P I Z Z A Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:30pm
My Thoughts on Shadowrun Returns
Shadowrun Returns was a disappointment for me. The story, for the most part, I found enjoyable. The gameplay was a bit hard to get used to, because there was not multiple angles, making it hard to maneuver behind tall objects. There were also many bugs to be found. Many complaints of these bugs have been sort of responded to by HBS on twitter.

Then there is the issue of the budget. They had one of the most successful kickstarters on record. Regardless of how well they did with the kickstarter, there were still many corners that were cut.

One of those corners are the most controversial among the SRR community: saving.
HBS allegedly said that the reason for not implementing a proper save system was the lack of a proper budget. I find an issue with this. The issue I have is not with the budget they had, but, rather, with the decision to cut a proper save system of all things.

Accoring to a statement from HBS, a majority of the development team did not like the idea of a checkpoint system. So, why would they not implement that instead of another feature? I'm not sure of their reasons, as they have not come out with a proper one. Honestly, the argument that a lack of a proper budget is not acceptable when they could have chosen to remove a less important feature in favor of having proper saves.

Before I move on, and I know many people will not like this, but I have to address the people who are against having non-checkpoint saves. The main argument against a "save whenever" feature would cause save-scumming, a method of beating a game by loading the most recent save if the user makes a mistake. Where is the issue with save-scumming if you know that you, yourself will not do it? How can you, honestly, deny someone of their preferred playstyle?

Having a save whenever system would allow more people to enjoy this game, while not interfering with your method of play. How does the way that someone plays a game affect you? How does it affect you when the person who plays the game, in a method you disagree with, is someone you do not even know?

-edit- (The questions in the last two paragraphs are not rhetorical. I'd like some answers to these, it may help me understand you guys' stances a little bit better)

Moving on, there are many issues with the editor. The editor lacks many features that would make custom campaigns seem that much more unique. Some of the features such as custom weapon art, spells (as far as I know), and music are things that HBS said that they did not want to implement at the time.

This leaves many things to be desired in both the regular game and the editor. Some people just leave it be, but some decide to modify the game, in order to make it better. However, the work load that could be and should be taken care of by HBS should not have to be dealt with by modders. Things like proper saves, and more flexibility with the editor are just some of the things that HBS should take responsibility for.

When just over 50 percent of their consumer base has an issue with problems in their game that they say they do not want to fix, it would not be a wise business decision to ignore such a large amount of people who gave them money.

The consumers gave HBS their money in the first place because, for the most part, they trusted that HBS would deliver a quality product. As the numbers currently show, they delivered a product that did not, for the most part, hold up to comsumer standards.


Anyways, I'd like to hear the SRR communities thoughts on this. Any and all feedback is appreciated. Also, please try to keep calm in the thread. It's reccomended that we don't end up in ALL-CAPS, responding with baseless, or sarcastic insults, or baseless assumptions. I want to keep this discussion civil. Mostly, I do not want this to end up like many other video-game discussion threads.
Last edited by P I Z Z A; Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:38pm
Showing 1-15 of 53 comments
< >
esperanzo Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:45pm 
Originally posted by Nothingtobeseenhere:
When just over 50 percent of their consumer base has an issue with problems in their game that they say they do not want to fix, it would not be a wise business decision to ignore such a large amount of people who gave them money.

The consumers gave HBS their money in the first place because, for the most part, they trusted that HBS would deliver a quality product. As the numbers currently show, they delivered a product that did not, for the most part, hold up to comsumer standards.

I generally agree with you, but I'm curious as to where you pulled your numbers from?

50% of consumer base has an issue with in-game problems? How do you know?

