Shadowrun Returns - Review Roundup #4

[DArtagnan]

Best thing about this is that it finally got me to play the Genesis Shadowrun game for real - and it's surprisingly entertaining

 

[SonOfCapiz]

I must have done something wrong somewhere, because I need to hire a team and I'm flat broke. Probably going to have to roll back to the cemetary level and I'm not sure I have the motivation to replay 3 or 4 scenes.

yeah ran into that problem myself and so have other users on the forum. There should be random/repeatable runs you can do to get money in case you run out.

 

[Mr Smiley]

An entertaining thread. I'd like to make a comment about objectivity. Of course there is no such thing as actual objectivity, and a review is not even supposed to be objective. A reviewer is expected to make a value judgement, which is inherently subjective. While a good reviewer will always give reasons, those are not visible in the score, which makes the numerical value completely useless.

Unlike DArtagnan, I like emotional reviews and find balanced reviewes boring. What I value is how the reviewer argues the case. Because while a reviewer does act as a judge, coming down with a verdict, the reviewer is also tasked with acting as prosecutor and defence, which is where it gets interesting.

 

[DArtagnan]

An entertaining thread. I'd like to make a comment about objectivity. Of course there is no such thing as actual objectivity, and a review is not even supposed to be objective. A reviewer is expected to make a value judgement, which is inherently subjective. While a good reviewer will always give reasons, those are not visible in the score, which makes the numerical value completely useless.

Numerical value isn't useless - which is why it's there in 99% of all reviews.

However, if it's based on emotional investment and not a rational position - THEN it's useless as an indicator of objective quality.

Note that objective quality can't be quantified and it's all but impossible to establish - but we can still strive to do so, and we can still strive to articulate how each and every element of a given game works or doesn't work.

Otherwise, we're just randomly generating feedback - which I don't think even the wishy-washy review fans would appreciate.

Even the most subjective and emotional feedback will be presented as something rational and objective.

Try to notice that when you read reviews. ALL reviewers will try to argue WHY a game is good or bad - and that's actually an attempt at objectivity.

So, saying reviews shouldn't try to be objective is the same as saying all reviewers are morons - including yourself, if you've ever written one.

Unlike DArtagnan, I like emotional reviews and find balanced reviewes boring. What I value is how the reviewer argues the case. Because while a reviewer does act as a judge, coming down with a verdict, the reviewer is also tasked with acting as prosecutor and defence, which is where it gets interesting.

Balanced reviews are boring? Are you listening to yourself here?

You're actively arguing AGAINST balanced reviews? Wow

Prosecutor and defense is very much part of striving for objectivity.

You're not making sense if you think otherwise.

 

[Mr Smiley]

Numerical value isn't useless - which is why it's there in 99% of all reviews.

Well, in this roundup alone, we have numerical values ranging from 6/10 to 5/5. What use do you have of those numbers alone? You don't know what they mean without reading the reviews, and if you have actually read the reviews, you have no use of the numbers.

ALL reviewers will try to argue WHY a game is good or bad - and that's actually an attempt at objectivity.

No, they all argue from their respective viewpoint. And the arguing is what makes any review interesting. Becasuse it's not objective.

 

[DArtagnan]

Well, in this roundup alone, we have numerical values ranging from 6/10 to 5/5. What use do you have of those numbers alone? You don't know what they mean without reading the reviews, and if you have actually read the reviews, you have no use of the numbers.

I don't know what it is with you - but every time we have a debate, you completely overlook key points. Oh well.

The reason numerical scores vary to the extent they do - is PRECISELY because so many reviewers are not striving for objectivity.

A lot of reviews are heavily biased by a variety of influences. Most established review sites are seriously compromised when it comes to the big AAA titles. There's no reason to doubt this, because we've seen significant examples of this exposed in the media.

Then we have a lot of "smaller" reviewers trying to get attention by going against the grain - and I'd say QT3 with Tom Chick is one of the most painful examples of this. Other examples include the "jokey" youtube reviewers - that started out reasonably objective - but have ended up like attention-whores and as pure entertainment.

