Shadowrun Returns Initial Thoughts

5ilver

New member
Aug 25, 2010
341
0
0
I liked the setting and art style of the game but it felt way too short. The best part about similar older RPG's is how massive and deep they are. A 12-hour game can't compare to a 60+ hour game, even if it any lacks major flaws.

Minor flaws:
Checkpoint system
Some skills are absurdly under/overpowered (rifles and shotguns vs melee, for instance).
some stats/skills are used too rarely/too often during dialogue (at least 20 uses for charisma and only 1 use for quickness?)
no way to change/view keybinds
the mercs lack dialogue/character


Also, protip: DO NOT make your protagonist a decker. Seriously, there are about 3-4 chances to enter the matrix in the entire game and you can use a hireling in almost every one of them.
 

5ilver

New member
Aug 25, 2010
341
0
0
vallorn said:
Azahul said:
wombat_of_war said:
the tabletop game was mostly self contained shadowruns for the most part. meet the johnson, get the job, hope there isnt any fall back
In that case, yeah, sounds like they captured the spirit of the PnP game pretty well.

Just started a second playthrough. My Ork Adept went well, never had a problem meleeing enemies throughout the game. Going to be trying an Elf Shaman for the second run.
Elf Mage is hilarious. I know it isn't optimal but it's so goddamn fun to just nuke everything with fireballs, lightning bolts and acid splashes. Plus if you play right you can multiclass a pure Mage to have some Shaman traits which makes things really awesome.

Also I would like to mirror the lack of use for Decker crew members... Seriously wtf... In the last mission (no spoilers) there's a safe which requires Decking 5 to open. My main character is magic focused so nada. I turn to the decked I brought along just in case. they walk over. NOPE DOESN'T COUNT THE PC HAS TO BE A DECKER LOL!

Seriously, probably the most frustrating thing about the story was that some classes were good for anything and some just had nothing to do for half the missions.
There's 1 tier 3 medkit in that safe. That's all :X
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
randomrob1968 said:
barbzilla said:
What is doubly baffling is, where did the extra kickstarter funds go?
Well, assuming it was a dedicated project of all the 22 employees being on the clock for the year and a few months it took.. 400K divided by 22 is about 18k per person as a wage. That ain't much. The other million point 4 they raised? I'm guessing some of it went to the editor, some to the new campaign and whatever content they're adding, which it sounds like they are adding a good bit since they're having most of their team staying with it, some to PR and advertising, some into their pockets...

I don't pretend to understand the legal issues of crowdfunding, I do know they promised to put out a sequel to the 90s console game and I really can't fault them on that. The game I bought is the one I expected-
Well the Editor would have been made either way, as this is how levels are designed at the professional level as well (albeit the editors tend to be less user friendly, so I accept some of the funds went to making it easier to use). The DLC campaign didn't get started until after launch, and is likely using funds from the launch and not the 1.4m. It wasn't heavily advertised (which is fine, I've known about it for quite a while) and PR doesn't cost much more than hiring a PR manager (which I am guessing was included in the 22 people).

I don't mean to say that I am disappointed in the overall product I received. In fact I am sufficiently satisfied with what I recieved vs what I paid, but I am very disappointed that with all of those funds they didn't put the campaign through at least a basic editorial process. Punctuation and grammatical errors are all over the place, and the dialogue was terrible. The overarch of the story was fairly well written (as in the concept), but the writing itself was atrocious.

If I had to judge the game based on this campaign alone, I would only give it a 5/10. It was technically functional and didn't suffer from major bugs. On the other end of the spectrum the writing was bad, there were no role playing elements (aside from character creation elements), your choices make little to no difference, and it was nothing but a linear turn based tactics game. Luckily I don't have to judge it solely on the base campaign, and already I've seen some decent entries into the user generated content market. With any luck we will have a decent game experience soon (hopefully the DLC meets my expectations and raises my opinion on the devs again).

As for legality, I don't want a refund or want to start any law suits, so the legality isn't an issue. Where I am disappointed is the fact that my Shadowrun RPG turned into a Shadowrun turn based tactical game. Outside of that, most of my complaints are based on the release campaign, which is not a major issue. I just wonder what kind of game we would have gotten for the 400k minimum. If 1.4m bought us this, what did the original 400k buy us?
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Azahul said:
wombat_of_war said:
the tabletop game was mostly self contained shadowruns for the most part. meet the johnson, get the job, hope there isnt any fall back
In that case, yeah, sounds like they captured the spirit of the PnP game pretty well.

