this game is a blast to play. Sure it doesnt have alot of maps or modes *gears of war* but the magic, tech and weapon mix is great. Its a team game.
Its one of the most intense, well balanced, and complex online team shooters ever.
ShinobiFist @ Jun 5th 2007 8:57PM
Shadowrun is a refreshing stab at the FPS genre and MP aspect. It's sad the game was priced at 60$ They should of done what SONY is doing for Warhawk, put it online for sale(XBL) Why have in a Disc format when most people are not even online yet? The game is meant for online, why not sell it online? The game is good, and I hope the negative reviews doesn't hurt the franchise for future installments of the game.
Rod Oracheski @ Jun 5th 2007 8:58PM
From what I've played of it since renting it, Shadowrun seems decent enough in terms of gameplay, but could really have used same-screen multiplayer and more modes.
I was concerned about the lack of maps before trying it, but haven't really noticed it while playing. They're really well-designed, allowing multiple
It would have been an easy purchase if it was $20 cheaper, but it's a pretty solid rental for anyone with Live. It'd be a great LAN-party game though, especially if your group is sick of CS.
Rod Oracheski @ Jun 5th 2007 9:01PM
Just to add - the game is not a 6/10 or 7/10. Those reviews seem overly harsh. If they're marking it down because it's $60, then something like Steel Battalion should have gotten a 1/10.
Osiris @ Jun 5th 2007 9:03PM
Well i'm having a lot of fun playing it atm, exploring different strategies of playing, but i can't but foresee that it's gonna get boring quickly.
There is a distinct lack of gametypes to play and no choice whatsoever either like you get in Halo ranked.
They really need to add some DLC for FREE (because the game is way overpriced anyway).
I get the feeling more time has been spent on the graphics than the actual multiplayer..
Teleporting is fun at least.
theamazingbanana @ Jun 5th 2007 9:03PM
60 dollars for a game without a single player campaign is a joke. For 30 I might have picked this thing up. On the PC maybe someone wouldn't care about lack of single player (Battlefield 2 didn't have single player, right?) but on the console (although dual release game with PC)? No.
Oh and I agree with his 8.8
I might have made it more like a 7.7 though.
Dan @ Jun 5th 2007 9:16PM
Lmao @ '8.8'
Love Jeff though.
And I agree with all the reviews, multi-only on a console shouldn't be the same price as a normal game.
Rod Oracheski @ Jun 5th 2007 9:20PM
"On the PC maybe someone wouldn't care about lack of single player (Battlefield 2 didn't have single player, right?) but on the console (although dual release game with PC)? No."
What about games like Battlefield 2: Modern Combat and Chromehounds?
Both have about as much of a single player campaign as Shadowrun does - basically just a training mode and offline multiplayer against bots/AI that gets you ready for online play. Chromehounds, I would actually say has a worse single-player mode as it leaves much of the game unexplained.
Neither seemed to have been overly penalized for it.
Rod Oracheski @ Jun 5th 2007 9:23PM
lol - I noticed I left off a sentence earlier:
"They're really well-designed, allowing multiple...entries into the flag zones and kill fields."
I just played a map that I was on earlier, and found it's got an entire top part that I didn't know about. It's hidden by the cloud layer that I'd thought was a level barrier.
Miles @ Jun 5th 2007 9:29PM
I don't know why console games have to have a single player. How come its acceptable on PC and not a console? I think if the game was just better , people wouldn't be talking about this console/PC double standard. I've never played it myself, but if the game is good enough, I'll pay $60 for a multiplayer only game.
Mr Khan @ Jun 5th 2007 9:38PM
And, as time passes
The critics prove themselves less and less relevant
Its like they WANT to stifle innovation or something...
kingofwale @ Jun 5th 2007 9:46PM
>Its like they WANT to stifle innovation or something...
LOL, I'm sorry, did you just imply that ShadowRun is "innovation"? LMAO
priceless,
Tony @ Jun 5th 2007 9:57PM
I've had problems with IGN in the past, but after their ridiculous Forza 2 review I have a hard time trusting them for anything related to 360... At least in this case they're more or less backed up.
Rod Oracheski @ Jun 5th 2007 9:52PM
"I don't know why console games have to have a single player. How come its acceptable on PC and not a console? I think if the game was just better , people wouldn't be talking about this console/PC double standard. I've never played it myself, but if the game is good enough, I'll pay $60 for a multiplayer only game."
Why do we pay $60 without complaints for single-player games that don't have multiplayer components - especially ones that easily could? :D
Dirk Dorkelson @ Jun 5th 2007 10:01PM
I plan on picking this up the week it drops to $40 or $30.
GaryM @ Jun 5th 2007 10:29PM
Requires Vista, a Gold Live membership if you want to play cross-platform matches, no single-player mode, nerfed PC controls, only nine maps, and sells for $50?
Do not want!
