I liked the idea of that X-Com FPS with the squad cameras. Was that X-Com Alliance?
I will not financially support people who butcher a setting that is being extremely wasted. Why would I? If I buy their game, they say “oh, one more sale, guess that SR fan actually didn’t mind the butchering!” If I download their demo, that’s one more hit saying that someone is interested in it despite how they’ve fucked it over.
It’s more of a moral stand than anything. It may be a good game. It may be one of the greatest games ever. But it’s not Shadowrun. If they want to sell me a Shadowrun game, I’ll buy it in a heartbeat. But that is not Shadowrun.
Your list is seemingly accurate, Jake. I think, though, that adding “and it’s certainly not Shadowrun” is completely valid as well. I agree with the Shadowrun fanboys: I played the SNES game way back when, in fact, I think it was for the longest time the only game I had ever actually finished. I don’t consider myself a fanboy of the franchise, but playing the demo evoked absolutely none of the wonder and excitement I remember from the 8-bit world.
And that’s shameful.
I have to agree with Charles on this. They are obviously using the name to market to Shadowrun fans, otherwise why call it Shadowrun? Then they deliver a product with virtually no similarity to the game.
Have you ever seen a movie based on a book you liked and then found out that the movie had nothing to do with the book other then the title? How did that feel?
Basically they are selling you a lie. Isn’t that contemptible enough?
If someone was buying the game largely because they love Shadowrun and then find out that the game barely even bears a passing resemblence to Shadowrun, I can understand why they might be disappointed. I can also see the other side of the argument, that the game may deserve credit for doing a good job at what it does, even if what it does isn’t what you were looking for.
Still, they really used the Shadowrun license for one reason: to trick Shadowrun fans into thinking they were buying a Shadowrun game. And you have to admit, that’s a little cheesy.
The Lawnmover Man
The SNES version is one of my favorite games of all times. I have the game down to a science. I can sit down, start playing from new, and beat the game in an afternoon. I love it to pieces.
But it isn’t like they have been hiding the fact the game is an FPS from the get go. It may be a poor use of the license but I don’t think they were deceptive about it at all. I have heard an interview with them and it seemed like their motive was that if they did an FPS and it did well they would be able to do a Shadowrun RPG. It sounded like they might have had an issue getting an RPG greenlit and this was a roundabout way of trying to get one done. So in reality if you care about a Shadowrun RPG (I don’t know or care about the franchise) you should probably run out and buy this game.
A Shadowrun game doesn’t need to be an RPG to be awesome. But it needs to be more than UT with spells.
Yeah, that’s basically my take, too. Xaroc, what you said is probably all pretty much true, but none of it changes the fact that Microsoft is selling a Shadowrun game that doesn’t have much to do with Shadowrun. Even restricted to doing a shooter, they clearly could have made the gameplay a lot more Shadowrun-y, but (for whatever reason) didn’t.
Yeah, that is true. Unfortunately even though they seemed to have made a pretty good game (almost everyone who has played it likes it from what I have read) the pricing and the backlash about the license seem like they are going to doom it to failure.
And it wouldn’t have taken much to make it more faithful to the setting.
For instance, people on the squad could have chosen to be hackers. When they got to an access terminal, the game would pause for the rest of the team for fifteen to thirty minutes while their hacking mission was resolved.
They could also do a similar thing for the shamans having missions on the astral plane!
This may be just because I’m not a Shadowrun person (never heard of it before this game), but these comments remind me of the claims by Fallout fans that Fallout: BOS wasn’t really a Fallout game. The argument seems absurd. A poor use of the license? Sure. But it’s a licensed game taking place in the universe of the original game(s), so it’s a Fallout game. I think the same is true of Shadowrun (which I haven’t played yet – need to fire up the box and download the demo…)
It’s not in the universe of the original setting. They’ve butchered the setting to make their game fit. They’ve also left out most of what makes Shadowrun what it is.
And I don’t care if a Shadowrun game is a turn based RPG, or an action RPG, or a straight up FPS. I just want it to be Shadowrun. This is also my view of Fallout, so don’t lump me in with the NMA retards.
Yeah, that’s the unfortunate irony. The gameplay is actually quite good, and could stand on its own without the license. But when people expect one thing but get another, they can’t help but be disappointed, even when the thing that they actually get is good.
I don’t know how Shadowrun is selling, but between the misuse of the license and lack-of-content-induced-gunshyness, I sort of doubt that this game will make much of a case for future Shadowrun titles.
NMA gets carried away with histrionics, but in fairness, BOS was a really shitty use of the license. It didn’t capture any element of the franchise particularly well–neither the gameplay nor the theme and atmosphere. I’d agree that the same is true of Shadowrun, though I think Shadowrun (for all of its problems) is a hell of a lot more fun to play than BOS, which was a shitty game even aside from the misuse of the license.
That new Sony MMO The Agency is sounding like it may be a bit more what Shadowrun should have been (minus the magic)
But it’s a fucking MMO. I’d rather just have a shooter.
Anyway, I dug the demo. I don’t mind the lack of variety that much given the fact that it seems like I always end up playing the same 4 or 5 maps and 1 or 2 modes in most shooters anyway. I’d buy it, but I’m trying to limit my game purchases, and there’s a couple of other games coming out soon that may be competing for my attention. Downloading the Overlord demo as I type this, and that’s one of 'em, so we’ll see how that is.
I have to say if I could fine Shadowrun for the 360 for $40 (since I don’t have Vista… really fucking stupid choice there, MS!) I’d pick it up in a heartbeat. I’m not a shooter person, especially online multiplayer, but just the first training mission convinced me that Shadowrun has a lot going for it. The magic capabilities + the tech add a lot to the normal formula of “Get gun, shoot stuff before it shoots you.”
Too bad about the stupid pricing. (Also, please make a single player game that I can suck at at my own pace. The mechanics are really damn solid!)
Yea, the demo was kinda fun, and I’d probably pull the trigger for $30. But that ain’t happening so back to Forza and Tomb Raider.
I am curious about the lack of a single player game – Shadowrun has a fleshed out world. Why wouldn’t players want to play through a story-driven single player experience?