Shadowrun developer gets honest (or scary)
Poor Shadowrun! If there is a game in recent memory to feel bad for it's Shadowrun. Like we stated before, the game was thrown to the disinterested wolves, releasing during the Halo 3 beta and the week Forza hit. For multiplayer addicts we know the game received positive statements, but for everyone else (and reviewers in particular), the poor game has been having a rough time. So much so, that even Circuit City was giving the game away for free on PC with the purchase of Halo 2 on Vista (the whole Vista issue being another strike against it). Ouch! Recently, Mitch Gitelman, head of FASA Studio and proud-pappa of the abused Shadowrun, went on the OXM Podcast. Gitelman just let it all out -- all of it -- in what is probably one of the most honest non-PR-spin 40 minutes possible with a sober developer. Well, next to catching Epic's Mark Rein relaxing or Wedbush-Morgan's analyst Michael Pachter while he's driving home from the office.Gitelman covers the whole list of issues with Shadowrun (the interview starts at 21:12). He expresses concern that the game's failure will simply reinforce the belief of publishers that taking risks is a bad thing. He covers price, style, what they did differently, the lack of a single player campaign and how the industry is changing. Some of it he seems on point, some of it he comes off like a delusional developer out of touch with the gaming populace, but it's all there in a raw form. A great listen to get a feel of what a developer actually sounds like when they're being honest, but, you know, not like Jaffe unhinged honest.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
MosquitoControl @ Jun 25th 2007 5:06PM
I'm not devoting 20 minutes to listening to a developer ramble. Doesn't matter who it is, I'm not doing it. Podcasts mostly blow, I'm sure this 20 minute download has as much information as an article that you'd read in 3 minutes or less. No more, no less.
Horribly inefficient means of communicating.
Does he mention the lack of split-screen?
That was a bit of a hot-button issue on their forums, and the reason I didn't buy the game. I had fun with the demo, some cool ideas (like teleporting into a room, shotgun blasting a guy, and teleporting out as if you were never there,) but the lack of split-screen killed it for me.
I am fortunate enough to live in a house with two other gamers for the next year. Online play is worthless to us; faceless drones that try to shock you with overdone racism aren't entertaining. But playing with those two on the couch against bots is insanely fun.
We ignore Halo for its lack of bots, but we'll play it for at least a week online before the lengthy matchmaking process drives us insane.
But if a game wants our money it needs bots and it needs multiplayer. We put significantly more time into Perfect Dark 0 because it had both of those. Its gameplay kind of sucked, but we could play it against or with each other, we could customize it so our skill levels were even, and we could play it instantly without having to wait five minutes while it searched for a game for us to join.
Aex @ Jun 25th 2007 5:17PM
I'm really not surprised that Shadowrun isn't doing to well. I don't feel it is worth the $60 they are charging for it. I think they would have done better if it was a $20-$30 downloadable title. A long beta would probably have done it some good as well, maybe a bit more hyping by microsoft... Oh yea! Definately NOT releasing it on the PC at the same time... FOR CHEAPER... /headslap
Mystic @ Jun 25th 2007 5:22PM
Personally it's the deepest and one of the funnest FPS's I've ever played. And I'm a 32yr old lifelong gamer.
TiaMaster @ Jun 25th 2007 5:29PM
Let me break it down for you - If you like multiplayer FPS/TPS and actually have the money, then buy and immensely enjoy this game.
As much as I enjoy it (yeah, I had the money), I do recognize that its too expensive for a game that doesn't have a SP campaign, no good multiplayer search system, and no way to customize gameplay (let alone your avatar).
But again, its fun as hell if you can get your hands on it for cheaper.
Alex @ Jun 25th 2007 5:31PM
I hear nothing but good things about this game from those of my friends who have played it (that being all of two people); you want to talk about what's wrong with the industry, then the $60 price tag on a game with no single-player campaign (note: I couldn't care less about having a single-player campaign if the game is good) isn't a bad place to start.
Lixie @ Jun 25th 2007 5:39PM
I've enjoyed Shadowrun much more than I ever enjoyed Gears of War.
I appreciate that they spent all the development time on the multiplayer. I think people say they care more about single player, but I think they're in denial, or lying. Most people boot up and jump on multiplayer immediately, saving offline only for when their internet is down.
