http://www.gamershell.com/all/shadowrun/sc...hots.html?id=20

 

 

Do you know anything about this project? It was a real suprise when i accidently found these screenies.

Yes, I know about it. Don't get your hopes up. They're turning it into a MULTIPLAYER FPS ONLY! It's the worst waste of a license I've ever seen. It won't even have a single player campaign! It'll be like Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament, only in the Shadowrun universe.

 

Total waste of a perfectly good license.

Yes, I know about it. Don't get your hopes up. They're turning it into a MULTIPLAYER FPS ONLY! It's the worst waste of a license I've ever seen. It won't even have a single player campaign! It'll be like Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament, only in the Shadowrun universe.

 

Total waste of a perfectly good license.

ah, then its already dead before it was born

Yeah, I think it is. You can read more about it here:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=73693

 

It really sounds like utter crap.

If you get over the "OMG no RPG elements!" reaction, what he is saying I can really dig.

 

He wants to refine the combat system. The best way to stress test a combat system is to force a large number of players to just fight to the death over and over, watch the results, listen to the community, then make adjustments.

 

Then with the next installment (Expansion or sequel) he would make said minor changes to the combat system, and now he can focus on adding another good solid amount of game play (ala adding hacking and the Matrix).

 

Instead of Making one game with a bunch of lackluster and mediocre features, and trying to improve them all with each expansion sequel.

 

I mean, in reality, he is giving gamers what they want. So many gamers complain that a game will take on too many features, and do them all poorly.

 

A lot of people point fingers to Oblivion, claiming its lock picking system is broken, stealth is only half-done, combat is dull after a while, persuasion system broke, etc. I don't agree, but it works for this example.

 

This way, he can focus on one major game aspect at a time, and evolve the game.

 

You can't have you cake and eat it too.

 

This argument is specifically aimed at games that include multiple game play styles and elements. Not singularly focused games like Thief, or a pure FPS, namely, applying to a lot of RPGs coming out these days.

 

Expecting a game to promise a bazillion features and deliver the first time around is not going to happen. If you want a game with Tons of features *done well*, then this is the way to do that. Evolving it from one iteration to the next.

You know.. it IS possible to make a game with all those features working at the same time. Take Deus Ex as an example: combat is fantastic, character development is fantastic, level design is fantastic, writing & story are fantastic, and so on. You can have the cake and eat it, you just need very skillful developers who knows what they're doing.

 

Sure, they may be able to "refine" the combat first and add a game later. But they have to hurry. Time is NOT on a games developers side. If they even take two years to add the gameplay (after the combat), the first part will be dated and obsolete. I honestly don't believe in that way of making a game at all, especially since arena based combat is so directly tied to the arena it takes place in. I don't think it's possible to lift out the combat from an arena shooter and implement it relatively untouched in another game.

Edited March 9, 200718 yr by mkreku

Deus Ex was a Divinely Inspired game, it is outside of normal game development conventions

 

Well honestly, Shadowrun is a game about coop play. You need a team, your suppose to be with a team. I hope they keep it as a Coop game, turning it into a "mini-MMO". Kinda like GW, where you create squads with people you meet, run missions, etc, but not a giant game world with grinding .

 

Kinda like the new Left 4 Dead game, where your expected to run with other players. Theres a lot of innovations to be done with more coop games, now that Broadband is had by almost any gamer these days.

 

I don't want a Shadowrun singleplayer RPG now after reading his article, and thinking about the table-top RPG of it.

Deus Ex was a Divinely Inspired game, it is outside of normal game development conventions

 

Well honestly, Shadowrun is a game about coop play. You need a team, your suppose to be with a team. I hope they keep it as a Coop game, turning it into a "mini-MMO". Kinda like GW, where you create squads with people you meet, run missions, etc, but not a giant game world with grinding .

 

Kinda like the new Left 4 Dead game, where your expected to run with other players. Theres a lot of innovations to be done with more coop games, now that Broadband is had by almost any gamer these days.

 

I don't want a Shadowrun singleplayer RPG now after reading his article, and thinking about the table-top RPG of it.

WHOA!!!

 

And i don't want a GW online clone!

And i don't want a GW online clone!

 

I said a GW-like game. GW is set up pretty decently in all honesty. The major problem with GWs is the experience new players get when they join. 50% of the GW players are cheap jerks, and they mostly just hang around the early zones showing off, acting tough and cool. The "real" players are busy actually doing instances or PvPing, and are part of elite groups that don't deal with the scrubs.

 

I have some issues with GW, by my main point in my argument was that it shouldn't be a "large persistent word" but more a collection of missions in instances-like places.

And i don't want a GW online clone!

 

I said a GW-like game. GW is set up pretty decently in all honesty. The major problem with GWs is the experience new players get when they join. 50% of the GW players are cheap jerks, and they mostly just hang around the early zones showing off, acting tough and cool. The "real" players are busy actually doing instances or PvPing, and are part of elite groups that don't deal with the scrubs.

 

I have some issues with GW, by my main point in my argument was that it shouldn't be a "large persistent word" but more a collection of missions in instances-like places.

 

OK. then I also point out to that any game that becomes online becomes also terrible because of the 'human factor'.

 

You can have a decent world and story with nice options for interacting and roleplaying, but the truth is that 99.9% of the people playing any online game don't roleplay, ever.

 

If it's not singleplayer then you can be sure that the atmosphere and flavor of the game/story/world will be killed.

 

This was one of the 3 major problems why i ended to play MMO-s. Even if they are interesting, you begin to hate it with time because the 'community'.

Most of the currently ongoing MMO-s would be a good singleplayer game, but fail to get 'their spirit touching your mind' because the noobs running around you with stupid no-sense/no-brain names yelling something stupid.

 

 

Online games can only become really good and interesting for real RPG-ers if the world, the GM-s, and the creators of it are forcing the roleplay (since the character creation to talking-acting ingame) on the players, even if that means banning if they don't follow the rules.

 

And because this won't ever happen, online games can only be good for strategy and fps-s, but no-way for RPG-s.

Online games can only become really good and interesting for real RPG-ers if the world, the GM-s, and the creators of it are forcing the roleplay (since the character creation to talking-acting ingame) on the players, even if that means banning if they don't follow the rules.

 

I totally agree. Only good RPGs are those where you

Edited March 9, 200718 yr by kirottu

Go go Shadowrun! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/norther...and/6425333.stm

Online games can only become really good and interesting for real RPG-ers if the world, the GM-s, and the creators of it are forcing the roleplay (since the character creation to talking-acting ingame) on the players, even if that means banning if they don't follow the rules.

 

I totally agree. Only good RPGs are those where you

http://www.gamershell.com/all/shadowrun/sc...hots.html?id=20

 

 

Do you know anything about this project? It was a real suprise when i accidently found these screenies.

 

The problem with that is the shooter only aspect aside, they are not even sticking close to source material. From past interviews (Which has riled SR fans) they are going to take extensive liberties with the races, weapons and game mechanics. To the point the lead dev now says this game is 'inspired by the shadowrun game' rather then 'based on'.

 

If thats not scary not sure what else is.

Online games can only become really good and interesting for real RPG-ers if the world, the GM-s, and the creators of it are forcing the roleplay (since the character creation to talking-acting ingame) on the players, even if that means banning if they don't follow the rules.

 

I totally agree. Only good RPGs are those where you

Edited March 9, 200718 yr by kirottu

Well we seem to have crossed from constructive posting into ... well not so constructive posting ...

 

/poor attempt at witty closure ...