Shadowrun Returns

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I'm not fan of isometric view myself but i think it's more about shadowrun: returns being the real first proof fans get can something close to they want from Kickstarter without forcing devs to deal with publishers, meaning gamers can put some hope into other projects (SC, eternity, PS2 etc). It's not like there's a mass hysteria about indies out there, but that's an added value to its popularity. It also means kickstarter might be the best hope to start a new golden age of gaming, so you can see why it's so important to some people

Honestly, I think it's a tricky business where you have to depend on crowd funding to make your game, I especially worry for developers who care about their creative vision and don't want to give in to fan service to get some extra funding.

The problem I see with crowd funding is that there's a danger of pigeonholing the developer into making something that the fans want since 1) the fans are entitled since they paid for the project, and 2) the developer is obligated to honor that entitlement since the game would have been impossible to make without the fans. This is especially worrisome for developers who are famous for distinctive games prior to the kickstarter.

Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think the developer will have less of a chance and incentive to step out their and the fans' comfort zone because of the two points mentioned above. If that happens, then we won't have a "golden age of gaming", we will have an age of carbon copies in new packaging, and these developers will turn into one-note canaries. That's a very depressing scenario.

The only way kickstarters will work is if the fans are willing to allow developers to do their own thing- they can have a wishlist of what they'd like in the game, but they shouldn't expect the wishlist to be honored. I don't mean that the fund givers should settle for shoddy games, hell no. I mean if the developer was known for making a game with isometric environments, but now wants to try something else, then that should be okay.

I hope I'm wrong, and that these developers make awesome games which are true to how they want to make them, even if they run the risk of pissing off hardcore fund givers.

As for isometric environments, I'm not crazy about playing RPGs which have them. I don't like them for a number of reasons, mostly I feel they are indicative of lazy, shortcut game development, but that doesn't apply to all developers. Honestly though, when I play strategy games, I prefer having an isometric view of the environment.

 

[bellorumfinem]

I don't like isometric view either. I tend to avoid games that have them. I also dislike people who forces nostalgia in games. (I never heard anyone call them indie gamers before, i just call them nostalgia nuts) I don't know if they are ruining the gaming industry or not, but i know they are not doing any favors to it.


@ cmdr_flashheart: I agree with your point completely. Developers should be free. Especially from publishers like EA.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I don't think it's accurate to say that people like isometric view primarily because of nostalgia; what they like is the playing style of old school cRPGs which have excellent party mechanics and facilitate tactical combat. I don't believe, however, that isometric view is the only way to do party mechanics and have tactical combat.

 

[Sardukhar]

View-schmew. I mean, i'd like Shadowrun the RPG in 1st or Third person immersive, sure. I'd also like CP2077 done and perfect next month.

But I'm perfectly prepared to accept Shadowrun Returns asis, looking great with an easy-to-use editor for making and playing my own missions. It's a fair compromise given budget and time restraints.

To give up on a great-looking game because it has one or two things you don't like seems short-sighted to me. Especially for $15. How can you go wrong? You get to cyber-augment your character and go shoot elves and corporates! And corporate elves! truly a gift!

 

[bellorumfinem]

View-schmew. I mean, i'd like Shadowrun the RPG in 1st or Third person immersive, sure. I'd also like CP2077 done and perfect next month.

But I'm perfectly prepared to accept Shadowrun Returns asis, looking great with an easy-to-use editor for making and playing my own missions. It's a fair compromise given budget and time restraints.

To give up on a great-looking game because it has one or two things you don't like seems short-sighted to me. Especially for $15. How can you go wrong? You get to cyber-augment your character and go shoot elves and corporates! And corporate elves! truly a gift!

See, you say that, but no.. For me, it is a waste of money and nothing else.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Money concerns are no excuse or reason for why a game should be in isometric perspective. If that's the way we're looking at things, then the developer shouldn't be surprised when players don't value their game for what they're charging; those players can get "better, well-developed, and more immersive" environments for the same or less amount of money. If that's our reasoning for having isometric perspective in a game, then players should just wait till that game is seriously on sale, or get one where the developers didn't skimp out on the environmental details.