I can't count how many times I would have to tell some newbie how to crouch or reload. Why? Because they never learned in the offline play. Why? Because they wanted to get online where the real fun is at as quickly as possible. They just skipped the single player missions entirely.
I wish more shooters would place more importance on multiplayer than on single player. People rent and finish the single player missions in a few afternoons. But players keep coming back for online for months.
Personally, at work I haven't heard anybody lately tell me about how they ripped through Halo 2's single player this week. No, I only hear them talking about how much they "owned" some noobs online last night.
MMurdock @ Jun 25th 2007 5:40PM
I think the bottom line is that Shadowrun fans wanted an RPG not some lame shooter. In a land that is oversaturated with FPS games both on consoles and PC how can you justify making another one? Look at the 360's shooter list: Gears, Lost planet, FEAR, Call of juarez, hour of Victory, GRAW, GRAW2, R6: Vegas, CoD2, BF2, Perfect Dark 0, and Far Cry. These are only the games released now. Take a look at the RPGs. You have oblivion and enchanted arms. Hmm. Anyone else see an oversaturation of shooters? What makes people think that a new one will be much different? Next time think before you bastardize a good IP.
Jake @ Jun 25th 2007 5:46PM
I have it on Gamefly and really like it. It is deep and I can get as much enjoyment out of it as I want. Most shooters that I play the hell out of these days I do 90% online.
But even considering all that, I don't think it is worth $60. Did they honestly spend the same time and effort as you would on a normal co-op + single player + multiplayer game?
There are a couple of things that hurt them. \
1) Shadowrun fans hate it because it isn't what they wanted or expected from a game bearing its title.
2) Console gamers expect a single player campaign, plain and simple. We just feel like we are getting ripped at $60 for multiplayer, regardless how fun it is.
MrLahey @ Jun 25th 2007 5:52PM
It's sort of ironic that this may lead to publishers deciding that risk is a bad thing... a lot of the ire from gamers came from the perception that the developers were taking the perceived "safe" route by changing a pre-existing franchise into an FPS.
Jackholes @ Jun 25th 2007 6:16PM
@8
Perhaps you should play it before calling it a "lame shooter", because it certainly isn't. And perhaps you should listen to the podcast in which the dev says that they did a shooter because that is what they have experience doing. Would you rather have a good shooter, or a bad RPG?
polly @ Jun 25th 2007 6:20PM
Hmmm...the DS, the Wii, the Ico team, Guitar Hero...yeah, probably don't need to worry about the industry not taking chances just because you took one that didn't work out. Feeling a little self-important are we?
Starsmore @ Jun 25th 2007 6:29PM
How is releasing a "generic FPS with Shadowrun trappings" taking a risk?
Taking a risk would be releasing something pretty much just like the old-skool Shadowrun video games, just with prettier pictures but still the same.
Just doing another ho-hum FPS isn't much of a risk in this day and age...
Master Devwi @ Jun 25th 2007 6:50PM
I think it is a great interview! I wasn't too sure about Shadowrun, but after listening to the interview, I went out and picked up a copy. Guess what? It was great!
Yeah, there's no single player or splitscreen... games take a long time to connect to (a problem that will be fixed in the next title update coming soon, there's only a few maps, and the pice is a little high. But it's a really fun game and you'll get hours out of it.
Already, according to 360FriendSpot.com, I've played over 40 hours of Shadowrun. Try going to the theater to see a movie for 40 hours and see how much that costs you! That's about 20 movies. And if you get a great deal of $5 a ticket, that is $100 - double the cost of Shadowrun for the same amount of entertainment. The same goes for DVDs. Some of those movies may be good and others bad, but it's going to cost you way more than Shadowrun at $50 or $60 (depending on which platform you purchase it for).
Anyway, like Crackdown, Shadowrun is misunderstood. People thought Crackdown was going to be horrible because the Halo 3 Beta came with it. But, you know what? It was actually a lot of fun. Well, the same goes for Shadowrun. A game that may not seem like a lot of fun at first or a good value can turn out to be awesome.
When I first tried Shadowrun, I wasn't sure if I liked it or not. But, the more I played it, the more I began to enjoy it. Now I love the game! Enough of my rambling, but the point is: don't judge the game based on the reviews. Play the game for a few hours and decide for yourself. Who knows, you may end up really liking it like me!