Just started a second playthrough. My Ork Adept went well, never had a problem meleeing enemies throughout the game. Going to be trying an Elf Shaman for the second run.
Not so much, it really depends on your roleplay group. My roleplay group focused on the entire lifestyle of a runner. We roleplayed everything down to trying to buy your equipment (as much of it is pretty hard to get due to legality). Even during missions there was a ton going on and the plan never went as such. Much like real life, a good plan never lasts past the first bullet fired. Once the drek hit the fan, we were often scrambling to think on our toes and come up with alternate solutions. Like the time we had a life debt run to make (do the run or die) that required our Decker obtaining some information, well when our Decker was killed getting into the building, we had to rethink our plan of attack. Eventually we ended up raiding the server room to pull the mem chips off of the boards. It took us a week to find a rigger who could get the info off of the chips, but we saved our lives with quick thinking.

This game doesn't have choice at all outside of dialogue, and the choices there are purely redundant as they don't change the outcome of anything. You are in a tactical version of a rail shooter in this game, and that is where it fails in my eyes.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Alcamonic said:
Story and dialogue is very good.
But as others have said, the tactical combat is very much XCOM-lite (how does a 2 feet high box give half protection while a table of greater size gives zero!?)
Maybe the box is filled with content that might actually stop a bullet, while the table is a thin horizontal surface on legs, that offers neither concealment nor cover.
Many maps do seem to be missing many appropriate shields, but tables are not it.

I wonder where that XCOM-lite comment is coming from. Both the original and the new XCOM have less in the way of combat features, map design and stat progression than this game.
While I like both XCOMs, the new XCOM in particular is the "lite" tactical game here.
 

Alcamonic

New member
Jan 6, 2010
747
0
0
veloper said:
Alcamonic said:
Story and dialogue is very good.
But as others have said, the tactical combat is very much XCOM-lite (how does a 2 feet high box give half protection while a table of greater size gives zero!?)
Maybe the box is filled with content that might actually stop a bullet, while the table is a thin horizontal surface on legs, that offers neither concealment nor cover.
Many maps do seem to be missing many appropriate shields, but tables are not it.

I wonder where that XCOM-lite comment is coming from. Both the original and the new XCOM have less in the way of combat features, map design and stat progression than this game.
While I like both XCOMs, the new XCOM in particular is the "lite" tactical game here.
"Lite" part is, at least what I was referring too, that you are unable to use certain things for cover such as corners, doorways or whatever it might be (at least for weak/partial cover).
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Alcamonic said:
veloper said:
Alcamonic said:
Story and dialogue is very good.
But as others have said, the tactical combat is very much XCOM-lite (how does a 2 feet high box give half protection while a table of greater size gives zero!?)
Maybe the box is filled with content that might actually stop a bullet, while the table is a thin horizontal surface on legs, that offers neither concealment nor cover.
Many maps do seem to be missing many appropriate shields, but tables are not it.

I wonder where that XCOM-lite comment is coming from. Both the original and the new XCOM have less in the way of combat features, map design and stat progression than this game.
While I like both XCOMs, the new XCOM in particular is the "lite" tactical game here.
"Lite" part is, at least what I was referring too, that you are unable to use certain things for cover such as corners, doorways or whatever it might be (at least for weak/partial cover).
HBS did seem a bit sloppy in the painting the shields. Even more mistakes than Firaxis with Xcom. Best way to deal with the issue in the meantime is to just look at the cover symbols that do show up in the room and just work with those.
 

randomrob1968

New member
Sep 26, 2011
77
0
0
THIS

RatherDull said:
Shadowrun returns is without a doubt a successor to the console games, not a game adaptation of the PnP game.
That there's any confusion over this point confuses me.
 

blackdwarf

New member
Jun 7, 2010
606
0
0
the biggest issue so far for me, is that it feels pretty linear. I don't really feel like a can make actual choices besides the tone I answer in. but I am really enjoying my playthrough so far. I do have the feeling that the game will be more interesting after a while, because of the huge potential of the mod community. The story and the character so far have been pretty solid and I really like the style.
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
Really good, excpet towards the end; there's one mission where you break into a corporate office that I had to restart 3 times.

And the final mission had to be restarted again because I accidentally threw a grenade where I shouldn't have.

Everything is else is a bit lacking, such as no permanent companions that can be leveled up, no open world, and the pointlessness of picking certain etiquettes.
 

Zeldias

New member
Oct 5, 2011
282
0
0
Can't rotate the damn camera and no manual saves = me shouting "WTF!?"