 

[Sardukhar]

I think money and budget concerns are a pefectly valid reason for all sorts of things, certainly including isometric. It's much, much cheaper to design and code for, it's cheaper to build an editor for and it's smarter on a tight budget not to dump too much money into just one aspect of the game - perspective. You spend 3/4 of your budget putting it into #rd or 1st person, you have less for writing, sound, gameplay, mission scripting, etc.

I also don't think isometric is skimping out on the environment details, it's allowing a certain kind of art and texture esthetic. Project Eternity looks gorgeous, for example.

If you can find a better more immersive game that offers an editor and such consistently solid writing, levels and art as in the videos of Shadowrun Returns, show me.

If you can find one that lets me play a combat borg..well, you're talking about Shadowrun Returns.

Heck, why buy Cyberpunk 2077? Wait until it's on sale because it doesn't have full 3D immersion with Oculus Rift or it lacks proper three-screen widescreen like Witcher 2. Those may be irrelevant details for your taste, but they matter a great deal to widescreen and 3D enthusiasts.

 

[Sardukhar]

Eurogamer review. They like it a lot! 8/10.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-25-shadowrun-returns-review

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I just don't see why it should be the customer's concern on how someone develops and provides a product. If you're asking for an exchange of goods, money for product, then it's your job to provide the product, and it's the customer's prerogative to judge the product worthy or unworthy of the sum being charged, but that's besides the point.

Also, the game might look "gorgeous" to some people, but it might look like a digital ant farm to others. Moreover, you can do your own research about games which have great content and great 3D environments, there are plenty of them. But this is also besides the point.

If a game has an isometric environment, then it doesn't have the benefits of a 3D environment, namely the attention to detail which can be appreciated more up close and personal, and the feeling of traversing an environment in a more intimate way, amongst other benefits. The choice to make an environment isometric is not trivial, and the aspects which are missing from an isometric environment are not trivial.

What's shameful is that developers have not taken the time to innovate player interactions in a 3D environment, and no I am not talking about "3D immersion" as available via Oc. Rift. I just don't understand why they haven't risen to this challenge, and if they really view games as a dynamic form of creative expression, then why don't they do something interesting with them as opposed to going back to the past.

If the players are looking for games with well-developed 3D environments, then they have the right to ignore a game for having an isometric one. I don't want to hear any bullshit, then, about "being superficial" and that "a game is more than just a view"- the fact remains that you're missing out on the benefits and enjoyment of a 3D environment, so why should you care for something which excludes it.

I'm saying the same thing that you're saying- it's enjoyable for some customers to play games with a 3D environment, and that's enough reason to not care about games which don't have them.

 

[Sardukhar]

I think a buyer is cutting off their nose to spite their face if something as trivial as viewpoint affects your enjoyment of an otherwise well-done game that much. Fallout 1 and 2 were excellent. Fallout 3 was good. New Vegas was very good. At no point was the view a factor in my decision to purchase, because so many other things were important. Cp2077 may be 3rd person only or 1st and 3rd or 1st only or who knows...but it won't change the other excellent, much more significant factors about the game.

I wasn't telling you to do my research, I was suggesting that you might provide some evidence to support your point that other games offer what Shadowrun Returns and Project Eternity and Wasteland 2 and Torment are all going to be offering, despite their tragic lack of perspective.

Heh. I made a funny.

As for attention to detail in a 3D environment...if you have a crazy budget, maybe you can get the same detail a good isometric background can get. I found Skyrim, Crysis and even Witcher 2 faltered in detail compared to the delicious touches found in Fallout 2's backgrounds. Of course they did - everything had to be modelled in 3D and rendered in changing light and shadow. Crazy resource cost.

But I don't look for Skyrim's beauty in other games, because I don't want that particular decision tree in other games. Skyrim is a great 3D game and so is Crysis - in terms of graphics. In terms of everything else, lacking.

Witcher 2 and Stalker are my preferred graphics/writing/gameplay standards - which is why I'm so looking forward to CP2077.

But I don't expect CP2077 in everything and not for $15 and not tomorrow.




