Shadowrun reviews bother FASA

I think the reviewers were a little harsh, there's plenty of games out there that don't include a multiplayer but the reviewers don't focus in on that and tear it apart as a result.

I agree with the reviews. Full price 59.99 should have a campaign. Even a rudimentary one to fill in the void is better than none at all. 49.99 would have been more palatable.

I think the whole point of reviews is telling you whether or not you the game is worth your money. If the game is $60 then the reviewer is telling you if the game is worth the $60 or not. It doesn't matter how innovative the game is, if it doesn't last long enough or gets boring to fast to be worth $60 then it will get bad review scores.

I'd have to agree w/ the reviewers though they were a bit harsh. It's just not worth the $60. Isn't the whole point of a review to tell us whether something is worth our money or not?

I agree with the reviews. I always thought that Microsoft would release this game at $39.99. I was wrong.

I personally love the game. It's very misunderstood and it sucks cause it's awesome. The lack of campaign does kinda suck but not enough for me not to buy it.

For most people, $60 is a lot of money. I'm very picky about what I drop full price on. I paid full price for Gears and Crackdown. Those are the most recent. I've played Shadowrun and would not have paid $60 for it. The fact that there is no real single player campaign hurts it, regardless of how good the multiplayer is. People would be saying the same thing if Halo 3 was coming with just multiplayer.

Its hard not to take price into consideration when 99.9% of games have a campaign to them. Let me say though I never had an ounce intrest in this game even when I thought there would be a campaign.....and still dont

Yea, I tend to agree with the reviews as well, it isn't worth the $60 price tag. It lacks a lot of things, including a simple animation of a character climbing a ladder...come on...this is "next-gen" and we can't even put simple animations in the game? Even the Vs. mode isn't that great and doesn't include any kind of local split screen to have friends join in on the online fun.

I agree with my 59.99 (360) and 49.99 (Vista) purchases. Easily one of my all time favorites.

Some movie reviewers tell you whether or not the movie is worth the 10 bucks for your ticket, or worth a rental. Games should be reviewed the same way, especially given varying prices in games. We read these reviews to determine whether or not games are worth our time/money, so the reviews should reflect that.

I don't think any game should EVER cost over 50 dollars. I also probably won't buy this game simply because there is no campaign mode.

So to answer the quesiton, I think the review should include this information. I don't even understand why it wouldn't. What is the point of a review? So consumers can make an informed decision on their purchases? Chalk this up as a successful review, I'm not buying it, which is probably why they're so pissed.

Meh id like a campaign....allot...Its not like having no mutiplayer. So price should not have to do with the reviews but campaign...yes

I agree with the reviews. Shadowrun is half a game, and the price tag should be half the price.

@ 3 agreed. if people have a problem with that, then thats what the demo is for. as a standalone i felt mitch and the crew could have put in a bit more effort in terms of content and graphics. i acutally got a little angry after trying out the demo...all this hype and lo and behold, a shit game that could have played and looked the same on the orginal xbox.

i bet halo 3 beta was alot more fun to play than shadowrun. and that is only part of a full game.

Reviewers have every right to mention the $60 price in light of the lack of campaign, few maps, few game types, etc. The reviewer's job is to critique the game from the perspective of the game buying public. I am accustomed to getting a lot more when I spend $60, so I want to know about it if I buy something that is lacking what most people consider standard features.

The bottom line is that FASA spent way too much time developing a feature that nobody wants (cross-platform play). He said on the Fancast that this was FASA's idea, not Microsoft's. If that is true (which I don't believe), then his team made a huge mistake.

I don't disagree with Mitch, but I agree with everyone that this game should not have been $59. $49 would have been a little easier to swallow. I own the game and I think it's awesome.

Shadowrun was so crappy, I honestly considered going back to the store I bought it from and punching the guy who sold it to me in the face.

The reviews weren't bad enough IMO. That game was el terrible'

Of course price is a consideration in a review and always has been. In this case it just happen to be a part of the reviews that was highlighted, and for good reason.