If more reviewers had significant experience with the history of gaming - and they were more informed about how features can be of value to a variety of gamers, their review scores would be closer aligned.

Obviously, this would require the capacity to separate emotions and attempt to focus on being rational and objective.

A good way to keep the "subjective" and "emotional" bias intact - is to simply say "This feature might work for you - as it was such a success in game X, but it does nothing for me - because I'm not into that sort of thing".

Any competent reviewer would have made sure to underline the EXTREME lack of exploration and interactivity in Shadowrun Returns - because it's expected gameplay in pretty much any RPG. Most reviewers seem to have shrugged it off as "no big deal" - and that's a compromised attitude. It's being overly forgiving for one reason or another.

That's why early reviews deserve scepticism - because people get so caught up in their own excitement about finally getting a Shadowrun game that's not a shooter.

A few months from now, I predict the common position will be that the launch campaign is - at best - mediocre and limited.

No, they all argue from their respective viewpoint. And the arguing is what makes any review interesting. Becasuse it's not objective.

Yes, they're actually arguing from their viewpoint - but they're TRYING to be objective.

If they were being subjective, they'd just go "I don't like or require exploration - so it's not a problem it's not there".

But they're likely going "It doesn't have exploration, but given the weight of the story and entertaining combat - it's not a big deal."

THAT is an attempt at objectivity.

 

[Dusk]

Which part of "striving for" don't you understand?

Do I understand it? - No. I cannot understand your "perfection" without any expectation or bias consciously or unconsciously attached to it. To my eyes, such presumption looks pretentious but I cannot see how your brains work…talking of communication. What I can say is that you and I seem to be different. Maybe, if you start with defining your concept of "perfection", however, the process should clear your bias or stand-point in this issue.

Have you ever heard of striving for perfection? It's not something you do because you think you can ever be perfect - but because perfection, as a goal, is the logical extreme you aim for.

Yes. I have seen something similar. Reading your comment reminded me of theologists having tried to apply the authority of "God" without defining the concept.

Going back to my initial point. I just think some kind of "absolute" score (illusion to my eyes) won't reflect the diversity of the market. Also, I think this site will lose value to me if it begins to imitate some major sites who try to put numerical score for "the majority." In fact, even here some people find such scores can be just a part of mass-marketing scheme backed by advertising rates from bigger publishers. However, such "conspiracy theory" or political/economic presumptions aside, even at theoretical level, I think numerical rating won't reflect the growing diversity.

 

[DArtagnan]

Do I understand it? - No. I cannot understand your "perfection" without any expectation or bias consciously or unconsciously attached to it. To my eyes, such presumption looks pretentious but I cannot see how your brains work…talking of communication. What I can say is that you and I seem to be different. Maybe, if you start with defining your concept of "perfection", however, the process should clear your bias or stand-point in this issue.

If you can't understand striving towards a goal without necessarily expecting to reach it - then we most definitely seem to be different.

My definition of perfection matches the official one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection

I'm surprised you're not aware of it.

Yes. I have seen something similar. Reading your comment reminded me of theologists having tried to apply the authority of "God" without defining the concept.

Why would I need to define something that's fully established already?

I can't exactly predict that you're not knowledgable about such common concepts.

Especially not when you're part of a debate orbiting those concepts. That would seem to be a mistake on your part.

Going back to my initial point. I just think some kind of "absolute" score (illusion to my eyes) won't reflect the diversity of the market. Also, I think this site will lose value to me if it begins to imitate some major sites who try to put numerical score for "the majority." In fact, even here some people find such scores can be just a part of mass-marketing scheme backed by advertising rates from bigger publishers. However, such "conspiracy theory" or political/economic presumptions aside, even at theoretical level, I think numerical rating won't reflect the growing diversity.

What absolute score are you talking about?

I'm talking about what I prefer from reviews and what I think makes sense.

