What did you think of Shadowrun returns?

[Nirgal]

I haven't played it and i've been wondering if I should try it.  I guess asking here is quite useful since I'm looking for the opinion of people with a similar mindset to mine. I've heard the main issue with it is its lengh, but to be honest the older i get, the less time I have available anyway.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It captures the world of Shadowrun excellently, but otherwise kinda meh. Absolutely must if you're a fan, but the linearity, the not very challenging combat system and the lack of manual saving will probably kill the experience otherwise.

[PrimeJunta]

Been playing with it for about 9 or 10 hours, experimenting with a few different char classes. Impressions:

 

+ Great atmosphere -- art, music, writing, etc.

+ Competent turn-based combat system.

+ Stable. I haven't encountered any seriously serious bugs yet.

- Eeeeaasyyy. At least so far. I'm playing on Hard and am handling most encounters without even having to use consumables. Also scads of karma (=character points) to spend.

- Super-linear, with very small areas. You do your runs in a specified order with specified objectives, with no more wiggle room than in a typical adventure game.

- Classes should be better balanced. Street Samurai seems fairly boring compared to Rigger or Shaman, and deckers should have decker-specific content which so far at least I haven't really encountered. There are similar weirdnesses re equipment, e.g. a rigger can easily boost drone combat abilities past the point where she can get the drones to actually use them, while none of the other classes seem to have this problem.

 

All in all? As it is, it's a nice light snack of an adventure/RPG hybrid and well worth the money, but no way in the same category as any full-on heavy-duty cRPG.

[Sarex]

I didn't finish it because of the bugged final level (the hunt begins) and the save system is god awful. Other then those 2 crippling things, I would say it's meh.

[.Leif.]

It killed me that it was so short. Each of the etiquette could only be used once, IIRC. It was worth the money but it could have been more.

[PrimeJunta]

I've had multiple uses of Security, Shadowrunner, and Gang etiquettes already.

[Greydragon]

The main campaign is so so. At the moment it is enough for a decent game. The possibilities however ... as it has a complete editing system attached you'll soon see high quality campaigns and mods from the community; much like the neverwinter series, only with the ease of the steam mod system (Assuming you get a steam key or buy on steam). 

 

 

All in all average, so far. In a little while it should be much better. Plus there is a second campaign close to release (no charge for original backers but for the rest of us it is essentially DLC).

[Pidesco]

Thread moved to a more appropriate location.

[melkathi]

Not what one would have expected of a kickstarter campaign that was so successfull.

Disappointed.

Wish I hadn't backed it.

[Keyrock]

I could do a checklist of all the game's shortcomings, and there are many (linear story, lack of meaningful choices, lack of environmental audio, save system, etc.).  None of them kept me from having a really fun time playing the game.  I like it quite a bit.

[Volourn]

Not even worth playing. It looks dumb. Stick with the older versions.

[Hurlshort]

I'm positive Volourn did not play it

 

 

It's the best game of the year for me.  I had a blast through the entire campaign, which I was sad to see end.  But then I jumped in the editor and put together my own adventure, and last night I played a really impressive mod called Life on a Limb that is based on one of the Shadowrun novels.  I've put 60+ hours into this game already. 

[Gfted1]

When you play a mod created by other players, do you import a character or start anew? I figure the latter because imported toons will be too powerful but maybe the editor allows you to create "high level" campaigns?

[motorizer]

I enjoyed it, flawed but fun, I bought it on steam, didn't back it on kickstarter, it wasn't a full price game so was worth the money IMO, especially as it has an editor.

Checkpoint saves didn't bother me in the slightest, a bit too linear, but the editor will soon see to that

 

Leaving it alone for a while now to give the modders time to polish their missions...

Edited August 14, 2013 by motorizer

[Hurlshort]

You can do both, the modmaker decides that.  For my adventure I had players use a pregenerated low level character, but I've played a couple others and typically they've let me import my character from the base game.

 

Playing mods is super easy, you just subscribe to it on the Steam Workshop, load up the game, and choose the mod from the other content screen.