Michael @ Jun 5th 2007 10:31PM
Personally, I think the game is great. From a competitive standpoint, it may be MLG worthy. :)
Jeremy @ Jun 5th 2007 10:44PM
DigitalSomething - 7/10
http://www.digitalsomething.com/post/365/
sheppy @ Jun 5th 2007 10:52PM
"I've had problems with IGN in the past, but after their ridiculous Forza 2 review I have a hard time trusting them for anything related to 360... At least in this case they're more or less backed up."
They gave Forza 2 a 8.9... wait, what?!? You're complaining about an 8.9?!?
The fuck is wrong with you gits? I'm getting so tired of this "I think it's a 10, so if you don't think it's a 10, you've sold out.. LOLz!" attitude running around about game reviewers.
So let me get this straight... a couple reviewers bash Calling All Cars for having basically no single player and a small number of levels and it's "haha, knock Jaffe off that peg." Same complaint gets lobbied at not a $10 game, but a $50-$60 game and it's "reviewers don't know shit."
Grant @ Jun 5th 2007 11:30PM
i personally have no problem with an online only game.... but i better get what i pay for.
look at halo 3, if it's anything like previous games, the single player will be fairly good, with great multi, and thats priced the same.
if your going to sell a game for $60, it better be worth it, and microsoft clearly shows it's not by only charging $50 for the pc version. i personally think that this would be well worth $40, a tough sell at $50, and rediculous at $60.
Jake @ Jun 5th 2007 11:37PM
IGN's review was only 0.1 lower than the meta-average. So, they have backup. Hell, Forza 2 got a higher score than any PS3 game except Oblivion. That is accurate.
Shadowrun deserves low scores for a variety of games. But, just keep in mind that if you buy it you will get many hours of enjoyable gameplay. It isn't bad. I really like it. And yes, it is innovative, or at the very least different than most if not all shooters. You have to play it to see. There is a lot of team strategy.
Jake @ Jun 5th 2007 11:37PM
IGN's review was only 0.1 lower than the meta-average. So, they have backup. Hell, Forza 2 got a higher score than any PS3 game except Oblivion. That is accurate.
Shadowrun deserves low scores for a variety of games. But, just keep in mind that if you buy it you will get many hours of enjoyable gameplay. It isn't bad. I really like it. And yes, it is innovative, or at the very least different than most if not all shooters. You have to play it to see. There is a lot of team strategy.
Corey @ Jun 6th 2007 1:34AM
Why does every game need single player, if you dont have xbox live, dont buy it. But if you do youll get more hours of fun gameplay than any of the single player games out there. Perfect example is the battlefield series or chromehounds where a great multiplayer expierience is sometimes all you need.
Grey Fox @ Jun 6th 2007 3:25AM
I dont get the "Jeff "8.8" Gerstmann" joke. Anyone care to help elaborate?
Kritz @ Jun 6th 2007 4:01AM
It's odd, because the Australian EBGames website has this game listed as $70 (In AUD, obviously). That's $30-50 cheaper than normal games.
Hell, I paid $120 for Saint's Row. So when Shadowrun comes out, this is going to be an impulse buy.
Hell, I paid more for Viva Piñata.
Sidepocket @ Jun 6th 2007 4:23AM
@ GaryM
As a PC gamer since the DOOM II days, you took the words right out of my mouth. :D
staxontoplyon23 @ Jun 6th 2007 4:45AM
Ouch, and they are sacking FASA, so any addons free or otherwise are out the window. Anything that puts a nail in the GFW live coffin is music to my ears though, sorry to the devs, they probably could have done something really special if given the time necessary rather than shoe horn their release into the GFW launch window and then get a pink slip. Its sad really, from what is said this thing had lots of potential but will just be another case of rushed out for launch dud, for a launch that most of us (I hope) didn't really care much about anyway.
cogo @ Jun 6th 2007 5:41AM
I hate that they fucked this one up. Shadowrun for the SNES is the best game I have every played.
mike k. @ Jun 6th 2007 7:59AM
@11 .. uh chromehounds didn't sell, nor was it a well known fanchise to begin with. Shadowrun is well known, which is why its criticized.
Personally I'm downloading the demo and seeing if I like it. I love the idea, and it still looks fun. Though I can't justify 60 bucks on it. It would have been great at 50 at highest.. I might bite on it. At this price i'd wait for the impending price drop, which is a double edged sword, because that means nobody has it, which means there won't be any good matches to play with people. Thus why it needs a single player campaign.
Scott @ Jun 6th 2007 9:37AM
I have Shadowrun and I have to say I think currently it's one of the best three titles for the console. Viva Pinata, Gears of War, Shadowrun. Seriously, check out the demo and you'll love it.
Dicky @ Jun 6th 2007 10:29AM
wow - mr vagina clown and all his mates must be doing overtime posting fake positive comments in this thread
JayDiggler @ Jun 6th 2007 10:46AM
I love Shadowrun, doing the training missions at first I was thinking this was kinda cool but not great but once I played a few matches online and I was mowing people down with my troll and minigun while gliding in the air I was hooked. Seriously this game is really fun and very addictive, check it out if you like FPS.