Even if people were to follow my wishes (and you can be sure they won't) - that wouldn't result in an absolute score.

It would just result in a collection of scores that made sense and which would likely be closer aligned.

 

[Dusk]

If you can't understand striving towards a goal without necessarily expecting to reach it - then we most definitely seem to be different.

My definition of perfection matches the official one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection

I'm surprised you're not aware of it.

Why would I need to define something that's fully established already?
I can't exactly predict that you're not knowledgable about such common concepts.

Especially not when you're part of a debate orbiting those concepts. That would seem to be a mistake on your part.

It's abstract concept and you need to make it clear what you think ideal or perfect to you for each concrete issue. For example, if you think RPG is not perfect without exploration, making it clear helps people who read your review or comment.

I'm talking about what I prefer from reviews and what I think makes sense.

As I wrote, as long as it's your opinion including something make sense to you, I wouldn't mind.

 

[DArtagnan]

It's abstract concept and you need to make it clear what you think ideal or perfect to you for each concrete issue. For example, if you think RPG is not perfect without exploration, it helps people who read your review or comment.

I'm not talking about perfection in relation to games. I'm talking about perfection as something to strive for without expecting to reach it.

In that same way, I think objectivity is an unreachable goal - but that doesn't mean you should ignore it.

As for my "perfect" RPG - there's no such thing. But exploration is most definitely a very important feature in my mind - and without it, there needs to be something truly significant as an alternate avenue of gameplay.

 

[Ihaterpg]

Ok I still have to read the thread (I'm a bad boy so I don't follow the rules) but I'll try a few comments to highlight a release I think that isn't so secondary stuff.

I'd say that overall, it's a release like could have been Icewind Dale, not a really full RPG, not a total top level RPG, but something special enough to mark a date.

So SRR is definitely not a top major release because of its size and because the exploration element is a short achievement. But in my opinion it's a date because:
- The writing is among the best achievement in CRPG, not reaching top top but not far to top.
- The gameplay density is just excellent with almost no fillers, every fight is designed, any location is new except when the story justify it's re use, when there's puzzles or tricks they aren't re used much, there's many little dialogs and example of details is almost each time you check a merchant he has a bit of new dialog for you.
- About dialogs there's many dialogs options that are pure role play choices but it's well done so still involving and generating a thinking, also some really trigger something, but the point is it's a real plus even when it's just about choosing your answer.
- There's many many opportunities to achieve goals in different ways, sometimes it's your choice, sometimes it's choices coming from your attributes, skills, class and even race, it can be bride or charming or brutal fighting or dialogs or special actions or using a special passage, it's certainly not at same level than few RPG achieving this at top level but again at a quality level not common at all.

In my opinion that's the reasons to not skip this RPG even if it is supposed to be a demo for future mods, it is much more than that.

Otherwise the good elements are combats, classes and builds, it's solid interesting stuff but I'm at my second play and still don't have a very deep point of view on those elements but that there's many choices, diversity and possibilities.

EDIT: Forgot ok the save is weird, only at beginning of a level, ok not cool, but that shouldn't stop you if you like quality.

EDIT2: Also a point, even if there's some area that missed the opportunity to build a better exploration, that items are highlighted, there's still multiple places where there's good stuff like stuff to find, some good puzzles (nope it's not a puzzles RPG from far), some good tricks to find and exploit. The exploration aspect need improvement overall but there's still good stuff and good opportunities to dig places.

 

[Mr Smiley]

I don't know what it is with you - but every time we have a debate, you completely overlook key points.

What's with me, eh?

Unlike you, I'm not a prolific contributor here, but when I do post, it seems that I often end up arguing with you in particular. This is probably due to some fundamental philosophical difference between us. And interestingly, I think the notion of objectivity is at the heart of the matter.

You often argue from a point of perceived objective truth, while I don't believe that such a thing as objective truth can exist. And you often argue from a point of presumed knowledge, while I don't believe in knowledge and claim none.

And to me, the idea of an objective value judgement is an oxymoron.