Reviews need to be objective; they need to assess what the game sets out to do, and how well it does it. Reviews should take value for money into account to some extent, BUT, 95% of the review should be based on the game's content. In the case of Shadowrun, many of the reviews have rated it on what users want it to be, rather than what it is, which is an attitude which defeats the point of the review, as you end up reviewing how well the game matches your own personal vision of it, making it ore of a comparison than review.

Boo fucking hoo. Cry more you baby.

Lets see, youre developing a game for the 360, a system thats already SATURATED with FPS shooters.

You take an IP thats known for being an RPG based pen and paper game, instead of giving the 360 what it needs (more rpgs) you decide to perpetuate the issue by making a counterstrike clone with elves and magic, slapping the shadowrun name on it .........

You include NO story mode. And then CRY about when gamers done come running sucking your cock?

Look, I know this might come as a shocker to anyone with no common sense (ms game devs) but ....... if youre going to make an FPS on a console thats already got a million FPS titles on it ......... you had BETTER be doing it better and cleaner then the other guy. Most reviews had the same thing to say "neat, but nothing we havent already seen before"

Now this fag is crying because this came as a suprise? LOL, get the fuck out of here.

Whos making business decisions at MS game studios?

Although I agree with the review including price and specifics about the lack of campaign mode, I would like to state that after playing the demo I loved this game. @14 stating that "cross-platform is a feature that nobody wants", I think you're completely wrong. I thought it was brilliant. I've told multiple people about the game, stating in an excited tone "I don't know why nobody has combined an FPS with RPG/magic aspects like this before!". I think it's brilliant.

I'm just not a fan of multiplayer FPS on the console. I'd totally buy this if it had a campaign mode.

Matt, you talk about him spending too much time on a feature know one wants, but it sounds like (from the major nelson cast) that they kept flipflopping around during development. Adding features and than taking them out. This normally works with studios, but I don't think it played well to FASA's project, because they ended up launching with a game that apparently did not have enough features.

Scott, I think when he said "cross-platform is something nobody wants" he was referring to the ability to play on both Xbox360 and PC, not the combination of Fantasy and FPS elements.

And I agree with that dood, cross platforming is stupid. At least it's stupid for this game. It's gotta be done on a property that more people want to play.

I don't care that it didn't include singleplayer. Ever since Quake 3, developers have realized that, to a lot of people, the value of multiplayer is really where they should concentrate. The problem is this:

HOW COME EVERY DAMN GAME INVOLVES THE ARTIFACT, AND IN THE SAME EXACT WAY!

Fuck the artifact. What about good old team deathmatch? Or how about at least a Halo-style ball game using the artifact.

It is half a game... but not from lacking single player. It's missing some crucial and seemingly obvious multiplayer components.

Limited number of maps + only one game type = limited amount of fun

Welcome to marketing budget expenditures 101.

Forza is missing more than it's predecessor and is getting high scores because Microsoft doles out big marketing bucks.

Video games are already worse than movies in terms of excessive hype, over promised, under delivered, badly designed/written, badly delivered drivel.

Go Idiot Masses FTW!

The score of the game should not take price into consideration. However, a reviewer should definitely say if the game is worth the money. To take an extreme example, imagine a game that is just awesome but costs $100. The review could score the game 9.5/10 and still tell people not to buy it because $100 is too much. Maybe just rent it instead.

Price shouldn't change what the score is, but it should definitely change a recommendation.

I agree wholeheartedly with the reviewers. Much like any XBLA Arcade title is reviewed based on the fact that it costs $10 and fits into a 50 MB size limit (initially), so is cost also a factor in a retail game.

If Shadowrun had been $34.99 and otherwise identical, the review scores would have gone up and I agree with that. As it stands now, I just have to have a little intelligence to know that it is still a good game and when the price drops to bargain-bin levels, I'd be wise to pick it up.

Prices should be considered if you aren't getting a whole game which typically includes single-player and multi-player.

How much a game costs on a modern console is not really a good judge of the content included. Are most games worth the $60 price tag? Not really. There have only been a few that I was perfectly happy shelling out the full price for.

