Shadowrun Returns - Review Roundup #4

I don't rate games based on future potential - as that makes no sense. Well, I might do that - but that would have to be done in the future.

As for Shadowrun Returns - AS IS - I'd rate it 5.5/10 or something like that. I don't take into account that it's indie/KS or that it's not very expensive.

For an RPG using such a strong setting - and with such potential, I think it's rather pathetic and I have no idea what these high ratings are based on.

If I were rating an adventure/detective game - I might have been easier on it, because the expectations would be a better match. Adventure games tend to focus on story and linear map progression - where I expect interesting RPG mechanics from my RPGs, and I DEMAND exploration (linear or non-linear).

A game has a specific quality regardless of how much money went into it - and how modders may or may not save it later on.

DArtagnan said:

I don't rate games based on future potential - as that makes no sense. Well, I might do that - but that would have to be done in the future.

As for Shadowrun Returns - AS IS - I'd rate it 5.5/10 or something like that. I don't take into account that it's indie/KS or that it's not very expensive.

For an RPG using such a strong setting - and with such potential, I think it's rather pathetic and I have idea what these high ratings are based on.

A game has a specific quality regardless of how much money went into it - and how modders may or may not save it later on.

Click to expand...

I agree, game ratings should be about the absolute quality of the game as it is when reviewed (one might be tolerant of some minor bugs at release, since that's inevitable). Whether a game represents value for money or not is a different issue (and in any case a really good game is good value at full price). Giving a game a 9/10 should mean that the game is state of the art for the genre, at the time of release, with few flaws; SRR most certainly doesn't fit those requirements.

rune_74 said:

I'm not sure why anyone would not care about an editor…do you not understand what that can do for the game?

Click to expand...

I agree with DArt and Roq. While I appreciate the editor Rune "can" does not equal
"will".

GothicGothicness said:

So basically… don't buy it now.. but maybe later when fan-made content is out ?

Click to expand...

??? Do you really need other people's comments on this? Obviously, opinion differs - Do what you want. It's twenty bucks we are talking about. If you are still hesitating, then, it's probably not a game for you. If you haven't bought it yet, then I'd say, wait - even pre-order people spent more than I did. The price will probably drop at the holiday sales of this year or...well, you can wait even longer. However, even if it ends up a few bucks in the long run (Here, am I supposed to be regretful?), what you'd save is less than twenty dollars. At this rate, I have no idea what you are sparing. So, ask yourself - Nobody can tell you what you want.

DArtagnan said:

I don't rate games based on future potential - as that makes no sense. Well, I might do that - but that would have to be done in the future.

As for Shadowrun Returns - AS IS - I'd rate it 5.5/10 or something like that. I don't take into account that it's indie/KS or that it's not very expensive.

Click to expand...

At least, you know what you want and your rating is based on your subjective viewpoint. I'd give more score for the TB combat, freedom in character building and the well-written story but I don't think "my" score means something to you like yours doesn't mean anything to me. A CRPG can mean many things and, in fact, I have read different opinions in many boards. I see you evaluate the game lower since you regard exploration essential and I can understand that. That said, you cannot dictate what I want and vice versa. It's just another case where taste differs.

Indeed, I think the official campaign is shorter than some people might have expected but I personally appreciate the quality-over-quantity decision.

So your saying that having a short and linear campaign is equal to having a low quality. So having a pizza that is small and is at the proper price but has good toppings and tastes very good is a very low quality pizza just because it is small. I guess some people here don't even remotely know the definition of quality since the above has nothing to do with the quality of the game or pizza. A 12 hour game with an editor for $20 is a pretty good price and especially since to make a proper editor for a game takes longer then making a good game. From playing it and other people it sounds like the dialog and story is good and also if you don't compare it to something like X-com the combat is good. The two faults I do give the game is the lack of skill based dialog choices and the lack of exploration.

I would give the game an 8 (.5 for not being the standard fantasy rpg)

Dusk said:

At least, you know what you want and your rating is based on your subjective viewpoint. I'd give more score for the TB combat, freedom in character building and the well-written story but I don't think "my" score means something to you like yours doesn't mean anything to me. A CRPG can mean many things and, in fact, I have read different opinions in many boards. I see you evaluate the game lower since you regard exploration essential and I can understand that. That said, you cannot dictate what I want and vice versa. It's just another case where taste differs.

Click to expand...

Why would you even suggest that I think I can dictate what you want? I'm talking about my rating - based on my perspective - nothing more, and obviously so.