I used to review music for print media professionaly in the 80s and 90s, though that's entirely beside the point. And yes, I gave numerical scores too, when I was expected to, though I never took that part seriously. Sometimes, if I had been a bit harsh in the actual review, I would give a higher score to compensate and perhaps make the band feel better about it. I believe that's a rather common practice among reviewers, though few would probably admit it. It would explain why the numerical score often seems to contradict the review.

Trying to be objective is dishonest. And incredibly boring. Being upfront about your bias is the way to go.

 

[Ihaterpg]

…I feel like I'm spending 90% of my time reading thru weak text, I'm just not that inspired to play….

For sure if you don't like read that's the RPG to skip, but I feel this problem gave you a totally wrong vision of the whole game.

 

[Ihaterpg]

...Lately I have been playing Fallout and plan to play Fallout 2 afterwards since I never played it very far before. After playing Shadowrun Returns and when I compare the combat I think that Shadowrun Returns has more complicated combat and since you can actually control each character you don't have them shooting you in the back all of the time...

Yeah SSR combats are definitely more sophisticated than those of Fallout. But not many comments made this comparison, the comparison done is more with XCom and JA series. First point is the combat is a lot more fluid in SRR than in any release of those both series (well I mean JA2, XCOM and XCOM recent remake). Second point is it omits aiming (head/legs/arms) and many player criticized it. Second point is it omits reflex shoot, the reflex shoots happen only when enemy or party member spend some AP to guard a direction.

That's right but there's also more possibilities like summons, healing only the last injury, many more support abilities to buff or unbuff, short time boosts, use AP in different ways, pure close range fighters with many abilities and even use guarding for close range fighters, and more.

I haven't dig all of that enough to compare well but after a first play and right into a second play I feel SRR are more than enough to compensate the missing elements from JA series.

 

[Ihaterpg]

The setting is wonderful, but the campaign does not grab me after several hours of play. The linear nature of it feels strange for a choice and consequence type game that theoretically could have significant different outcomes depending on skill/stat investment.

What you don't have quote is the very numerous choices to achieve a same action, and many possibilities are linked to skills, attributes, class and sometimes even race, plus there's often possibilities around bride, using technology (Decker or Rigger) or brutal force that I did use once because a puzzle was really too much for me at this point, lol.

 

[BillSeurer]

Combat was probably the weakest part of the Fallout games. Just basically stand and blaze away at each other. Maneuver other than to change the range didn't really matter. In SRR I am always moving my guys around trying to get to cover or flush some bad guy out or whatever.

I think I am nearly done with SRR and I like it. The game system, combat, setting, and story are all pretty good. The two things I really didn't like were the linearity (I prefer open world games) and the "once combat starts you are stuck in turn based mode". The shortness of the game doesn't bother me; it's not THAT short. If this plays out like NWN did then we are in for some really great further content.

 

[Ihaterpg]

Ouch ok I tried read the full thread and did read many posts of the first tier, then quickly up to middle, seriously how many contributing to this thread took the time to really play it and not only try it quickly before something else?

I'm surprised by the underestimation of:
- Choices you have to achieve stuffs.
- Dialogs linked to characters like skills, attributes, even race.
- The quality of writing including some cool narrative stuff and excellent lore spreading.
- The gameplay density, free of fillers like too often or more, like most often.
- The fights design care, seriously up the difficulty if it's too easy for you.

Really guys you have disappointed me for such blindness.

Seriously ok the exploration is weak (but not totally inexistent, knowing that exploration in Legend of Grimrock is much better than exploration in Skyrim), and the save system is totally weird, and the game is about 15 hour long (for me 20+ and 30+ now with replay) but 20 bucks. And that's it for the bad points, other than that, many very good elements and some just excellent.

 

[DArtagnan]

You often argue from a point of perceived objective truth, while I don't believe that such a thing as objective truth can exist. And you often argue from a point of presumed knowledge, while I don't believe in knowledge and claim none.

