Shadowrun: Hong Kong - Campaign Finished

Couchpotato

Part-Time News-bot
Joined
October 1, 2010
Messages
36,193
Location
Spudlandia
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,193
Location
Spudlandia
Most of the goals seemed fine to me. They seem realistic for those funding levels. The added companions appear (potentially) interesting to play, and I look forward to seeing how they revamp the matrix.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
5,521
Location
Seattle
I thought some of them seemed excessive for what they offered. For instance, $400k just to add another NPC, and $550K to add some more spells and items. I wasn't impressed.

I'll definitely purchase it though. I found both DMS and Dragonfall to be on the shallow side, but I enjoyed them for what they are, and I like the setting.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,142
Location
Florida, US
At least those goals will likely be met instead of left by the wayside with a "we're sorry, that feature was harder to do than we thought" email.

P.S. +1 for the Big Trouble in Little China reference. (And, if you haven't seen that movie, go do so. Now. I don't care if you're at work - this needs to be done!)
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,238
Location
Kansas City
So, are the Shadowrun games sort of like Wasteland 2 or something, but maybe not as in-depth? o_O
 
So, are the Shadowrun games sort of like Wasteland 2 or something, but maybe not as in-depth? o_O

Combat is similar, but simpler.

The setting is very, very different - and I'd say the games have a much smaller scope and, as such, more tightly woven stories.

As I talked about before, I think Shadowrun plays more like an adventure game with combat than anything else - but obviously some people think it's a straight-up RPG.
 
Thanks for the info, DArt. Sounds like something I will check out someday, but it's not high on my list.
 
So, are the Shadowrun games sort of like Wasteland 2 or something, but maybe not as in-depth? o_O

Combat is similar, but simpler.
Do you really think it's simpler?
In WL2 you only have the options to shoot and to ambush.
In SR you additionally have magic with status effects. And you have the ley lines for casters, so positioning becomes a little more important in combat. And if I remeber correctly, SR's cover system was a little more complex, giving you non, half or full cover.

No big differences in complexity, you could call them equally complex. But saying SR's combat is simpler, is imho wrong.
 
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
4,968
Location
Germany
Do you really think it's simpler?
In WL2 you only have the options to shoot and to ambush.
In SR you additionally have magic with status effects. And you have the ley lines for casters, so positioning becomes a little more important in combat. And if I remeber correctly, SR's cover system was a little more complex, giving you non, half or full cover.

No big differences in complexity, you could call them equally complex, but I think saying SR's combat is simpler, is imho wrong.

Yes, I really think it's simpler.

WL2 has more stats when it comes to how things deal damage, including things like more elaborate penetration and armor mechanics.

WL2 has sniper rifles - which is a HUGE thing for me.

WL2 integrates height advantages.

WL2 has manual crouching.

WL2 has less abstract flanking.

WL2 has destructible cover, which means the nature of cover determines level of protection.

WL2 has multiple firing modes for each weapon, where SR it's a "skill" for some classes - which is more abstract, and not for me.

WL2 has action points, akin to X-Com - which makes for a much more flexible combat round.

WL2 has weapon modding - which while not part of the actual combat system, makes combat much more entertaining because you can experiment with multiple mods.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that I don't agree.
 
Actually WL2 more simple than SRR/DF. Only advantages of WL2 are crouching and weapon modding.

Dragonfall has more of everything else (and yes, it has snipers). And Multiple type of grenades, and different firing options (put into skill levels which lots of people begged devs to implement into WL2 as it has much less options). Even if you don't look at magic and different class options like summoning or drones, game has more options than WL2.

DF even has 3 types of cover + flanking. And better armor system that you can both boost and reduce.

And characters you take in your party have unique abilities.

And then there are cyberware options that give you passive or active bonuses.

You might not like it overall Dart but this is pure math.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
I'm sure it's pure math in your universe :)

But I'm glad to hear DF has sniper rifles. That means I have another reason to check it out again, eventually.
 
Go count it yourself if you don't believe me :p

I'm afraid I don't think of complexity as the amount of features that you find interesting - whilst ignoring those which I, myself, find interesting. I have to use my own opinion when it comes to such things :)

But thanks for the offer, though!
 
But we are not talking about opinions, but number of options which SRR and especially Dragonfall have more. It is a fact.
If you like that or not is irrelevant.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
But we are not talking about opinions, but number of options which SRR and especially Dragonfall have more. It is a fact.
If you like that or not is irrelevant.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I'm talking about how complex I think the systems are.

I neither like nor dislike your topic about your inability to count features, I just don't see what it has to do with my point.

That said, it's clear that we have (very) different opinions about games and how they work, and what makes them fun. That's cool, but it's a bit cyclical and it's not likely to be of much use to the other people around here.

I don't mind having a discussion about what makes a game interesting and complex to me, but I don't think we should bog down the thread with this sillly back-and-forth nonsense.

I suggest you create a separate thread, if you really want to understand why I think SR is simpler when it comes to combat - or you can PM me.

Let's leave the thread alone with this.
 
I think that perceived complexity has to do with personal playing style and the difficulty setting as well. I've played both (or all 3 if you split SR) in normal difficulty.
For me combat in WL2 was quite easy. So I didn't have to vary tactics, so I haven't and so combat seemed simple to me.
In the Shadowrun games, combat for me was a little more difficult, so I needed to vary my tactics, so for me combat seemed to be more complex.

If we're not talking about subjective, but objective complexity... well, that's to complex for me to spend my freetime with. ;)
 
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
4,968
Location
Germany
Back
Top Bottom