But then I realize that I'm playing a shotgun-wielding shaman, summoning spirits to help me fight a cyborg elf with an assault rifle and god dammit, I haven't enjoyed something this grotesque (in the aesthetic sense of being made of wildly disparate elements) since Wild Arms.

It's fun, and I'm excited to see what comes in terms of expansions and fan-made stuff. It is rather linear, but I'm not sure I mind so much. If I want something less linear, I can always play NWN2 or KotoR2.

It's fun and worth the money.
 

gyrobot_v1legacy

New member
Apr 30, 2009
768
0
0
barbzilla said:
Azahul said:
wombat_of_war said:
the tabletop game was mostly self contained shadowruns for the most part. meet the johnson, get the job, hope there isnt any fall back
In that case, yeah, sounds like they captured the spirit of the PnP game pretty well.

Just started a second playthrough. My Ork Adept went well, never had a problem meleeing enemies throughout the game. Going to be trying an Elf Shaman for the second run.
Not so much, it really depends on your roleplay group. My roleplay group focused on the entire lifestyle of a runner. We roleplayed everything down to trying to buy your equipment (as much of it is pretty hard to get due to legality). Even during missions there was a ton going on and the plan never went as such. Much like real life, a good plan never lasts past the first bullet fired. Once the drek hit the fan, we were often scrambling to think on our toes and come up with alternate solutions. Like the time we had a life debt run to make (do the run or die) that required our Decker obtaining some information, well when our Decker was killed getting into the building, we had to rethink our plan of attack. Eventually we ended up raiding the server room to pull the mem chips off of the boards. It took us a week to find a rigger who could get the info off of the chips, but we saved our lives with quick thinking.

This game doesn't have choice at all outside of dialogue, and the choices there are purely redundant as they don't change the outcome of anything. You are in a tactical version of a rail shooter in this game, and that is where it fails in my eyes.
Remember this a sample campaign. And with redundant skills. It always help to have a secondary class.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Oh Shadowrun Returns...so many flaws. Let us catalogue them, shall we?

1. Combat system lifted from the XCOM reboot fails to capture even that games slightly spotty glory. The biggest trespass here is the schizophrenic cover system, which is painfully counter intuitive and slap dash. There doesn't appear to be any real effort at level design, with cover placed sporadically around the level, and offering dubious bonuses even when employed. The limited action point system works reasonably well here as it did there, although a lack of early powers and basic defensive commands such as "hunker down" reduce most firefights in the first half to clicks and crossed fingers. It's also painfully easy to misclick while trying to select an alternate character and send your original choice skittering halfway across the map...a mistake that is often unreversable due to the game's inexplicable lack of a manual save game feature.

2. Maps are pretty to look at but almost utterly non-interactive. Even by the standards of old CRPGs with painted backdrops there is little to do in these areas.

3. Conversations are nicely written but very simple. You cycle through a few basic options and the conversation is done. On rare occasions you might be able to use a Charisma check or a speech bonus to get a slightly different result, but these arise so infrequently they don't really justify the heavy investment in Charisma unless you are already running a Shaman.

4. Loot is painfully generic in terms of function, even if there is a smattering of lore appropriate names. It's clearly divided into rigid tiers of incrementally increasing damage or armor/stats, with no opportunity to bag a rare or special item early. Weapons are also gated by your skill in handling them. Enemies drop nothing. This is not a game for loot enthusiasts.

5. Karma/experience is tied entirely to completing certain hard locked objectives, and cannot be earned in any other way. This means all karma received is in large chunks at the end of "chapters" or after performing certain actions. Not really a problem, but it's as streamlined as an XP/level up system could ever hope to be.

6. Little to none of the depth in the pen and paper game is evident in the character creation. Many skills and abilities have been altered to fit the game's combat engine. Qualities are gone, knowledge skills are gone, and active skills are reduced to combat only. While stripping a pen and paper game down to better fit a CRPG is hardly an unheard of phenomenon, it's a little surprising given the project lead is the guy who invented the IP.

7. Without giving any spoilers away, the (quite lengthy) final mission is an entirely combat focused slog that renders Deckers absolutely worthless and requires the use of new, special weapons different than anything you've been training in and skilling up. It also features infinite respawning/regenerating opponents. It's like a Master's class in how to make an irritating mission, even if it's not overly hard. Charisma/speech or Decker focused characters will be utterly pointless here. You know, the kind of characters one might expect from an IP famed for its cyberpunk motif and conspiracy/espionage focus.