I never argue from a point of perceived objective truth - but I do strive to be objective. You might say I'm using my perceptions to establish how things make sense - but I would never claim to be truly objective about it.

Claiming no knowledge is an interesting claim in itself, especially when you're being so argumentative about all those things you don't know

And to me, the idea of an objective value judgement is an oxymoron.

Which is why it's surprising you're taking part in any debate, really.

Have you considered the meaning of these concepts, I wonder.

How can you claim total subjectivity (dismissing knowledge, even) and yet still try to argue your points as if you believed they were right?

Because that makes absolutely no sense at all.

I used to review music for print media professionaly in the 80s and 90s, though that's entirely beside the point. And yes, I gave numerical scores too, when I was expected to, though I never took that part seriously. Sometimes, if I had been a bit harsh in the actual review, I would give a higher score to compensate and perhaps make the band feel better about it. I believe that's a rather common practice among reviewers, though few would probably admit it. It would explain why the numerical score often seems to contradict the review.

You sound like just the kind of reviewer I'd tend to avoid.

Trying to be objective is dishonest. And incredibly boring. Being upfront about your bias is the way to go.

This is a very, very interesting statement from someone who claims no knowledge and believes in total subjectivity.

You're actually calling me a liar - and you're saying that striving against objectivity is the right way to go.

Are you aware of how amusing that is?

I mean, the irony is incredible

 

[Ihaterpg]

Combat was probably the weakest part of the Fallout games. Just basically stand and blaze away at each other. Maneuver other than to change the range didn't really matter. In SRR I am always moving my guys around trying to get to cover or flush some bad guy out or whatever.

Well Fallout isn't that bad, but yeah SRR is surprisingly dynamic and I enjoyed the numerous scripted combats making them special and dynamic. Beside maneurvering a lot the more I play the more I use special skills and quote there's many possibilities like mark a target and many stuff.

I think I am nearly done with SRR and I like it. The game system, combat, setting, and story are all pretty good. The two things I really didn't like were the linearity (I prefer open world games) and the "once combat starts you are stuck in turn based mode". The shortness of the game doesn't bother me; it's not THAT short. If this plays out like NWN did then we are in for some really great further content.

I don't believe one second it will be like NWN1 has been. First the huge popular license was BG or even still it was D&D, and now it's ES not SR. Secondly the huge popular RPG of this time is Skyrim, most guy looking some fame won't look further. So most if not all talents will be dragged by Skyrim, that was NWN1 in its time.

The only plus is the more old school approach, but if the save system isn't solved and I doubt it will be, I think it will hinder a lot the mods.

No really the game worth it by itself, it's a second level classic, like Icewind Dale is (they are very different genres).

 

[Ihaterpg]

What's with me, eh?

Unlike you, I'm not a prolific contributor here, but when I do post, it seems that I often end up arguing with you in particular. This is probably due to some fundamental philosophical difference between us. And interestingly, I think the notion of objectivity is at the heart of the matter.

You often argue from a point of perceived objective truth, while I don't believe that such a thing as objective truth can exist. And you often argue from a point of presumed knowledge, while I don't believe in knowledge and claim none.

And to me, the idea of an objective value judgement is an oxymoron.
…

I don't want league against him but I got a lot of trouble with him, and reading your post I think you pinpoint something I didn't pinpoint, how he uses objectivity.

But it's a false one, it's just rhetoric to achieve a point in an arguing ie in another word it's pure manipulation. Often it's even wrong logic, but like you pinpoint it, it's even more often just logic where there's none.

I don't know why I had so many troubles with him, in my case it's perhaps because I'm arguing a lot too much and get lost in same flaws than he uses. But what I hate is when he starts argue about how non smart you are or how bad you write, that's dishonest tools.

Well Dartagnan I'm sorry for this little league I'm sure you can be above than that, are you? But choose Dartagnan as your nick name is both provocative and both let expect a lot of courtesy and you have none, me too but I don't use the name dartagnan. :-D