[Volourn]

"I'm positive Volourn did not play it :p"
 

Why would I play an obviously subpar game? I try to avoid  bad purchases. I'll stick with the vastly old versions. This is a joke of a game. Too bad too as it definitely had potential.

[Rostere]

I think it's definitely worth the money it costs today.

 

I hate how all the problems with the game are so obvious, the devs could essentially fix the game (not the first campaign) with a patch. That could take the game from "OK" to "Excellent".

[Spider]

The main problem for me is how linear the story is and how easy the combat is. None of which is really easy to fix with a patch.

 

The story is really only a problem for subsequent playthroughs though, playing it once and it's not a huge deal (although I still like at least the illusion of reactivity here and there).

 

Another problem I have (now that I've had time to think about it) is the lack of companions with any sort of character. There is, afaik, one you can bring with you regularly that has a story, but once she's available for missions, there is no more interacting with her.

 

So companions were basically just stat mules, which is a bit of a shame I think. They don't need full fledged character arcs or anything, just something to inject them with a little personality.

[melkathi]

I think it's definitely worth the money it costs today.

 

I hate how all the problems with the game are so obvious, the devs could essentially fix the game (not the first campaign) with a patch. That could take the game from "OK" to "Excellent".

 

There was some statement from the devs that a proper save game system would have required extra funds and pushed back release...

Same for lootable corpses.

I'd wager they'd find similar excuses for everything else *shrug*

Edited August 14, 2013 by melkathi

[Malcador]

There was some statement from the devs that a proper save game system would have required extra funds and pushed back release...

Same for lootable corpses.

I'd wager they'd find similar excuses for everything else *shrug*

Certainly is believable as something more than an excuse you're sneering at it as, but I've no visibility to their work. I found it was a fun simple game to play even with the frustrating save system, myself.

[melkathi]

You are quoting me, not Rostere

I'm seeing a game that got $1,8 million on kickstarter and couldn't budget for basic gameplay features.

If I compare it to other projects, with far less prestigious names behind them, like Expeditions: Conquistador and what they achieved with for example $77k, then yes, I am going to be doubtfull of HBS's statements.

Especially when they haven't been sterling in their communication.

 

Obviously everything takes time and therefor money to include. But it also takes skill (I wouldn't be able to code a savegame system, then again I wouldn't pressume to ask you for money to make a game. I would ask you for money to build your house though and I would not tell you that running hot water was too complicated to be included) and that means both technical skill and experience with the engine and organisational skill to keep the project on track. Honestly, wth HBS I have less doubt in the technical skills than the managerial ones. The impression I got is that they lost track of certain aspects of the project and then had no time to tackle problems that occured too late.

[Spider]

To be fair though, SR is a more polished game than Expeditions: Conquistador is. I personally like EC better, it had that special kind of magic that made the game greater than the sum of it's parts. But it's a game with it's own flaws for sure.

 

That being said, SR had 25 times the budget and it certainly isn't THAT much more polished. I do think the team ebhind EX did a lot of the work for free though, while the Shadowrun guys had full time salaries and so on.

 

As for HBS themselves, being good developers is not the same as being good management (lex troika if you will). Hopefully, for their sake, this experience will help them improve on that for the future.

[ShadySands]

I really enjoyed the game but I would definitely agree on pretty much all of the complaints. Honestly, I did expect more considering their budget (1.8 million of which they said they got about 65% of and I still find it odd that MS took royalties out of KS funds) but I've been following the development fairly closely so I already knew about most of their troubles and have been adjusting (lowering) my expectations accordingly. 

 

For the price I would say that it is worth it

[melkathi]

I should come clear by the way: I backed SR at the $125 level

Though I backed Giana Sisters at the $150 level and while I am rather annoyed with those devs (a rant that has no place in this thread) I absolutely love the game they made.

[Hurlshort]

Heh, see I backed SRR at $15 and didn't have huge expectations from a guy with a PnP background a license that was last used for a terrible FPS deathmatch game.  So needless to say I was blown away.  

 

Now if Project Eternity comes out and lasts a dozen hours and has no save system, I'll probably be a bit upset that I put in a good chunk of money