As for the actual content in Shadowrun, I was disappointed that it lacked a campaign mode but really the multiplayer is what gives most FPS style games replay value. Very rarely am I playing the campaign again after beating it once.

So if Halo 3 has both a killer campaign AND a killer multiplayer, it shouldn't get a better review than a game that offers only half that? Games get graded down because either online or campaign sucks. In this case, Shadowrun's campaign gets a ZERO out of ten.

I think reviewers have a right to base their review on price and take that into consideration when advising people whether to spend their hard earned money. That being said, I wasn't the least bit interested in the game because of the lack of single player campaign, but after trying the demo I rushed out to buy the game and haven't been disappointed at all. The best review in my opinion is your own thoughts on a game so download the demo and try it out for yourself.

Reviews are meant to inform the consumer so they can make the most of their purchases. So including the price is definitely a factor when you're describing how good a game is. Is Shadowrun good? Yes. Is it 60 dollars good? Hell no.

And then you stack the game up against other games that offer as much or more in multiplayer options along with strong singleplayer (Gears of War) and it's hard to justify them costing the same. Shadowrun's gameplay might be unique and fresh and in many opinions better than Gears, but the amount of content that's there (it comes with 9 maps and it's multiplayer only? come the fuck on.) doesn't justify it having the same price tag.

Consider that this fall the orange box of Half-Life 2 for the 360 is going to hit and it includes the original HL2 campaign, Episode One, Episode Two, Portal, AND Team Fortress 2. This is a bargain at 60 bucks to be sure, but it dwarfs the content Shadowrun offers so much that it's laughable.

I'll consider picking up shadowrun when it hits 30 bucks - if it still has a community behind it.

I think the main factor in deciding a score is how much fun the person has when they play it. I have a great deal of fun playing Shadowrun, so much so that the other factors seem negligible.

THe game is good but only 40 dollars good not 60

On the Major Nelson Podcast, Gitelman argues that movies aren't reviewed based on price, so his game shouldn't be either. The only problem with the argument is that movies have a standard price, and you know what to expect.

If someone made a 30 minute movie and theaters charged full price for it, then the reviews would most certainly mention it.

Gitelman must not have been checking message boards when people cried foul for making the Shadowrun IP an FPS and multiplayer only.

As long as I can remember, both ideas weren't held too high by the public. I also remember a couple months ago, Luke Smith telling Gitelman on the 1up Yours podcast that there's no reason this game should cost $60.

There was plenty of chance for FASA to know what was coming when they made half of a game.

I'm not a fan of this game, but I can see exactly what Mitch is saying. Reviews should be there to tell how great (or not) the content of the game is. They should NOT be there to tell us whether the game is "worth the money." That is an individual's decision that comes after reading reviews and playing demos.

"Worth the money" means different things to different people. Some games I see reviewed at 9's I might want to wait until the price drops, or I can get it cheaper on Ebay. There are other games where I see something I like in the review (even with a low overall score), and decide I need the game now at whatever the price is. Either way I read the reviews, and THEN make a decision on whether the game is worth the money TO ME- not to the reviewer. They get it for free anyway!

PS- Mitch was on Major Nelson's podcast about a week before OXM, where were you guys?

I would pick it up for $40.. but $60 for half a game, I don't think so.

Considering that the entire point of a review is to discourage or encourage the consumer to spend their money on a game, yes, I'd say that the pricepoint is a pretty significant part of that. Jesus Christ.

Maybe if you want better reviews you should release something that's not a gimmicky CS clone with less availible content but at three times the price.