Numbers show that they delivered a product not up to consumer standards? How do you know?
Allarion Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:50pm 
Originally posted by Nothingtobeseenhere:
Anyways, I'd like to hear the SRR communities thoughts on this. Any and all feedback is appreciated. Also, please try to keep calm in the thread. It's reccomended that we don't end up in ALL-CAPS, responding with baseless, or sarcastic insults, or baseless assumptions. I want to keep this discussion civil. Mostly, I do not want this to end up like many other video-game discussion threads. :squirtyay:

We are tired of discussion threads like this.

Sincerely,
The SRR Community

PS, Thank you for being civil about it though.
Last edited by Allarion; Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:51pm
P I Z Z A Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:51pm 
Originally posted by esperanzo:
Originally posted by Nothingtobeseenhere:
When just over 50 percent of their consumer base has an issue with problems in their game that they say they do not want to fix, it would not be a wise business decision to ignore such a large amount of people who gave them money.

The consumers gave HBS their money in the first place because, for the most part, they trusted that HBS would deliver a quality product. As the numbers currently show, they delivered a product that did not, for the most part, hold up to comsumer standards.

I generally agree with you, but I'm curious as to where you pulled your numbers from?

50% of consumer base has an issue with in-game problems? How do you know?

Numbers show that they delivered a product not up to consumer standards? How do you know?

I'm basing those numbers on the poll that is being held on these forums currently. I feel like it's a good base to use. I feel that way, simply, because it is the only numbers available. Like I said, we don't have anything substantial from HBS. So, that's what I had to go on. If you don't want to use those numbers, I don't blame you.
fredingue Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:51pm 
The more i play, the more i'm annoyed by this system. It could have been acceptable if :

- there where save points each time a new screen is load or a major quest item has been triggered. That would provide to have to redo 30 minutes of game "Didn't i stooped playing yesterday after getting to a save point ?!!!"

- there was the possibility to get at least the last 3 check point saves. Here, sometimes you ask yourself : do i buy those spells/armors/weapons/upgrades now or after some missions ? Do i put some decking to defend in the matrice ? Shall i take only 2 mercs to save money ?
Then you discover that you should have done all of this, but it's too late now...
P I Z Z A Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:51pm 
Originally posted by Allarion:
We are tired of posts like this.

Sincerely,
The SRR Community

I'm aware. I just wanted to do this in a somewhat level-headed manner. The way that the discussions have been going on here have, more often than not, gone nowhere.
grayfoxwinsthewar Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:52pm 
With all due respect, all of this has been addressed (in length) in threads before this. Not a whole lot of people defend the save system as is.

A more interesting question is the editor. While I'm not inclined towards making UCG myself, I understand that that is something that interests many players. Most say it's difficult because HBS only leaves an editor with certain parameters already set. However, we're already seeing intrepid creators get around the code and finding ways of adding things HBS didn't actually intend. It's the same for all games with a good Workshop really.
kieronmacleod Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:53pm 
Any time I wonder if it was a mistake to buy this game I just remember how I felt when I spent 40 quid on Shadowrun for the Xbox 360, suddenly I'm very happy and go back to playing with a grin :D
P I Z Z A Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:56pm 
Originally posted by grayfoxwinsthewar:
With all due respect, all of this has been addressed (in length) in threads before this. Not a whole lot of people defend the save system as is.

A more interesting question is the editor. While I'm not inclined towards making UCG myself, I understand that that is something that interests many players. Most say it's difficult because HBS only leaves an editor with certain parameters already set. However, we're already seeing intrepid creators get around the code and finding ways of adding things HBS didn't actually intend. It's the same for all games with a good Workshop really.