8. The lone campaign included with the game is really short. The NPCs are colorful but largely unmemorable. There is no special bond formed with anyone, and the final mission will be performed with characters who were heretofore strangers and/or random hirelings, rather than the friends you'd made in previous runs.

9. It's buggy as hell. Disappearing dialogue options pop up frequently, requiring you to blind click a square to advance the game. I had one hard lock as well, requiring a level restart.

10. No keyboard shortcuts for ANYTHING, and no manual save function. This feels like a game designed with tablets as the preferred platform, and a PC port as a total afterthought.

So, it's crap, right?

Well, weirdly enough, it's still pretty fun. I enjoyed my time with it, despite finding blatant flaws at almost EVERY juncture. What's really irritating is that a great many of these flaws seem like they could've been easily avoided, while others feel like laziness/slopiness in design rather than limitations imposed by the engine or the genre. The good news that comes with that is a dedicated modder could, hypothetically, create a really polished adventure that eclipses the core campaign many times over. The bad news is it would take a while. In the mean time, all you've got is Harebrained Studio's dubious original campaign.

Which is still really fun, especially if you like Shadowrun. Just be prepared for a healthy side order of disappointment to go along with your entertainment. This game could, and perhaps should, have been MUCH better than it is.

8/10 if using the retarded 7-10 scale.
5/10 if using a proper 1-10 scale.
 

Ishal

New member
Oct 30, 2012
1,177
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
8/10 if using the retarded 7-10 scale.
I bought it during the steam sale, have yet to play it. What is this retarded 7-10 scale you speak of?

Is it like, 7-10 are the only numbers so the lowest it can get is a 7? which is still good? Implying 1-6 don't exists?
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Ishal said:
I bought it during the steam sale, have yet to play it. What is this retarded 7-10 scale you speak of?

Is it like, 7-10 are the only numbers so the lowest it can get is a 7? which is still good? Implying 1-6 don't exists?
Most gaming websites these days seldom hand out scores lower than a 7, which lead to the accusation that game reviews now took place on a "7-10 scale". 8's and 9's are commonplace, with 8's handed out like candy to even average/broken games, and 9's to anything passable.

We've had quite a few "controversies" kicked up because some game reviewer or another had the unmitigated gall to give a popular game an 8/10.
 

Ishal

New member
Oct 30, 2012
1,177
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Ishal said:
I bought it during the steam sale, have yet to play it. What is this retarded 7-10 scale you speak of?

Is it like, 7-10 are the only numbers so the lowest it can get is a 7? which is still good? Implying 1-6 don't exists?
Most gaming websites these days seldom hand out scores lower than a 7, which lead to the accusation that game reviews now took place on a "7-10 scale". 8's and 9's are commonplace, with 8's handed out like candy to even average/broken games, and 9's to anything passable.

We've had quite a few "controversies" kicked up because some game reviewer or another had the unmitigated gall to give a popular game an 8/10.
Yeah I figured thats what you meant. I don't know, I'm kind of apathetic toward the whole scoring system. I tend to be more forgiving than others of a game/movie/books faults, especially if the good aspects were enough to overshadow the bad. The things that are 2 or 3 out of ten bad I would like not even play anyway.

I don't use metacritic or rotten tomatoes. So I can't really get worked up over game journalism and its current state. Heck, I didn't even think IGN was crap until they actually claimed to be professional when they gave ME3 a great score... while simultaneously having their own Jessica Chobot IN THE GAME. That was pretty bad.
 

barbzilla

He who speaks words from mouth!
Dec 6, 2010
1,465
0
0
Ishal said:
BloatedGuppy said:
8/10 if using the retarded 7-10 scale.
I bought it during the steam sale, have yet to play it. What is this retarded 7-10 scale you speak of?

Is it like, 7-10 are the only numbers so the lowest it can get is a 7? which is still good? Implying 1-6 don't exists?
Basically what he is talking about is the system that many large magazines/sites will use to avoid upsetting the devs. 7 means playable but bad and anything under a 7 is basically riddled with game breaking bugs. Meanwhile in a full 1-10 scale a rating of 5 means it is fine from a technical standpoint, but flawed in the story/gameplay departments.
 

Sehnsucht Engel

New member
Apr 18, 2009
1,890
0
0
I liked it up to the point where you have to kill the insect spirits. It got stupid at that point. I couldn't hit a target the size of a wall, that was standing right in front of me, with a shotgun. It's like playing morrowind all over again.