As for TB combat - I don't rate a game better for TB or real-time combat - but for implementation.

Shadowrun Returns combat is OK - but barebones and too simplistic. I can't give it much for that, but it IS a positive in my consideration.

To me, 5.5 is slightly above average or fully playable - and that's exactly how I feel about it. It's playable and it's OK - but it's almost entirely unimpressive.

I like the atmosphere - and I think the writing is ok. Combat is decent and entertaining, but not very engaging.

Indeed, I think the official campaign is shorter than some people might have expected but I personally appreciate the quality-over-quantity decision.

Click to expand...

Well, I knew it would be short - and that's a negative no matter what. I don't like short games in this genre.

But I'm not seeing much quality over quantity.

Then again, I've only played it for a few hours - and I'm in no hurry to continue.

DArtagnan said:

Why would you even suggest that I think I can dictate what you want? I'm talking about my rating - based on my perspective - nothing more, and obviously so.

Click to expand...

Did you change your post during I was posting? In any case, as long as it's your rating, I have no problem - I have no intention to argue over numerical score. I think the TB combat is solid enough for CRPG with some flaws (Many recent action CRPG, which I have given up to play now, might have dulled my sense, though). Somehow, I also knew it would be short (Bit surprised to see some people complaining of the length). Wonder how I've gotten such impression but I followed the news moderately. Also, I knew it's mission-based and didn't expect exploration factor at all. Quite many things were within my expectation except that the delay gave me an impression that the game might be going to be buggy as hell but, generally speaking, I think I was proven wrong.

Dusk said:

Did you change your post during I was posting? In any case, as long as it's your rating, I have no problem - I have no intention to argue over numerical score. I think the TB combat is solid enough for CRPG with some flaws (Many recent action CRPG, which I have given up to play now, might have dulled my sense, though). Somehow, I also knew it would be short (Bit surprised to see some people complaining of the length). Wonder how I've gotten such impression but I followed the news moderately. Also, I knew it's mission-based and didn't expect exploration factor at all. Quite many things were within my expectation except that the delay gave me an impression that the game might be going to be buggy as hell but, generally speaking, I think I was proven wrong.

Click to expand...

Personally, I try to be objective - and if I'm going to be objective, I can't let low expectations positively influence the score.

I didn't expect much at all from Shadowrun Returns - and in fact, I think it turned out very much like I feared = undercooked from having too little time and limited resources.

But that doesn't make the game better than if I'd expected the world from it.

I'm enjoying SR and playing it near exclusively, but I have to agree i don't see it as deserving the ratings it's getting. While the editor may potentially get you far more content than your money's worth, I'm disappointed to see that gameplay settings (new/changed skills, etc, balance changes) seems to be out of reach. I'm already seeing some unbalanced/bugged skills (I'm looking at you chi casting) that would have been easily fixed with a Bethesda type editor that makes such things as easy as changing number values.

DArtagnan said:

Personally, I try to be objective - and if I'm going to be objective, I can't let low expectations positively influence the score.

Click to expand...

I see. That's where we are different, I guess. I wouldn't expect objective evaluation especially on a game- it cannot but be, at best, multi-biased and balanced. I'd call it just different personality.

I don't know what people find so difficult to understand about game ratings. A game rating on say Gamespot is meant to indicate the quality of the game for an average fan of the genre compared to the state of the art at the time: 90-100 would be one of the best games in the genre, anything above 80 generally is classified as "great" with a few flaws, 70-80 pretty good, anything below 5 is pretty awful etc. Of course game ratings are just meant as a guide and can never be perfectly objective. But surely all of us understand the basic concepts. Clearly classifying SRR as 90-100, meaning that it is state of the art for the RPG genre on PC is ridiculous.

Dusk said:

I see. That's where we are different, I guess. I wouldn't expect objective evaluation especially on a game- it cannot but be, at best, multi-biased and balanced. I'd call it just different personality.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between trying to be objective and being objective.

But I think it's important to try - if your review is to be of any actual use.

Otherwise, it's just an opinion piece to be discussed. People who agree with the score will like the review and those who don't won't.

That's the typical scenario - where people are nodding their heads when reading something that's ultimately giving a positive score to a game they like.

I find that kind of experience rather trivial and boring.

No, I think reviews should ideally be guides - and I think it makes sense to make a guide as widely accessible as possible.

But that's me.