Hater3000 @ Jun 25th 2007 7:21PM
I agree with the dude above,Podcast suck I rather have a text or a video.
The problem with shadownrun is not that the game sucks is that the game lacks of basic elements such as Single player,Story mode and C'mon more weapons,magic and maps.
The use of Tech and Spells was rad for what I played in the demo but the high price for a multiplayer only game with just a few maps is just bad.If i ever buy shadowrun it would be for PC.
jovah45 @ Jun 25th 2007 7:22PM
I dont understand the game is freagin awesome and all but the price point does kind of hurts. You have to understand that gamers want as much as they can get for their money and if left unsatisfied we will bite........
NamePending @ Jun 25th 2007 7:23PM
@ Master Devwi:
Is there any chance you are an employee of FASA studios?
If your whole idea of seeing a film 20 times is equivalent to the price of Shadowrun? That's fine, but would you really want to watch the same movie 20 times?
miles foreman @ Jun 25th 2007 7:23PM
RE: #11
"Would you rather have a good shooter, or a bad RPG?"
How about neither? Why would it have to be one or the other? This is the same reason why I won't be buying Fallout 3. I'd rather have nothing instead of a Fallout FPS.
Tavis @ Jun 25th 2007 7:23PM
They should have charged $30 for their half-a-game. Loved the demo, will buy it when it's in the bargain bin.
Sol.. @ Jun 25th 2007 7:25PM
try to justify the price all you want master but at the end of the day shadowrun's value was asstastic compared to 90% of the games out there.
Hater3000 @ Jun 25th 2007 7:27PM
Sadly I agree with Tavis if the x360 version ever hits the bargain bin I would buy it.
I got Crush instead.
Hoffer @ Jun 25th 2007 7:29PM
Shadowrun is a great game. I got the free copy from Circuit City and have been having a ton of fun. I wouldn't spend $60 for the 360 version. It really should have come out at $40.
rasgueado @ Jun 25th 2007 7:36PM
I think the "throw away" nature of a lot of modern media is a bit of cause for the amount of displeasure that some people have for the supposed "lack of value." Consumer culture impresses the idea of grabbing whatever is new and moving on to the next purchase. If you don't like the game... you don't like it. You can't really argue with that. For myself... having put probably more than 20 hours so far in the past few weeks into the game, I feel safe saying that I have my money's worth (especially since I still want to keep playing).
Lurker28 @ Jun 25th 2007 7:50PM
Why would any of you guys expect a Multiplayer FPS game to have an "amazing" story? Games like Battlefield, Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, and Unreal Tournament. These are games which are all A+ Multiplayer titles with little to NO single player.
Alright let’s talk FPS single player: Doom 3, Bio Shock, and Half-Life. Bioshock has NO MULTIPLAYER...Doom 3, no one plays it multiplayer no one ever really did...and lastly Half-Life, no one played half-life multiplayer, it was MODS for the game that made it great (They played Team Fortress Classic and Counter-strike)
Please, does some research before posting on what you think you know about previous history of games. The points he brought up are true, however it comes down to what you enjoy in Shadowrun, I believe it is not the price point in general it is either the players were disappointed because they were expecting something else or the game mechanics and options did not appeal to you.
LaughingMan @ Jun 25th 2007 8:37PM
"10. It's sort of ironic that this may lead to publishers deciding that risk is a bad thing... a lot of the ire from gamers came from the perception that the developers were taking the perceived "safe" route by changing a pre-existing franchise into an FPS."
Yeah that's a good point. How is making a FPS "risky"?
Kinsella @ Jun 25th 2007 10:14PM
It all comes down to this. To enjoy Shadowrun (booze and drugs not included, but probably recommended), its going to cost you $110. $60 for the shitty, unfinished "game", and $50 for the Gold membership if you don't already have it. what a bargain, sign me up! I wonder why it failed.
Service_Games @ Jun 25th 2007 10:23PM
I gotta agree with a lot of what Mitch is saying. As much as I believe gamers, as a whole, don't want to see it, the game industry is changing dramatically. As of this generation, content and graphics are becoming exponentially more expensive. DLC/Digital Distribution is changing the way people get their hands on games.
