Do I need to play the other shadowrun games first?

[xSeifer]

Right now this game is at humble bundle and I was wondering if it would make sense buy it without having ever played the other two shadowrun games

[ThaDaLinkWent]

Each Shadowrun game is its own story. They are not really connected to one another even though they all take place in the same universe.

[di eshor ribly]

Originally posted by ThaDaLinkWent:

Each Shadowrun game is its own story. They are not really connected to one another even though they all take place in the same universe.

The closest the three games actually get to each other is a few character appearances and references here and there. Some NPCs in the two latter games may refer to events in the first one, and the third game also does the same for the second.

[ThaDaLinkWent]

Originally posted by di eshor ribly:

Originally posted by ThaDaLinkWent:

Each Shadowrun game is its own story. They are not really connected to one another even though they all take place in the same universe.

The closest the three games actually get to each other is a few character appearances and references here and there. Some NPCs in the two latter games may refer to events in the first one, and the third game also does the same for the second.

You basically just repeated what I said. They are not connected in any significant or meaningful way. He didn't asked if there where references back to the other games. His original question was does he need to play the first two games to understand the storyline of this game which the answer is a solid no.....

[Lord Of Dorkness]

Although what's said about story is true, there's been a lot of tweaking and evolving of the mechanics over this series.

Trying to play Hong Kong first and the two other games afterwards might be rather frustrating on that front, but if you're unsure about the series you might as well get the one with the most polish the try.

[frdnwsm]

You don't HAVE to do the games in any particular order. Personally, however, I would recommend doing the simplest game first, to get used to the basics of game play, tactics, etc. Shadowrun Returns. Then Dragonfall, which is more complicated, and gives you the concept of a constant core group of runners, as opposed to just mercenaries for hire for each mission. Then finally HK and Shadows of HK for the most developed scenarios.

[di eshor ribly]

Originally posted by ThaDaLinkWent:

You basically just repeated what I said. They are not connected in any significant or meaningful way. He didn't asked if there where references back to the other games. His original question was does he need to play the first two games to understand the storyline of this game which the answer is a solid no.....

Yeah, sorry about that. I shouldn't browse or post on forums if I haven't slept in two days. It makes my brain not work good.

[Hurodrik]

Originally posted by frdnwsm:

You don't HAVE to do the games in any particular order. Personally, however, I would recommend doing the simplest game first, to get used to the basics of game play, tactics, etc. Shadowrun Returns. Then Dragonfall, which is more complicated, and gives you the concept of a constant core group of runners, as opposed to just mercenaries for hire for each mission.

I second this. Have you ever played the old Fallout games? The second one really improved the U.I. and some of the mechanics, such that if you played the first and then the second, it would feel like an improvement, but if you played the second and then the first, it would fell somewhat awkward in a sense. The same could be said here. A lot has ben refined from SRR to Dragonfall. The changes from Dragonfall to Hong Kong are much less pronnounced, but they are still there.

Overall, I think Dead Mans Switch (the campaign in the original SRR) is a better "introduction" to the Shadowrun universe if you know nothing about it. Because it was the first Shadowrun game in a long time, the devs tried harder to introduce the player to the setting. The other games already "expect you to know" how certain things work, both from a perspective of mechanics as well of the setting.

Dragonfall is still the best game in the series in my opinion, but they are all good and have excelent writing. Dead mans switch would be the better introduction to the series, and its worth playing, but you can still play and enjoy them in any order your wish. It might just feel weird to go back to the older ones after playing the new ones first.

[frdnwsm]

Hurodrik said:

"Dragonfall is still the best game in the series in my opinion".

The two games have different aspects that appeal to me; I like HK a bit better due to the expansion module, which gives you a totally new evil baddie and more skill choices, but if you argue for DF as best, I won't get too upset.

DF has some good character development, and the plot is as interesting as HK. You also have to be careful about choices of action; it is possible to destroy all of metahumanity if you err. Ooopsie! In Hong Kong, the worst that can happen is that the Walled City becomes home to a demonic being who becomes it's immortal ruler. Hmm, which is still pretty bad, come to think of it.

HK gives you a larger skill tree and more equipment choices, which means more diverse character builds. The Cyber Affinity skill, for example, doesn't even exist in DF. I've done 6 runs in HK just to check different builds out, and only 3 in DF.

Dead Man's Switch (aka Shadowrun Returns) gets my nomination for the award for biggest plot non-sequitor. One minute I'm a detective looking for the Emerald City Ripper; the next thing I know, I'm fighting insects from another dimension who want to colonize the Earth. It's like they had two different games, just like in HK and Shadows of HK, but they forgot to tell us when the switch occurred. You start out playing Sam Spade, and end up as Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator 2. Still an excellent game, though.

[Hurodrik]

Originally posted by frdnwsm:

Hurodrik said:

"Dragonfall is still the best game in the series in my opinion".

