What did you think of Shadowrun returns?

[Malcador]

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

I wouldn't be that upset, I'd think the money was just towards the good comedy if that happened. Imagine all these KS people that swarmed in here with all the butthurt, then ?

 

Heh, I regret putting money to PE thinking about it now, but eh.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Malcador

[ShadySands]

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.

 

I also backed it at $125 

 

I'm a huge fan of the setting and I even backed the other Shadowrun game at $105

 

A fool and his money...

[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.

 

I also backed it at $125 

 

I'm a huge fan of the setting and I even backed the other Shadowrun game at $105

 

A fool and his money...

 

 

$155 *coughcough*

yeah... well I dont have any other vices

[Wombat]

I spent just $15 but, even I am not quite happy with the thought that a gigantic corporation like MS may get considerable percentage of money, possibly exploiting the indie developer and backers. I'm skeptical about IP "taxing" system in general, though.

[alanschu]

I tend to leave my contributions to the (three) Kickstarters I have contributed to at "whatever gets me the game."

 

 

The best laid plans can always come unraveled and more than that is too much risk for me.

 

If I could be assured of their greatness, I would be more willing to contribute more, however.

[melkathi]

I tend to leave my contributions to the (three) Kickstarters I have contributed to at "whatever gets me the game."

 

 

The best laid plans can always come unraveled and more than that is too much risk for me.

 

If I could be assured of their greatness, I would be more willing to contribute more, however.

 

So far I'm 50% 50% on the gamble

Of the two games that I backed that released, one was exactly what I wanted, the other was a real disappointment.

[alanschu]

I'm 1/1

 

Wasteland 2 sounds like it has tons of promise, however!

[Gorth]

I find it comparable to XCom. Just without the pretentious price tag. Oh, and combat is more fun.

 

Biggest joy killer is the linearity and the lack of proper save game functionality. Atmosphere is good and the game is "fun" in that undefinable, defying the odds kind of way (total being greater than sum of parts or whatever).

[Sensuki]

If newish isometric turn-based RPGs were abundant this would be an average to terrible game apart from it's graphics (which are pretty good).

 

But they aren't. So it's like a breath of fresh air.

 

Yes it has a lot of faults, but I enjoyed playing it. Not worth playing a second time though, going to wait until the Berlin campaign comes out.

[Wombat]

The best laid plans can always come unraveled and more than that is too much risk for me.

 

If I could be assured of their greatness, I would be more willing to contribute more, however.

Yeah, from a purely consumerist standpoint, I think it would be better to wait before risking anything.  If a project is successful at all, you will find it in the market sooner or later.  I feel I owe ex-BIS/Obsidian devs (Was it called Stockholm syndrome, BTW?  ), so, I put more money on a few projects they are related.  However, I'll put no money on any project since I am able to foresee that I would get angry if it turns out unsuccessful, which is the most of the cases for me.

 

Also, to keep your expectation lower is, I think, a healthy piece of advice

-You won’t lose anything by doing so

.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Wombat

[Althernai]

I thought it was pretty good for a $20 game with a toolset and a devoted fanbase. The lack of a manual save system is much less annoying in practice than in theory -- the game autosaves often enough for it not to matter, at least not the way I played it. The story is relatively original and the combat is decent. The main problems are that it is short and linear. I don't mind because it's only $20 and there will be mods.

 

On the other hand, I'm kind of surprised that this is the result of a $1.8M Kickstarter, even if they had to give up a third of that for the license. I certainly hope that the Project Eternity and Torment: Tides of Numenera teams are more efficient so that each game is both longer and less linear. That is, I would be disappointed if either of them had only 2-3 times more content (which is what you get if you scale the funding).

[entrerix]

"good enough"

 

but it could have been great, and someday a great campaign may get released for it

 

well worth the asking price, and worth having backed imo

[Labadal]

I was happy with the $15 I spent and I'm sporadically playing it for a second time. Whith that said, the game was designed in a way that in my opinion, despite being a good game still has a lot of room for improvements.

[Spider]

Wasn't the DLC Berlin one of the stretch goals though? So the kickstarter funding should partially go to developing that as well? So for kickstarters (and preorderers like myself) the content should really be judged with that taking into account.

 

Which of course doesn't help anyone who's contemplating buying the game now.

[babaganoosh13]

I didn't quite get it finished before the 2 week mark. Loved what I did play.

 

At least I can use the editor.

 

Steam sucks.

[Hurlshort]

I'd hazard to guess that the short development cycle (only a year) has more to do with the short game and some of the limitations than the funds raised.  It will be interesting to see how Berlin turns out, I'm expecting the length to be at least the same, whereas most expansions are shorter than the base game.  

 

On the other hand it does not surprise me that $1.8 million does not go very far.  That is a drop in the bucket compared to what most games cost to make.  Harebrained was also not a big developer before the kickstarter, and they ended up using some of that money to grow, which adds a lot of problems.  With Project Eternity, we have a developer with more experience and they have other projects running while they have a small team work on PE, so I'm less worried about them.  

[Sensuki]

On the other hand it does not surprise me that $1.8 million does not go very far.  That is a drop in the bucket compared to what most games cost to make.  Harebrained was also not a big developer before the kickstarter, and they ended up using some of that money to grow, which adds a lot of problems.  With Project Eternity, we have a developer with more experience and they have other projects running while they have a small team work on PE, so I'm less worried about them.  

 

They changed engines half way through.

[alanschu]

That certainly wouldn't help.

[Nekator]

My main gripe was the abominable save system.. no reason whatever for giving the player such a pain in the a....

 

Beside that it has caught the Shadowrun Atmosphere very well, also the mechanics and story are just fine.. as for the rest.. it´s a bit on the short side (hoping here for the many user created content) and not much replayability for the main campaign, which kinda reminded me of a playable SR novel.

 

Not a bad game, but could have been better.

[Wombat]

I'd hazard to guess that the short development cycle (only a year) has more to do with the short game and some of the limitations than the funds raised.  It will be interesting to see how Berlin turns out, I'm expecting the length to be at least the same, whereas most expansions are shorter than the base game.

 

My main gripe was the abominable save system.. no reason whatever for giving the player such a pain in the a....

I thought too much expectation going on but, according to the latest update, as it turned out, the devs seem to take them into consideration.  Guess sometimes asking helps. 

[rjshae]

So, we've decided to spend more time on Berlin to create an experience closer to the size of ....

 

Looks up, suddenly interested...

 

... Dead Man’s Switch.

 

[alanschu]

Well, given that it was supposed to just be an additional area as a part of the base game, presumably it wasn't as large as the stuff that DID make it into the game.

[Elerond]

At end dead man's switch and Berlin campaign will offer together 20-30 game play hours which isn't too bad. But I can't shake off feeling that both campaigns would have probably been longer without tablet version.

[ShadySands]

Sure, they would have more resources to devote to the campaigns if they scrapped the tablet versions but HBS is a mobile game company after all and it think it shows in SRR

[melkathi]

On tablet this game would have been great too. It's on PC that it is wanting.

 

And I don't see how Dead Man's Switch + Berlin could be 20-30 hours. Dead Man's Switch barely reaches the 10 hours on its own.