I really wish he would have gone more in-depth on that particular part of his reasoning simply because I know he's right. Unfortunately, very few gamers are willing to admit to themselves as well as others that what he's saying is true. It's a shame.
Honestly, I haven't even paid any attention to the game as of yet simply because it is an online only game and my online experiences both on consoles and on PC have been very bad. But, after hearing Mitch talk for just a few minutes, I had my 360 on looking through the list of game demos to find Shadowrun's demo.
SG
kiwi_b @ Jun 25th 2007 10:49PM
The price pain point is worth mentioning. Here in NZ, I was going to give it a miss. US$60 normally works out as a NZ$100+ game.
And guess what? It cames out over here at NZ$69, or cheaper. With the current exchange rate it really should have been NZ$80 or $90. At LEAST.
So - it flew off the shelves here. Sold out everywhere. It's a fun game, and at that price it's a bargain.
And it's the same with SR and Halo 2 for the PC - less than NZ$70.
I'd ask "what gives?", but for once us non-US centric folk have a great, cheap game.
Whoo. Hoo.
Indeed.
Neil O. @ Jun 25th 2007 11:04PM
He talks about gamers shooting themselves in the foot not buying innovative games. However, I believe that it is developers like this that are doing the shooting. They release games like this and call them innovative (whether it is or isn't is not my concern) but then they do something like shadowrun and put at a high price or leave out splitscreen or maps, putting a game that could have been very good and push innovation, but that one thing (or several things) draw it back.
Breakfastmachine @ Jun 25th 2007 11:10PM
I've spent more time playing Shadowrun than the last 5 games I spent $60 on. Combined. Worth every penny for me. Some of the criticism makes me wonder if a game has to be more than fun to be considered good anymore. I don't care how good the graphics are, how many game modes it has, or how much I can customize my character. If I play a game once or twice and then never again, I wasted my money. If I'm still playing it every night 2+ weeks after it was released. Money well spent. The last game that grabbed me like that was Oblivion. Someone told me they didn't like that game because it didn't have multiplayer...
t_m @ Jun 25th 2007 11:31PM
maybe a dumb question, but why do FASA interactive only have experience in FPS games? You know, what with FASA being an RPG/Wargame company?
Its like Microsoft Publishing saying they only have experience writing apple software manuals...
Poo Jangles @ Jun 25th 2007 11:44PM
What the dude/dudes don't address in the podcast is the fact that the market has already determined what a multiplayer-only game is worth, and it's NOT $60! They mention Team Fortress 2, but for some reason it doesn't occur to them that -- while it may have fewer maps -- it is one fifth of a $60 package. No matter how freaking awesome, original, or paradigm-shifting their game is, 9 out of 10 gamers will not pay full price for a MP-only game. It hasn't happened yet and it probably never will. Reviewers who praise the game but dock its score due to the price are doing a good job. Stop whining! Cut the price and I'll buy it, for crying out loud!
Tim @ Jun 26th 2007 12:01AM
The design team has mainly worked on the Battletech games, none of which are FPS.
Only one of the designers seem to have FPS background worked on Halo and was seemingly brought in specifically to create a FPS, so the whole "all we know are FPS" is bunk.
Aside from pricing complaints, you pushed away your core fan base, and their guaranteed sales, by making it a storyless FPS.
apoc06 @ Jun 26th 2007 12:26AM
putting a FPS on the xbox360 using a well loved license by a well known publisher is "risky"? no... risky is developing a FPS on the PSP with only one analog nub. THATS risky.
developing a FPS using a traditional RPG license isnt risky, is just not smart. did they think that fans of shadowrun would buy it anyways because of the license? did they think that xbox360 owners would love it because its a multiplayer FPS? instead of combining two genres, they split off a large chunk of the rpg market they were banking on.
problems:
- the half-game costs full price
- lack of maps, customization, mods, options
- the pc version is cheaper
- the pc version requires vista =(
- the pc version requires a live subscription to get the most out of it
- live for windows has very few games available to justify the charge at this point
- they upset fans of shadowrun [proper] by not releasing a console version in years, and when they finally dust off the license... this?
no matter how good the game is, rpg fans want a rpg; not a fps. FFVII is a larger license, but didnt they see how poorly dirge of cerebus sold?
Alakath @ Jun 26th 2007 1:42AM
I'd own this game in a second if it ran on XP, and I'm sure a lot of other people would too. Hell, I'd even pay $60 for it.
