2007-04-06 06:34:16 New ShadowRun Shots, What's your opinion on this game?

More here; http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/shadowrun/images...

Plus a Q&A

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/shadowrun/news.h...

I personally don't see myself giving this game a chance unless they release a demo. Like I've said before, for me to buy a multiplayer-only game it has to be really awesome, not just good. That hasn't happened since Quake III. CSS came bundled with Half Life :D

So really, I don't see this game being talked about that much on the forums, I don't see hype from anywhere. This game NEEDS a demo.

---
Where the crap is Shenmue 3 SEGA? Scrap that thing called Shenmue online and finish the Shenmue epic story on 360!

2007-04-06 06:59:36

I'll definitely give it a chance, but I'm not really sure what to expect yet. I really wanted in on the beta test for this game -- but I missed that opportunity I guess. I'm a bit worried about how the PC version will be received, as it seems to be catering more directly to the console crowd .. plus the Vista requirement will put off plenty of people regardless.

2007-04-06 07:00:34

The game had no chance in hell the moment they announced it was a fps.

They should've created a new world for Shadowrun and took advantage of the popular characters to make an epic rpg.

---
Hironobu Sakaguchi is coming back to reclaim the throne :)

October 20th 2007 (A good day)

2007-04-06 07:02:28

Not interested in it in the least.

---
Jim Rome: "Nobody owns anybody like Florida owns OSU."

2007-04-06 07:16:13

I'll probably end up buying it. It looks interesting and I like the setting with the firearms/magic mix.

2007-04-06 07:31:44

rent

---
FFXIII

2007-04-06 08:07:28 In reply to Optimusv2 (2007-04-06 07:00:34)

I don't know, I think it has a chance. I think the PC version has less of a chance, but it could still possibly take off. It really depends on how well the game is received. People will get over the Shadowruin thing and truthfully if they want a Shadowrun RPG they should probably support this game.

It could potentially bring the franchise back from the dead or just flop, we'll see. Looks fun to me, and it's one of the few FPS I'll actually play on 360 over PC at this point.

2007-04-06 09:33:28

looks better than Mass Effect that's for sure!


but multiplayer only is a major turn off

---
If you're one of the millions of people without a Blue Dragon, put this as your avatar (http://www.tourfilms.com/bd22.gif). Please, you can fight the good fight for BD.

Prevent BDD - Blue Dragon Dysfunction

2007-04-06 09:43:19 In reply to Optimusv2 (2007-04-06 07:00:34)

Theres more chance of it succeeding as an fps duh!

but seriously, i think it could be a big hit online. Most previews for it have been really positive and thats really a good sign, it may be mp only but good mp only lets hope. Im definantly going to pick this up unless the demo they're putting up in may is garbage

2007-04-06 09:53:11

I'm really looking forward to it.

The prospect of a fast, pure MP experience, coupled with deep gameplay and a class system should satiate my desires for an Unreal Championship 3 (which will probably never arrive).

It has good graphics too :)

Not sure which system I'll buy it for though...

---
Bring me the Boogie

2007-04-06 10:28:38

The graphics look improved and it also looks like they are finally finalizing the art.

2007-04-06 10:42:36

I don't give a rat's ass about the graphics....

What interests me the most is are the gameplay possibility's like: teleporting / flying and that kind of stuff. I think those things could bring a whole new dimension to a Fast aciton multiplayer game!

Can't wait how it turns out!

---
"You're being arrested for drunk driving."
"Drunk definitely, I don't know if you could call it driving."

2007-04-06 10:50:36

Looks fun so I will give it a go.

Does this mean you've bagged yourself a 360?

---
I've done the kessel run in less then 8 parsecs :p

2007-04-06 11:07:55

will there be clan support?

Well, I mean are they going to have rank and unranked matches, and you will be able to play with your clan in either type? Or are they sticking with MS policy

---
FFXIII

2007-04-06 11:11:54 In reply to kenshin2418 (2007-04-06 11:07:55)

I'm sure I read there will be Clan support in a previous post or was that to do with the spring update?

Deftangel?

---
I've done the kessel run in less then 8 parsecs :p

2007-04-06 13:33:47 In reply to roxwell (2007-04-06 11:11:54)

There won't be multi-game clan support in the Spring update. Major Nelson confirmed as much a couple of weeks ago. What there is however, is an API in the backend of Live for developers to implement clans in their game if they wish to. That's been there since the Fall update.

I think I did read though that FASA are using their own matchmaking servers/party system for this so they could be doing their own thing with clans too. I've not seen it specifically mentioned but really this game needs to have clans if it's going to become the hardcore couter-strike esque shooter with a following they want it to be.