The issue with the editor, so far, is that many of the workarounds are not workshop compatible. If the people at HBS were able to fix some stuff in the editor, we wouldn't have to use methods that circumvents what is suppose to be standard procedure for this editor.
Last edited by P I Z Z A; Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:56pm
VerumJulos Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:59pm 
or 60$ for diablo 3 which was one of the worst games ive ever played and it had no workshop so the players could make it better! =)
P I Z Z A Aug 6, 2013 @ 8:01pm 
Originally posted by VerumJulos:
or 60$ for diablo 3 which was one of the worst games ive ever played and it had no workshop so the players could make it better! =)

Right, modders can certainly make a game more enjoyable, but there are some issues with this game that should be handled by the developers. Some of the features, that modders are currently working on implementing, are things that should have been integral to the vanilla game.
Last edited by P I Z Z A; Aug 6, 2013 @ 8:02pm
grayfoxwinsthewar Aug 6, 2013 @ 8:02pm 
Originally posted by Nothingtobeseenhere:
Originally posted by grayfoxwinsthewar:
With all due respect, all of this has been addressed (in length) in threads before this. Not a whole lot of people defend the save system as is.

A more interesting question is the editor. While I'm not inclined towards making UCG myself, I understand that that is something that interests many players. Most say it's difficult because HBS only leaves an editor with certain parameters already set. However, we're already seeing intrepid creators get around the code and finding ways of adding things HBS didn't actually intend. It's the same for all games with a good Workshop really.

The issue with the editor, so far, is that many of the workarounds are not workshop compatible. If the people at HBS were able to fix some stuff in the editor, we wouldn't have to use methods that circumvents what is suppose to be standard procedure for this editor.

I agree, but I'm not sure HBS planned for everything the community has taken issue with. The biggest problem I've seen is updating content. The fact that modders have to upload a whole new mod rather than being able to adjust a mod they've been working on is an oversight HBS should have given priority to fixing.
kieronmacleod Aug 6, 2013 @ 8:03pm 
Originally posted by fredingue:
The more i play, the more i'm annoyed by this system. It could have been acceptable if :

- there where save points each time a new screen is load or a major quest item has been triggered. That would provide to have to redo 30 minutes of game "Didn't i stooped playing yesterday after getting to a save point ?!!!"

- there was the possibility to get at least the last 3 check point saves. Here, sometimes you ask yourself : do i buy those spells/armors/weapons/upgrades now or after some missions ? Do i put some decking to defend in the matrice ? Shall i take only 2 mercs to save money ?
Then you discover that you should have done all of this, but it's too late now...

You can rewind the check points in the load screen I believe.
P I Z Z A Aug 6, 2013 @ 8:03pm 
Originally posted by kieronmacleod:
Originally posted by fredingue:
The more i play, the more i'm annoyed by this system. It could have been acceptable if :

- there where save points each time a new screen is load or a major quest item has been triggered. That would provide to have to redo 30 minutes of game "Didn't i stooped playing yesterday after getting to a save point ?!!!"

- there was the possibility to get at least the last 3 check point saves. Here, sometimes you ask yourself : do i buy those spells/armors/weapons/upgrades now or after some missions ? Do i put some decking to defend in the matrice ? Shall i take only 2 mercs to save money ?
Then you discover that you should have done all of this, but it's too late now...

You can rewind the check points in the load screen I believe.

You can. It only goes back so far, though.
Last edited by P I Z Z A; Aug 6, 2013 @ 8:03pm
Allarion Aug 6, 2013 @ 8:05pm 
Originally posted by Nothingtobeseenhere:
Originally posted by kieronmacleod:

You can rewind the check points in the load screen I believe.

You can. It only goes back so far, though.

It goes all the way back to the first save. Every single checkpoint is saved.
P I Z Z A Aug 6, 2013 @ 8:05pm 
Originally posted by grayfoxwinsthewar:
I agree, but I'm not sure HBS planned for everything the community has taken issue with. The biggest problem I've seen is updating content. The fact that modders have to upload a whole new mod rather than being able to adjust a mod they've been working on is an oversight HBS should have given priority to fixing.

I can accept that they might not have accounted for every issue before release. These are issues that they should at least consider fixing in post, and, if not that, they should at least acknowledge that the issue is there.
Showing 1-15 of 53 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Aug 6, 2013 @ 7:30pm
Posts: 53