I don't have a 360, and I don't have Vista. Vista is $260 for the Ultimate Upgrade and a 360 would be $400. So I'd be looking at $300-$500 just to play this one game without wasting money on a HD-less 360 or Vista Basic. Plus, I'd then have to deal with the hassle of upgrading to Vista or else have a console that hasn't reached critical mass in terms of games I feel a need to own yet (I'm not trying to start an argument, I know there are lots of good games on 360 but Gears and Shadowrun are the only two that I feel could be classified as system sellers for myself).
Regardless, no matter how good a game is, I'm not paying $300 for it and it alone. Release an XP patch, and I'll buy it the same day.
Zsavior @ Jun 26th 2007 2:15AM
See when various game critics who were actually not kiss asses, remarked that Vista will off the industry people laughed( probably cause MS payed them to) not giving the thought a serious observation.
Trying to sell buggy Vista through PC game hostage, is just as much of a brilliant idea as Sony trying to sell blu-ray players while keeping the PS3 console hostage. Except nobody jumped down MS throat, why I really don't know. The game cost, more and on top of that you need Vista a piece of software nobody trust because of its, unstable nature to play it. I don't see the mystery of how this game failed, what I want to know is if many other game companies will be foolish enough to follow in its foot steps.
Tom @ Jun 26th 2007 10:20AM
I wasn't going to support something that totally destroyed one of the coolest IP's in gaming history. If this had been an RPG, I would have bought it for the PC and I might have even bought a 360 to play it with.
I have at least 10 friends that woulda done the same thing.
t_m @ Jun 26th 2007 10:33AM
Well, supposedly its been cracked to run on XP (halo 2 too)... so maybe you don't have to spend all that cash to play it.
I quite like the idea of splitting single-player and multi-player. As someone who never plays multiplayer it annoys me when devs waste time, space and resources tacking on a lightweight MP game.. when no one is gonna play it for more than 2 minutes anyway cos they're all playing Halo.
But its not their fault.. game reviews often seem to knock off points for having no multiplayer.. even when there is patently no need or point.
Games like Quake3, UT ad COunterstrike have shown there is a big market for MP only games.. but shadowrun just didn't INCLUDE enough stuff. Imagine if quake3 had only shipped with 8 maps!!
Plus, it was a total waste of a license. No problem with using an RPG licese for a FPS.. but its not gonna shift additional units, like using such a license would for a CRPG.
PS/ I agree about the podcast.. they are a horribly innefficient way to transmit information. they are great to listen to on the train/car.. but if I'm sat at a computer then its much easier and faster to READ stuff on the darn screen infront of me. That way i can skip to the bits i'm interested in, and not waste 20 minutes.
Wiser @ Jun 26th 2007 11:00AM
While I agree that the game does have some issues, I still think it's one of the best multi-player experiences I've had in a long time. I'm constantly finding myself actually using all of the different races for many different strategies. I think it's great because you really have to think and have good teamwork.
mickeysix @ Jun 26th 2007 11:52AM
I don't own an Xbox. However, I'm a longtime Shadowrun paper&pencil lover, and I've tracked Shadowrun since the day the 360 version was announced. I had set aside some cash for a system if the game turned out to be what I was hoping for: an RPG or hybrid that captured the essence of the original P&P game. Two of my friends did exactly the same thing. All of us were disappointed (and not buying 360s at least for now, probably not ever). I wonder how many others like us are out there.
Microsoft, once again, is catering to the lowest common denominator by maiming an established IP, which seems to be their running business model nowadays in all their dealings. I don't care how great the gameplay is -- I'm not buying a heartless mangling of a title that could have been so much better with just a little effort.
If the game is so much fun to play, I don't begrudge its fans their enjoyment of it. But it should have had a different name slapped on it; associating it with the Shadowrun franchise is a disgrace. MS advertised prime rib and delivered sirloin.
Otis Wildflower @ Jun 26th 2007 12:01PM
I _am_ a fan of the original pen & paper RPG, and all I can say is I wish cancer on the folks responsible for this abomination.
Fatal, incurable and cripplingly painful cancer.