I'm very interested in the game and will be picking it up. I think FASA's biggest problem is that they've over run massively on this development and it might be released too close to Halo 3 to make an impact. I can imagine a lot of the console players jumping to that when it's out leaving this with a fairly meagre population.

2007-04-06 16:03:06 In reply to deftangel (2007-04-06 13:33:47)

Thanks deft!

---
I've done the kessel run in less then 8 parsecs :p

2007-04-06 16:10:37 In reply to PlumbDrumb (2007-04-06 09:53:11)

This is one thing I've never really understood.. people constantly seem to ask for this feature, and people seem to think it's important, but how important is it really? Like most PC games, Counter Strike has no built in clan system, you just organize yourselves and throw on a tag on your handle and you're good to go. What's wrong with this approach? R6:Vegas lets users throw a clan prefix onto the gamertag -- I think that's all you really need personally.

Clan match making in Halo is pretty sweet, I just don't know that it's a good replacement for established leagues and ladders. There's something about having some soft of external league to schedule with that actually appeals to me. Maybe I would like the Halo system more if there were a way (internally) of having leagues, seasons, etc, rather than just a match making system with a built in ladder.Get it on the Xbox because it 1) Does not require you to purchase Windows Vista, and 2) Live Anywhere could very tank -- and I'm starting to hope it does. MS is proving that they don't care nearly as much about revitalizing the PC market as they claim.. trying to turn a quick buck by hijacking features that PC gamers have been used to getting for free (forever) and assigning them to a subscription service just..burns.

2007-04-06 16:18:18

The response from people who have played the game has been overwhelmingly positive, even some of the more jaded members of the online gaming community have responded with favourable impressions.

It also looks pretty good as well and despite initial concerns about the seemingly oversized areas it seems obvious that allowances had to be made for not only the larger player classes but the many summons and powers that required additional space to be useful.

2007-04-06 16:29:12 In reply to Slabs (2007-04-06 16:18:18)

Yeah.. and even the more negative responses are somewhat positive. Shawn Elliot (GFW Magazine) really grilled these guys about the PC version not too long ago -- and he had a lot to say about what they're doing wrong on Windows. I mostly agree on his take on the whole thing, but he still found the game to be pretty fun/rewarding.. and in the end what's more important than that?

It became pretty obvious that the 360 version of the game was the one to own, and that this implementation of cross platform play wasn't going to do much to aid the growth of the GFW brand.. but that doesn't mean they don't have a fine console shooter on their hands.

Some of the magic looks really interesting. The level of customization when it comes to a characters load out is interesting. The vertical nature of combat is pretty interesting too. Who knows, this could really take off with the live crowd. I wouldn't even want to see the Windows version become a success at this point -- but that won't stop me from trying the game on 360.

2007-04-06 16:35:51 In reply to GriftGFX (2007-04-06 16:10:37)

I don't necessarily disagree. I just think Shadowrun needs to have some of these bells and whistles to encourage a few more people to try it, right now there's a fair bit of skepticism around the game. Counter-Strike doesn't need such things as it already has a very large well established userbase. If those are the gamers you're going after with this game, you need to offer them more than what they have.

And just because you might not need built in clan support doesn't mean it's not a nice to have or a value-add. The more people start doing it, the more likely it is that better implementations are developed that make it better and offer some of the functionality you mentioned, especially if you're paying for the service...The only thing you have to pay for at this point is Xbox Live matchmaking, cross platform play and online achievements. You couldn't previously get those for free. I admit that's a tough sell as it stands but I don't see much being hijacked.

I think the main problem is that they really needed to launch with more of the vision in place that they presented at E3. Not launching with the Vista "dashboard" or any arcade games is a big mistake IMO. As it stands this year there is Halo 2, Shadowrun and Uno with Vista integration, Arcade games, Live on Mobile and advanced features like the Forza 2 editor nowhere in sight. I realise that was just a demo but as the online leaders, they need to rolling such things out. What's there now isn't enough.

As a 360 gold member, I think Live Anywhere is a good way of adding value to my Gold account. In the early stages, I think MS needs to be pushing that a bit more. They've said repeatedly that 70% of the 360 userbase play on both platforms but that message is lost amongst many.

2007-04-06 16:42:05

Read the new interview with Peter Moore by Shawn Elliott on this subject over at 1up -- it's quite telling. You're not just getting cross platform play and online achievements -- you're getting features like stat-tracking and VoIP (which are free and internally supported by many PC games) that are being hijacked by the service. If a developer signs up with Windows Live, there's a very real chance that Microsoft's agreement with that developer will not allow them to enable those features to gamers who don't pay for the gold service.