The two games have different aspects that appeal to me; I like HK a bit better due to the expansion module, which gives you a totally new evil baddie and more skill choices, but if you argue for DF as best, I won't get too upset.

DF has some good character development, and the plot is as interesting as HK. You also have to be careful about choices of action; it is possible to destroy all of metahumanity if you err. Ooopsie! In Hong Kong, the worst that can happen is that the Walled City becomes home to a demonic being who becomes it's immortal ruler. Hmm, which is still pretty bad, come to think of it.

HK gives you a larger skill tree and more equipment choices, which means more diverse character builds. The Cyber Affinity skill, for example, doesn't even exist in DF. I've done 6 runs in HK just to check different builds out, and only 3 in DF.

Dead Man's Switch (aka Shadowrun Returns) gets my nomination for the award for biggest plot non-sequitor. One minute I'm a detective looking for the Emerald City Ripper; the next thing I know, I'm fighting insects from another dimension who want to colonize the Earth. It's like they had two different games, just like in HK and Shadows of HK, but they forgot to tell us when the switch occurred. You start out playing Sam Spade, and end up as Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator 2. Still an excellent game, though.

Oh, wow. Man, you just spoiled a lot of the plot from DMS and SRHK in a thread started by someone completely new to the series. Please, please add spoiler tags to your post. I just hope the OP hasn't seen it yet.

I think DF has the best delivery, aside from all the heart wrenching moments. I had none of those in HK. The writing is more consistently good too. There were some moments in HK (especially in the expansion) who I felt were very cringe worthy, others where the writer broke character a lot. I was really weirded out for some of the dialogue choices available for me and for my companions. I don't remember anything like that in DMS or DF. Hong Kong has its moments of brilliance, sure, but it was the only one in the series that I almost quit because of plot shenanigans. More specifically the start of the expansion. I had to force myself through it, but I almost didn't.

But that is a discussion for another day, there are plenty of threads already discussing which is the best one in the series, and many fair arguments in defense of each viewpoint. DF is the one who I connected to the most in an emotional level. It made me fell good, and it made me feel awful. That's quite an achievement, and along with many other things made it earn the position of not only the best Shadowrun game for me, but also as one of the best games I ever played. Also, there's Glory, and the dog. 'Nuff said.

[frdnwsm]

Hmm, ok; I define a spoiler as something more specific and detailed, like giving out a password, or saying that so-and-so NPC will turn on you, etc. etc., but that's a somewhat personal viewpoint. I thought I was being pretty vague and general, but I'll go back and add a spoiler tag then, if you think it merits one.

[Hurodrik]

Originally posted by frdnwsm:

Hmm, ok; I define spoiler as something more specific and detailed, like giving out a password, or saying that so-and-so NPC will turn on you, etc. etc., but that's a somewhat personal viewpoint. I thought I was being pretty vague and general, but I'll go back and add a spoiler tag then, if you think it merits one.

About the DMS part , that could be seen as a plot twist, especially if you consider how relevant what happens is to Shadowrun lore in general. As for SHK, exactly what the heck is happening one of the things you can investigate after all, and doing it or not even affects which endings you can get. It doesn't hurt to be careful. The story is, after all, a big part of this games. But thanks for being comprehensive.

[frdnwsm]

Well, as you wish. What I said was basically the equivalent of "there are different game endings depending on the choices you make", but just being a bit more detailed about what sort of thing could happen.

A serious spoiler would be laying the whole thing out. "If you do this, you get result A, if you do that, B happens instead." "The password to get control of the giant death robot is yabba-dabba-do". Etc.

Oh no! I gave away the death robot passowrd! Ack!

As for the DMS comment, what sounds like a plot twist to you was an incomprehensible leap in logic to me, which is what I was trying to say. I got no sense of connection or continuity there, and was left scratching my head about the whole thing.

[Chigen Atomic]

There wasn't a plot twist, it's two separate plots that come together.
The Ripper was employed by certain people you meet after that point, which leads into the whole second half of the storyline. The bug thing is only relevant because of said certain people. I made that kind of vague for OPs sake.

[Hurodrik]

Originally posted by Chigen Atomic:

There wasn't a plot twist, it's two separate plots that come together.
The Ripper was employed by certain people you meet after that point, which leads into the whole second half of the storyline. The bug thing is only relevant because of said certain people. I made that kind of vague for OPs sake.

You are correct, I didn't express myself as clearly as I could. What I meant as plot twist could be better described, in Shadowrun terms, in a phrase the main character can say at the start of Dragonfall: "If experience taught me anything, is that there is no such thing as a milk run." Which is a recurring theme in the setting, really. Being suddently way over your head without warning. =]

[xSeifer]

Thanks everyone for your input, I have a much better idea now =)
@Hurodrik Good thing I started reading a day later xD