MagusDF @ Jun 26th 2007 1:12PM
It seems a lot of the people enjoying this game don’t have much affiliation to the nature of shadowrun. They could have called it a generic cyberpunk shooter and saved you the 30$ by that logic.
Most of the people that are upset are upset with the license. There are definitely some critical aspects $60 is a bit high, especially if the name doesn’t mean much to your target audience.
As far as a risk factor... The only risk they took was taking the license out of the RPG realm. Even if you are primarily FPS experienced there is ways to apply your expertise and make something appealing to the core audience of the license. Combine either elements of DeusEx or STALKER, into a shadowrun license on fps and I’m sure people would at least be wiling to give it a chance before complaining. What they have done is no different form taking dig-dug making and making it an fps, shredding any elements of single player, and releasing it for 60$. Yeah some people may like it, but it’s a waste of a license.
typhoidtimmy @ Jun 26th 2007 1:23PM
Before we get another round of "You SR people and your RPG BS", lets get one thing straight.
All Shadowrun was for a load of people was a RPG. RPG on paper, RPG in their earlier games (loose but still RPG's in the overall), RPG's in the Japanese Game, and still an RPG through 4 company transfers and the 4th edition guidebook.
It's a deep, deep, DEEP fanbase who have loved it for its scale and the depth of the storylines (ask any fan about things like Dunk's will or the Renraku arcology takeover or who the hell the Harlequin is and sit down for some interesting storylines).
The point is that this FPS could have been the greatest crap to be put on a slice of toast and it still would have the naysayers...because it was not what the people wanted.
Gitelman knows this, Gitelman has said he knows this is what we were not expecting, yet he clearly can't see how we do not want to give it a chance. Furthermore, the collective head up asses suits are going to see the low sales on the name and assume "no one wants Shadowrun Games"...WE WANT AN RPG, NOT A FPS WHICH IS JUST A REVISION OF SOME CS MODS.
Taking a product that has been based in a certain element for 25 years then saying "Ferget all that stuff, lets make a pew pew ROFL shooter" is taint amount to suicide in game development. Look at the Fallout license when they brought out those detestable "BOS" knockoffs..the gameworld howled for the blood of the developers and the the idiots who gave the nod to use the license in such a stupid way.
Here is an idea - Replace the word 'Shadowrun' with the words 'Dungeons and Dragons' and try to explain why the world needs an D&D FPS? Sounds slightly silly.
You know what they should have done....done the RPG first and THEN do your FPS. Simply put, give the fans what they want, then give em the dessert of being able to play in the world if they want.
But no, someone suit up there looked at some paper and said that the world needed yet another FPS in a crowded market based on market studies probably made back in the early 90's. The world gets another fart in the wind and the fans of the genre suffer to such diatribe of 'why do you like SR? That 360 game suuuuuuccckkkss'
Marcelo @ Jun 26th 2007 1:28PM
I'm a Counter Strike junky, have Source and 1.6 installed on my machine, but lately have been mostly playing Shadowrun and I think is a great game.
After CS I was growing up tired of FPS that felt the same but with different weapons, but Shadowrun gameplay is just out of this world; like when you are fighting someone while running through walls using magic just to find out that yout escence ran out in a room filled with enemy players... If you are lucky you will have enough time to kill one person, regain essence and teleport the floor below.
FishWithAHammer @ Jun 26th 2007 1:37PM
I fervently wish testicular cancer on all of the scumbags involved in this project.
This is as much Shadowrun as my stools are Chinese dolls.
Mike @ Jun 26th 2007 1:38PM
Put the game at $39 and watch it fly off the shelves. The ONLY game worth $60 was Gears.
RayRay @ Jun 26th 2007 2:41PM
Re: #18
Fallout 3 may have FPS written on it...but the Devs have stated in GameInformer that it will be kind of like Neverwinter Nights, with some pausing action combat...
From GameInformer...a few points...
- Game runs on an evolved version of the Oblivion engine. Third person view has been reworked since the verdict was that the Oblivion version sucked balls.
- Game starts with your birth and your mother's death in a vault hospital. This is essentially the character customization part of the game. Your father hands you up to have your DNA analyzed and you get to pick out all your character traits. Your dad takes off his mask to reveal similar traits to the ones you picked.