The fact is that they can't just offer it up as cross platform play and achievements -- Because that will not appeal to new users. They have to try to take away from what PC gamers already get for free -- because the promise of cross platform play (with users that PC gamers don't really care about playing with in the first place) and achievements really isn't going to be enough to convince people that this is the killer app worth upgrading to Vista for.. I'm not sure who they're marketing this towards. Perhaps they're just trying to get Xbox 360 users to game on their PC's. That's about the only success I can see from here.. but if it hurts the existing PC gaming market, than that's just not going to cut it.

Plus I'm not sure I want to live in a future where PC FPS is dominated by games that don't even let you change your look speed (..Shadowrun)

Windows Live is not offering anything that PC gamers need. Peter Moore says, "Don't underestimate achievements" -- but at this point in the game I think MS is overestimating them. The facts is, they could have offered a large portion of this service for free on the PC side, and they should have. It would have shown that they care about PC gaming and growing the GFW brand.. all they are showing me right now is that they care about finding a new way to exploit our (PC gamer's) wallets.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3158490

Read that. Frankly, it stinks. I'm glad there are people like Shawn Elliott out there who aren't afraid to grill MS with the tough questions.. just because GFW may be their official magazine, they're not going to give MS a free ride. Fitting, since MS isn't going to give any of us a free ride either.

I had a lot of faith in the GFW initiative when MS first started to push for it -- but they're quickly turning me from a believer into a critic. I think Live Anywhere really has the potential to do more harm than good, when it comes to the health of PC gaming.

There are two things that could happen from here: We could see publishers/developers supporting this thing on a massive level and we'll see PC gaming take a serious dive because of it -- or alternatively -- PC developers who more genuinely care about their user base (than MS) will ignore Live Anywhere and the platform will flop.

I personally hope that companies like DICE, id, and Epic ignore this platform until MS proves that it actually offers the PC gamer something unique and worth paying for. If anyone has our back, it's developers like Epic. Can't really imagine seeing Gears of War on PC w/o live anywhere support unfortunately..wouldn't that be something.

2007-04-06 17:01:40 In reply to GriftGFX (2007-04-06 16:42:05)

I read that over at GAF and just read again. I've a problem with that interview because Elliot kept asking a question that had been answered. VOIP is a silver level service, as is stat-tracking. Therefore, it's free. Stat-tracking != MP achievements.

The only things you have to pay for are;-

* Matchmaking (TruSkill, Gamerzones, Friends lists, Party matchmaking etc) using Xbox Live.
* MP achievements
* Cross platform play.

That's it. I accept that isn't much right now but if you read his responses, so does Moore I think and he's certainly not under the impression that anyone is being forced to do anything. The one point of ambiguity was whether a developer can offer the equivalent of Gold tier services outside of the GFW Live framework. I read it as that was possible but because Elliot persistently banged on about VOIP despite the fact it's bloody free it reads confusing.

I'll be interested to see what Sweeny thinks of it all as he knows what he's on about at least and he'll full well know what he can and can't do with it. I'll listen to Epic's take on it over some anonymous third party developer any day of the week.

2007-04-06 17:10:28 In reply to deftangel (2007-04-06 17:01:40)

Sooo.. all of the features that PC gamers actually need (and already have) like stat tracking and VoIP are part of the silver package -- and PC gamers can still play online in those games on dedicated servers without being gold members, those features intact? Cross platform P2P, a friends list (hello there, Xfire) and multiplayer achievements are really what they think is worth charging a subscription for?

And if that question had already been answered (VoIP, stat tracking, etc) how come Peter Moore completely dodges the question?

Forget about users -- what incentive are they offering PC developers to jump on this bandwagon? Seriously.. the whole thing just seems awfully flawed.

2007-04-06 17:30:16 In reply to GriftGFX (2007-04-06 17:10:28)

As I understand it, yes. I agree that's a tough sell to any PC gamer and so does Moore if you focus on what he says and not the gimped interviewer making it ambiguous, he acknowledges that.I don't know, though I'd rather he be honest and say he'd get back to him than fudge it. JJ does answer it further on. It's confusing because he keeps banging on about VOIP/Stats when they are free and always have been. The real question we want answered is if, having signed up to GFW Live, that prevents a developer from implementing gold like features outside of that framework. I think the answer to that question is no, but it's confusing because Elliot's made a hash of the interview.For developers the offer is to hook into Live and get an API to that enhanced, secure matchmaking functionality and potentially, the 360 userbase as well where most of the hard work has been done for them. The alternative is to develop a solution in house or work with a third party (Xfire for example). In the long run, a unified platform for online PC gaming would be quite good for developers I think. We've a long way to get there though.

Right now I agree that the proposition is not terribly compelling and I agree it's looking a bit half assed. I'd rather someone took Moore to task over that than getting the basic facts wrong and confusing people as to what the actual deal is. I mean, he gets a shot at the head guy and doesn't bring up the question regarding Live dedicated servers? Come on! >:/