SoxFan13 definitely puts Mitch's argument in good light. Money is different to different people when it comes to it worth in videogames. $60 to one person might mean a great game. $60 to another person might mean three great games for the same system just two years later. $60 might mean two great games to someone on another platform. $60 might mean two months of a great game to a WOW player. Does this mean price point should be taken out of reviews completely? No way. I want it told to me in my review that I have to pay $50 for a game and its expansion pack and than $180 a year on top of that to play the game regularly. That doesn't mean the reviewer should necessarily say, "You have to pay $230 for this game, so it isn't worth your money," because that's not how reviews are suposed to work. Instead they say, "To the hardcore fan this game is worth it, but for everyone else, stay away." X-Play has a great review system. One star means for fans of the series only. Two stars means for fans of the genre only. Three stars means anyone can pick up the game and have fun. Four stars means you have to have a serious issue with the game or genre or series to not pick it up. Finally, five stars means no one should miss the game, no matter their opinion on the gnre or series.

I don't have a problem with reviewers taking price into consideration, I do have a problem when a reviewer rates a game on what they think the game should include, instead of what is actually included. I read a number of reviews whining about how it should have been an RPG or how it could have been more. Rate the game for what it is, not for what you think it should have been.

As far as my views go I am glad this does not have an added on single player like in Black hawk down and Battlefield Modern Combat (both xbox) that was atrocious and delayed the game because the publisher felt it was needed for a console game.

As for the price I have gotten much more play time out of this then many other $60 games, so I am pleased.

I think this warrants copy/pasting.

This is a comment of major nelsons blog about the podcast where the shadowrun dev cries about how unfair the big cruel world is.

from user "SVC MeanMF"

http://www.majornelson.com/archive/2007/06/17/show-230-the-one-about-tenchu-z-and-shadowrun.aspx?PageIndex=2

"Waaaaaaa the reviewers are mean and stupid. Waaaaaaaaa I didn't have enough staff. Waaaaaaaaa I should have hired better people. Waaaaaaaaa games are so hard to make. I've never heard somebody in a senior management pass the buck and whine so much. They deliberately chose to make a game with very limited content, and were blasted by the critics and the gaming public for it. Mitch is living in an alternate universe where *real* gamers bow down to his "elite" "history-making" game design and balancing skills, and everybody else is just too stupid to "get" what they were going for. In the real world, he's delivered an updated Counterstrike that plays like a glorified game of rock-paper-scissors. Enemies picked smoke? I hope you picked gust! You didn't? Oh well, guess again next game. And OF COURSE they're going to include the value for the money in the review. If they had released Pac-Man Championship edition as a $40 game, do you seriously think nobody would have mentioned the price in the reviews?? He should drop the "reviewers are being mean to us" fantasy too. Gamefly: 7.8 from the community. IGN: 7.9 from the community. GameRankings: 7.4 from the community. If it makes him feel better to cherry-pick a 9.4 here and there then fine, but overall the pro reviews are within a point of the community opinions.

*Nobody* outside of Microsoft cares about cross-platform play. It brings no benefit to either platform. PC gamers got their controls nerfed to compete with game controllers, and console players now get to deal with all of the hacks and cheats that are already becoming available on the PC (so much for Vista's "security features"). PC gamers get to pay a subscription fee to play on non-dedicated servers hosted by people with 384k DSL connections. Infinity Ward has it exactly right: Good for casual games, pointless for action games like FPS and RTS titles. Time spent getting this to work would have been much better spent tweaking controls for each platform and finishing those missing maps, powers, and game types.

If they let him keep his senior-level role on his next title, then he should design a FULL GAME. Earth to Mitch: most people don't play one game type on a couple of maps. They like depth and growth, not rote repetition of the same thing over and over. Of course there are some, especially the "pro" gamers, who like perfecting their skills by repeatedly playing the exact same thing, but that's a tiny minority of the overall gaming community. There's nothing wrong with designing a game for that audience (unless you're the publisher who might be interested in selling lots of copies), but don't expect that the wider public including the gaming press will be impressed. And next time, try to keep your crew ON TIME and ON BUDGET so your publisher doesn't bail out on you and force you to ship a game that is barely distingishable from the beta six months ago."

I agree with the reviews. When a game costs $59.99 for the Xbox 360, but considerably less for the PC, the price should be taken into consideration.

Also, when a game is called Shadowrun, I think it goes without saying that it will be related to the Shadowrun RPG series and include some form of Campaign mode that adds quite a few RPG elements to the game.