JagerQ @ Jun 6th 2007 10:46AM
Yeah, the game's actually very entertaining if you give it some time. Play through the training missions with the bots and jump onto the live games. It's not GoW pretty or Wii innovative, but I'd have to agree with one of the reviewers: the game plays better than the Halo 3 beta.
SlipstreamBRO @ Jun 6th 2007 10:58AM
A bunch of complainers you are. Shadowrun is an AWESOME game. I don't know how they're only giving it 6.whatever...really really lame.
Honestly, don't go by these reviews get out there and try this one out. Definitely worth the purchase imo.
mcdeath ob @ Jun 6th 2007 11:42AM
Firstly, I have bought Shadowrun and will be playing it when I get my xbox back (end of next week), so as far as how good it is, I have no real comments.
One thing I can say however is that console games DO NOT have to have single player and multiplayer. For a game like Halo 2 I probably spent under 0.1% of my total game time on the campaign. That game was all about the multiplayer! And, even though I want to find out how the story ends, I would happily put down $60 for a solely multiplayer Halo 3. So why is it any different for Shadowrun. The answer is....it's not.
Look at Gears of War, people came for the single player, they stay for the multiplayer. There is no reason that this game should be priced any differently to normal games. The GoW campaign took about 4 hours to complete, and then, that was it, multiplayer took over. I am finding more and more that multiplayer is a deciding factor in games I buy (unless the single player looks particularly good, i.e. Bioshock or Assassin's Creed).
For these reasons I feel that marking this game down by 3 or 4 points out of 10 is more than a little bit harsh. As far as I can see the reviews say: "great game, nothing wrong with it at all, shame about the price" Wtf!!! Losing 40% of a score because of the price...I think not....
Kinsella @ Jun 6th 2007 11:43AM
No one cares about the Shadowrun universe anymore?
Like hell we don't, thats why most of us are ignoring this FPS piece of shit.
mcdeath ob @ Jun 6th 2007 11:55AM
@39: "No one cares about the Shadowrun universe anymore?
Like hell we don't, thats why most of us are ignoring this FPS piece of shit."
I had never heard of Shadowrun before the FPS was announced and that didn't put me off. I don't particularly care about the universe at all but that doesn't mean I am going to disregard a great multiplayer experience just because I don't know the story...
Rod Oracheski @ Jun 6th 2007 3:42PM
"No one cares about the Shadowrun universe anymore?
Like hell we don't, thats why most of us are ignoring this FPS piece of shit."
You care about it so much you're ignoring a game made in its setting? That makes as much sense as the PS3 fanboys who want to boycott Devil May Cry and other Capcom games because it's going to the 360.
That you call it a "FPS piece of shit" shows you've never even tried it. It's CS in the Shadowrun world. But go ahead and give it a pass, Xbox Live has enough pretentious assholes as it is.
Shawn O @ Jun 6th 2007 4:04PM
Personally $60 seems a bit steep for any game, $180 a year seems like too much for the PC game World of Warcraft and $20 for some games it way too much. It's all a matter of perspective.
I know people that own Gears of War or Lost Planet that have never played more than 15 minutes of the single player mission, so obviously to them $60 is just fine for basically multiplayer only.
Tony @ Jun 6th 2007 5:46PM
To all of the people who felt some need to attack my Forza 2 review comment --------
My complaints about the Forza 2 review have NOTHING to do with the scores. They have to do with their actual comments, what is written there. Do people just ignore the three pages of text before the overall score? Sure as hell seems like it.
It's full of comments that are completely off base from nearly every review concerning speed, presentation. It compares its sense of speed to games like Burnout, it whines about there not being weather effects (if it rained, there'd be NO RACING), etc, etc, etc.
Seriously, READ that fucking review and tell me they gave it an 8.9 because they enjoyed it. Seriously, READ it. It reads much lower and they continue to bitch about it's "sense of speed" even in reviews for games like Mad Tracks.
I couldn't care less about an arbitrary number pulled out of the sky and it's remarkable to me that so many of you do.
I don't even know what the hell the 8.9 is based upon given the actual written portions. Given that, I do personally consider it hard to trust their opinions. This is far from a random occurance.
I don't care if other places out there are giving it scores around the same digits when they have completely different, just plain stupid irregularities.
Thomas @ Jun 6th 2007 8:12PM
GamePro reviewed both the 360 and the PC versions:
360: http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox360/games/reviews/115388.shtml
PC: http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/reviews/115148.shtml
...The PC is a full 20% higher for no apparent reason.
I've been excited for this game for many months, I'm withholding judgment until the demo.
Dramas @ Jun 7th 2007 12:48PM
Good thing game reviewers are getting as bad as movie reviewers so I don't trust them...this game is a blast!
Give it a try, if you like multi-player FPS games, you'll get a ton of play out of this with what's included.