Since I don't believe in numerical scores, I read into what they actually mean to me or possible gaps between their points of views and mine, which suffice for me to find my needs: In this way, they work as guides to me in a pragmatic manner. Indeed, there are more-organized or well-thought reviews which tend to be more helpful since they give good backing reasoning behind their evaluations, though. And yet, they cannot but be subjective but why should I need "objectivity" in the first place, whatever it would be.

Dusk said:

Since I don't believe in numerical scores, I read into what they actually mean to me or possible gaps between their points of views and mine, which suffice for me to find my needs: In this way, they work as guides to me in a pragmatic manner. Indeed, there are more-organized or well-thought reviews which tend to be more helpful since they give good backing reasoning behind their evaluations, though. And yet, they cannot but be subjective but why should I need "objectivity" in the first place, whatever it would be.

Click to expand...

Objectivity isn't about serving individual needs. It's a way of communicating that takes into account other points of view - and indeed, as many points of view as the person in question is capable of.

If a reviewer understands how other people might differ from himself, he can communicate that some aspects of any particular game might be appealing to them - where as they're not appealing to him. That way, the review can hold more information - and won't focus on the negative or positive based on a personal and subjective position.

As such, I tend to consider objective and "unemotional" reviews far more useful - though not necessarily useful TO ME - but to a wider audience.

I rarely follow reviews - and my experience with gaming is at a stage where only very informed gamers can offer much useful insight.

As I see it, reviews should strive to communicate without bias and emotion - because such things can only taint the outcome and it requires the reader to understand the writer to a much larger extent.

But, again, we all see these things differently.

If you prefer a fully biased and subjective opinion piece - then I can appreciate that. We just differ on that.

And yet you seem to profess inability to understand why other reviewers / players would rate it more highly. If you can't see how/why they differ from you, are you more objective then them?

DArtagnan said:

As I see it, reviews should strive to communicate without bias and emotion - because such things can only taint the outcome and it requires the reader to understand the writer to a much larger extent.

Click to expand...

I simply cannot understand anyone who thinks themselves unbiased. If someone thinks in such a way, they are most likely to be unconscious of how biased they are. Anyone is biased for me and what I should do when communicating is to discern how my bias is different from theirs. Informative reviews tend to show different biases in organized ways, which help me to understand who wrote for whom. Thinking things in a sorted-out way plays to make a bridge between each bias. You might call it unbiased or objective but for me, it's more organized/methodological format of expressing biases.

DArtagnan said:

But, again, we all see these things differently.

Click to expand...

I think you admitted we are biased here...but it may be just me. Hmmm...

GothicGothicness said:

So basically… don't buy it now.. but maybe later when fan-made content is out ?

Click to expand...

This is the gist I'm getting as well...

GothicGothicness said:

So basically… don't buy it now.. but maybe later when fan-made content is out ?

Click to expand...

No idea how far I am in game but so far the game has a strong story and a quite a lot of text. So far the game is worth it.

rune_74 said:

A 5 dollar game? Please, enlighten us with that wisdom you use there.

I payed 15 dollars on kickstarter. To back the development of the game where I got a copy. Many people don't understand that kickstarter is not a preorder system(which it really looks like escaped you).

What it is is a way for people to put as much money as they want to it, in the way getting a few extras. But, if they really just wanted the game and didn't have the extra to put towards it then 15 was the cost of entry.

Please try harder next time.

Click to expand...

Many people analyze why this game is scum and no more words are in need for this matter.
Only that this is a chip tablet port that is payed 10 times more than it deserves and compare with Expedition Conquistador that took 77.000 from KS with the 1.8 M it got. For me E.C. is better than this one and its value per dollar it get from KS, is at least 100 times bigger.
And hey Rune, if God did not grant you with wit and wisdom, sorry but I can't make you any better.

Not quite finished yet, but I would right now give SR:R about an 8 out of 10.

It's crashed a few times on me, one time the dialog choices wouldn't show up so I had to restart a level, it can stutter if you haven't restarted your computer in awhile (I never understood the games that do that, but NWN2 was the same way) and, while it's not a major issue to me as the game sections aren't long, having some kind of checkpoint halfway through a mission would be nice instead of just an end of map / switching to new map auto-save.

It's not just on this forum, but in many places. I can't help but wonder what games some people would give higher ratings to, and I'd love the chance to tear those apart for them. So easy to feel selective, intelligence, and discerning by being critical of things - but that's not how such activities actually come across.