Shadowrun is a fine game in the Action genre that it ended up existing in, but it isn't nearly as broad-scoped as what it could have been in terms of how it relates to the traditional Shadowrun game series.

I feel I should point out that there is already a president for this: Unreal Tournament and Quake 3: Arena are multiplayer only titles …. And, in general, they didn’t get marked down for that fact.
What’s with the double standard?

Shadowrun has a growing, dedicated community around it. The reviewers may not like it, but a lot of gamers do. You should also note that there are a lot of people playing the demo – and the fact that they keep playing the demo instead of getting the game is a sure sign that the game is priced too high.

I notice that there are a lot of Australians and Kiwis playing, which is undoubtedly because the game was released at half-price over there. If only the publisher (I’m looking at you Microsoft) had made the logical step and sold it as a budget title in the USA.

I have the game, and love playing with my PC-playing mates. I hated the Halo3 beta – which was just hi-def Halo2. Shadowrun’s skill sets have ruined other shooters for me – if I can’t fly over a wall, summon a minion and then teleport off, I don’t want to know.

Quote: He goes on to say that the game should be reviewed for what it is and not how much it costs as they never said a campaign would be included.

Campaign doesn't need to be included, but comparing Shadowrun to just the multiplayer in Rainbow Six Vegas or Graw 2 and it isn't half the game those are. What he is complaing about is just like a car dealer saying a car with no wheels shouldn't be judged for not having wheels, but on it HAVING automatic door locks. At best Shadowrun is a really good Beta that is waiting for the rest of the game to be polished and released.

If you are going to charge $60 for a game and only include 2 discernable game modes and only a handful of maps, you shouldn't cry foul when people notice. You want it to be multiplayer only, include enough maps and play modes that no one notices the campaign is not included. Rainbow Six Vegas has so many multiplayer modes I havn't even tried them all yet. If this was RSV saying it didn't have a campaign, I honestly wouldn't miss it because the miltiplayer is so vast.
I was bored with Shadowrun after one rental because I had played every map and BOTH play modes.
They should have called it Shadowrun: Capture the Flag... at least then it would have been more honest about what we were buying.

I love the game - it's fun but not worth the $60 price tag. Probably a $40 game for no campaign and as many maps and game modes that are included.

Free downloads could even out the $60 price tag.

Any good game could be priced high nad it's reveiws woulda been lowered. If Halo 3 was only availible for 130$, it would be bashed on all it's reviews for such a high price. It's the same when you release a game with less content than gamers are used to, epsecially when those without online can't really enjoy this game at all. And I'm sure reivewers are going to give Valve's orange box very high scores, in part because it is giving you so much for the price. I'm mean really, those two games are going to be right next ot each other in stores in a couple of months, and which would you say is the better? The one with Just multiplayer, or the one with Multiplayer, a "FPS Puzzler", and a full fledged single player experience that cost PC gamers 70$ a year ago? (Half lIfe 2 + Episode 1)

I was never impressed with this game.

The ability to play against/with PC players does not impress me in the least. I could care less about those features. I agree the Tech/Magic abilities add a new level of gameplay. However, when I purchase a game I first look at what the game has to offer for offline play.

I am sure that this game is a blast to play online, but to ask $59 for an online only game is pushing it. I may pickup this game when it becomes platinum if any of my friends are still playing it.

The games I purchase for $59 are limited to what I perceive as must have titles. This one is NOT a must have in my opinion.

Unreal Tournament has never included a single player mode. I wonder if Unreal Tournament 3 will. If not, will it be trashed for costing $60?

I remember years ago Seirra made Tribes. Primarily that was an online game only...(campaign consisted of training and bot matchs/much like shadowrun)and thousands still bought and played that game...in fact few still play that game..I bought shadowrun (at $49.99 gamestop labeled wrg and gave me this price)and I love it. I am all about online fragging and gaming, this game offers unique gunplay not seen anywhere else. I think the price is a big factor but the content this offers online is phenominal.