I just hope fellow RPG fans and cyberpunk fans check out Shadowrun Returns and don't give up on it because of the view or the soundtrack or the character animations. It's an RPG with a built in powerful editor set in a cooool gameworld. Try it for that!

 

[dragonbird]

A good isometric game beats a mediocre 3D game any day, but it is a factor for me, and I may be more willing to try a borderline game if it has good 3D graphics than I would a borderline isometric game.

And I think that the current trend for isometric games is good for gaming generally. If it makes the difference between a game being made and NOT being made, then go for it.

 

[Lolssi83.811]

I don't think 3D game gives more attention to detail, well yes it does but in negative way. Past few years I've been forced to watch some horrible textures up close (Thanks consoles). But don't get me wrong I'd prefer to have most of my games in 3D but that just doesn't make sense for low-budget Kickstarter games.

Back to Shadowrun. The review said it was very linear and not much to explore. Can you Sard comment on that after you've got it and have benn playing a bit, thanks. Also how long is the game. And where can we download your cyberpunk campaigns eventually?

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

But that's exactly the point- that an environment is not trivial to game design. There are a lot of things a 3D environment does which we take for granted, and there are a lot of things which they can do, of which we're deprived for any number of reasons. I just seriously dislike the idea that there's less of a chance of seeing any innovation in 3D environments simply because there's a cheaper alternative. Yeah, it's monetarily cheaper, but it's quite costly to the art form.

Also, "delicious touches" are subjective as it turns out because I thought Fallout NV and TW2 both had plenty of "delicious touches".

The failure to make an interesting 3D environment is on the developer, not on the style of the environment itself. Again, lack of resources and money is not an excuse for making a poor or incomplete game; do people allow lack of resources as an excuse when it comes time to purchase a game.

Moreover, I don't understand why we should care whether a game gets made or not. If you think of games as an art form, then you shouldn't be required or be expected to enjoy them in a compromised form, or in any form which doesn't jive with you. If you think of games as a business, then the onus of how a business sustains itself is not on you. Of course, people who make games fall a little into both of these categories, but if someone values the business side of it more, then you should value the business side of it too, and get the most bang out of your buck.

Contrary to how it may seem, I'm not against isometric environments; you can do some unique things in these games, and that's why we should appreciate them, and not because it's cheaper to make games with these environments. I expect someone to really capitalize on the benefits of an isometric environment when they make such a game, and not just give a digital ant farm which would have been more enjoyable and immersive in another way.

Lastly, I don't think anyone should be pressured into buying a game- if there is some aspect about it which they don't like, and they don't want to play it, then who cares; likewise if the situation is reversed. The only think which set me off was the idea that it's okay to make a game in an isometric environment because it's cheaper. Do you realise that that means that people who want to run a good business, shouldn't make games with 3D environments. If there's no room for creative expression in game making, then everyone should make the most cost effective decisions. When we insist that that's mindset of the market, then we should also accept when people don't want to play games because of something "trivial like a view".

 

[Sardukhar]

That's not the game. It's one campaign/story, Dead Man's Switch. The game is the campaign and the editor. There is already another very open-ended campaign called Life on a Limb, looks quite fun.

SR fans are busy using advance access to the editor to recreate the Shadowrun modules. Loal Is one, Lost Lamb is another out, the SNES reboot is solidly on it's way.

DMS is 10-12 hours long. LoaL is 10-2 hours long. So you have 24 hours of gameplay already.

Wow, if this game sucks I'm going to be tasting some DELICIOUS fried bird, aren't I?

 

[Edo34]

7.3 from IGN and 7 from Polygon

 

[schiff]

7.3 from IGN and 7 from Polygon

never give credit to ign...

 

[schiff]

Honestly, I think it's a tricky business where you have to depend on crowd funding to make your game, I especially worry for developers who care about their creative vision and don't want to give in to fan service to get some extra funding.

The problem I see with crowd funding is that there's a danger of pigeonholing the developer into making something that the fans want since 1) the fans are entitled since they paid for the project, and 2) the developer is obligated to honor that entitlement since the game would have been impossible to make without the fans. This is especially worrisome for developers who are famous for distinctive games prior to the kickstarter.

Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think the developer will have less of a chance and incentive to step out their and the fans' comfort zone because of the two points mentioned above. If that happens, then we won't have a "golden age of gaming", we will have an age of carbon copies in new packaging, and these developers will turn into one-note canaries. That's a very depressing scenario.

The only way kickstarters will work is if the fans are willing to allow developers to do their own thing- they can have a wishlist of what they'd like in the game, but they shouldn't expect the wishlist to be honored. I don't mean that the fund givers should settle for shoddy games, hell no. I mean if the developer was known for making a game with isometric environments, but now wants to try something else, then that should be okay.

I hope I'm wrong, and that these developers make awesome games which are true to how they want to make them, even if they run the risk of pissing off hardcore fund givers.

As for isometric environments, I'm not crazy about playing RPGs which have them. I don't like them for a number of reasons, mostly I feel they are indicative of lazy, shortcut game development, but that doesn't apply to all developers. Honestly though, when I play strategy games, I prefer having an isometric view of the environment.

As far as i know, kickstarter's community philosophy tends to support original ideas...which is not exactly this case since Returns is literally a comeback (not that i know about this game's details but shadowrun is an old franchise), even though this is not a mainstream game either.
Ofc, when some developers known for a popular game want to get a sequel done there are rules to follow in order to get someone's trust. Like getting some "face" out of nowhere to support the projects and show some actual footage since kickstarter's popularity is now mixed because of some past scams. In short, names are what count for now...
That said, if i get the "pigeonholing the developer" thing right that's totally true and happens everywhere. Players -not only fans- tend to find the frustrating side even about good things. Whatever forum you pick you' ll find conservatives not open to new ideas, things that don't matter at all and new fans which may seem alienated and won't care about the previous titles just because they are old.

About the isometric thing, that's legit. Liking isometric stuff or not is totally a matter of taste but that kind of thing is not indicative of game's quality. That's something core and map gameplay will reveal, among other things.

 

[Sardukhar]

RPS Wot I Think

" In this case I feel like it was filling a void. A rain-slick, turn-based, isometric elf-shaped void with mirrorshades and a shotgun."

" a) It’s not particularly long, I got through it in about 12 hours, without rushing too much. This, I suspect, is the thing that will disappoint most. But get to the end of the review, because there is light at the end of the shadow.

b) The writing (there’s no voice acting) ranges from schlocky to completely superb, with the overall story feel a bit too like a generic Shadowrun campaign, but maybe that’s the point. It’s great fun, is the point. You will enjoy it.

c) The big baddy creatures were just dreadful. Shadowrun is a game that basically allows anything to happen in it, and we can do better than this. Much better. I mean, they worked, but the drama was lacking. “Oh. This.”

d) It looks right, throughout. As isometric cyberpunk worlds go, this one is spot on. The rain-sopped streets with crowds of people holding umbrellas, the corporate meeting rooms and dank basements. The animation and detail are a bit lacking, but it felt incredible authentic somehow, particular your “base” area for much of the game. Great stuff.


It’s a competently and intelligently written RPG, though. I can’t stress this enough: compared to the heaving tide of shit that we face with most games, this is splendid literature. There’s a bunch of backstory to explore, and some character-handling choices that do actually affect what happens. The characters are imaginative, it even made me laugh, and there are even a few genuinely surprising and clever conceits. The plot twists are rubbish, sadly, but you can’t have everything. There are also a few very silly episodes, such as a battle in an asylum which becomes unlikely when guards have grenades, and imprisoned in-mates have shotguns. Yes."

"Even the Harebrained official campaigned is packaged as just another story among all those that the community will inevitably create. It basically supports a new community. Hell, I’m tempted myself. I can’t stress how important this is.

This is going to be awesome."

 

[braindancer12]

7.3 from IGN and 7 from Polygon

thanks

 

[Aditya]

Okay I'll check it out since you are so on it
And yes never take the word on sties like IGN or anyone else for that matter, they are good for news but off lately even they are being behind due to increasing power of the internet