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.