- You grow up in the vault and as you grow you get your first book titled "You're Special" which allows you to choose you baseline stats for each of your 7 primary aptitudes. You'll also get your first weapons and wrist computer (menu) as you get older you'll take tests to determine the initial layout of your skills and traits.
- Every aspect of character creation is based on S.P.E.C.I.A.L. system. Of your 14 skills you can tag 3 to grow at a faster rate than the rest as you level up.
- Battle system is called the Vault-tec Assisted Targeting System (V.A.T.S.). The article states. "While you'll certainly be able to tackle enemies in real time using first person shooting, V.A.T.S. lets players pause time and select a target at their leisure". Battle system still uses action points, but once you've used them up you'll still be able to fight targets in real time while they charge back up.
- Game is still violent and gory. One of the featured screens is of a guy's head exploding in super gory detail. Apparently all gory deaths in the game will be in slow motion.
- More than one way to play the game. Go balls out and kill people, or sneak past situations, or perhaps talk your way out of situations.
- Enemies can target you just like you can target them, so you can get injured in very specific points on you body. This is in addition to an all new health/radiation system. This new system has you measuring how radiated certain things (like water) are and how they affect you when you consume them.
- Karma system returns
- XP based system, most XP comes from quests
Sounds like an RPG to me?
kiwi_b @ Jun 26th 2007 5:15PM
Bwahahaha.
I like the game on my 360. I love the pen and paper game.
Here's a question for those rabid P & p fans who loathe the concept of the new game - how many Shadowrun products did you but in the last year? In fact - where's the franchise now?
I can guarantee the new game is giving the (new?) owners of the franchise more public awareness than your lounge games.
And quit whining. Those who play know that SR requires a potentially very, very deep world to make into an online RPG. Who the heck could afford to do that well when even the trad players are hard to find.
And lets face it - what if they did make an RPG and missed out a Meta type, or didn't cater for adepts the right way. Hell - when would they even set it?
And last, but hopefully not least, the new game has massive potential to mix and match in new cyberware, magic and weapon types over time. Bullet shield anyone? Air elementals, physical adept sub-classes and drones?
Cheers.
gutshot @ Jun 26th 2007 5:29PM
Having played Shadowrun on pen and paper and on the old Sega Genesis, I was really looking forward to this until I heard it was just another crappy console shooter. FPSs are a dime a dozen and mostly unplayable for me on consoles. I get tired of fighting against the controls and lack of precision that I get on a PC. Add the Windows ME2 (Vista) requirement and no single player and this game is DOA.
What a waste of good content.
jebusjezzie @ Jun 26th 2007 6:46PM
I wanted more from this, too. I got the demo on 360, and it's really fun, and visually beautiful - but it's just gonna wear out, like all the other FPS's put out on 360. there's just.. not enough to it, as cool as it is. I wouldn't mind that they made an FPS instead of RPG (too much, anyways) if they actually made it worth the money and really presented the awesome cyberpunk shadowrun world. instead, just run and gun. zzzz. did they even -look- at any of the material, or just get an "executive summary"? i'm waiting til it hits the cheap/used shelf to get it, at any rate; but when it does i'm sure i will. 360 in general has been mostly a disappointment, though. All crappy(well, ok, they're all fun for a while - but the novelty wears off) FPS games. I've bought more XBLA games than full games, they're more fun and cheaper to boot.
Gavin Greenwalt @ Jun 27th 2007 3:28AM
Shadowrun is a brilliant multiplayer game. I've been playing it since february, and am still not tired of it.
No single player != $60. Really? Why because you *need* those 14 hours of fun singleplayer? Please. I love singleplayer as much as the next guy, but let's face it. A week after the game comes out, I'm playing multiplayer and that's all I do for the rest of the product life cycle.
As much as I hate to admit it, dollar for hour, Counter Strike was probably the best gaming investment of my life. I played shadowrun even in beta form for months because even with 2 races it was immensely entertaining.
Not enough game modes? Not enough maps? What the one board of Chess isn't enough for you? I would rather have a few excellent, well crafted maps than a dozen fillers which you hate while you wait for the map rotation to change.
Is the feature list shorter than most $60 games? Yes. It's skimpy. Does it provide more entertainment than 90% of the $60 games I've purchased? Yes. If they had delivered one phenomenal map with one phenomenal game type that kept me entertained and coming back for more I would have been happy.
Quality > Quantity.