shadowrun.

nintenho

Veteran
anybody get this?

I've played the demo a lot because people really cooperate because of the CS like reward system for resurrects, healing, killing, and of course scoring. the demo only has the raid mode (take a flag and deliver it to your target) and one map but it is addictive as hell. I heard the full game has 9 maps and two modes so that put me off buying it. Definitely seems worth a buy to me at $40 but $60 is too much.

The way the game works is that for when you earn points, you can buy weapons, magic, or technology the next round (matches are first to win 6 rounds). Some of the magics available in the demo are teleport (obvious), resurrect (resurrect a dead player if his dead body wasn't destroyed but this permanently takes a few points on your magic gauge, and gust (blow people or things away) and each one uses up a few points of magic and you have about 8-10 points but something like resurrect permanently uses up 4 points and if you die, the guy you resurrected slowly bleeds out and will probably be dead in 5 seconds unless somebody resurrects him again. Some of the technology you can buy are glider (gives you a boost and lets you glide for a very long time), smartlink (gives you better accuracy, an extra level of zoom for every gun, and prevents friendly fire but it emits a red laser out of your eyes that everybody else can see so you should turn it off when not shooting), and enhanced vision which lets you see through walls but if you're not in the human class, each technology permanently uses two magic points.

The 4 classes are human, elf, troll, and dwarf. you can only play as human or elf in the demo and the difference is that human has a little bit more money in the first round, more health, more strength, and no tech penalty. The elf has more magic, can recharge it's health automatically, and is faster. %90 of the time people choose elves but human would make sense if you used more than 1 tech.
 
the game seems to have how much of a "support" role you play depend on your race. Some are better at killing and some are better at keeping three guys resurrected. in the end, the most important thing to focus on is shooting well but you HAVE to find team mates to do anything. if you go off alone, even against one person on higher ground or who's just sitting in the open next to a tree of life, there's a good chance you'll be killed. you don't respawn unless somebody resurrects you so if you die, it's a big deal.
 
here my recipe for "crap ala shadowrun" :

imitate counterstrike/warcraft 3 mod gameplay,

create some counter strike source level visuals, then add with some "meh" shader effects and say "welcome to the next-gen people",

don't spend that much time time on matchmaking/gamemodes/lobby features since we all know for an online focused fps last thing you need is those useless mumjumbo thingies,

keep telling your self that this game is really worth 60$...i know it's hard but you should try untill you make yourself really belive in it for optimal results.
.
.
.
you have done it!, now it's time for gamers to enjoy your culinary art piece.
 
Maybe he was laid-off by Fasa.







.......... ;)

I'd have expected him to be bringing in all the reviews , good or bad. :???:
 
I think it had horrible reviews (heard no review copies were shipped out) but it's seriously fun.

however, since it has crap graphics, not many modes, and 9 maps it's not worth $60. It's worth it after a couple price drops (should happen fast).
 
Seems like the main complaints in all the bad reviews is that it's too expensive and it doesn't use the license how they wanted it to be used. Seems like most of these reviewers had their mind made up before the game was released.
 
Seems like the main complaints in all the bad reviews is that it's too expensive and it doesn't use the license how they wanted it to be used. Seems like most of these reviewers had their mind made up before the game was released.

I hate to break this to you, but 90% of all reviewers with 90% games have their mind made up before the game is released.

Its a combination of how much hype a title recieves, how good the beta builds are, who's publishing it (This matters A LOT, the bigger the budget title, and the bigger the publisher the better score), and how big the PR budget is.

How well the actual game is, factors in aswell, but not as much as you would think. In alot of the cases, the reviewers don't even play the entire game (thank you Xbox Live achievement system, because achievements don't lie).

An example of this is Gears of War:

Gears of War was Microsofts biggest budget title last year, it was also the most hyped up one, AND with the biggest PR budget. It was microsoft's baby. Giving this game a bad review isn't an option, because it might cost you a lot of money in terms of lost advertising, AND it might piss off Microsoft for their future titles aswell.

Editor-in-cheif at gamespot, Jeff Gerstmann gave this title a 9.6, one of the highest scores in gamespot history.

Did Jeff Gerstmann actually finish, atleast the story before he decided that this was the game of the year 2006?

The answer is, ladies and genetlemen, "NO".

He played the first 2 chapters (out of 5).

And Xbox live recorded the proof: Take a look at Jeff's achievements
 
I hate to break this to you, but 90% of all reviewers with 90% games have their mind made up before the game is released.

Its a combination of how much hype a title recieves, how good the beta builds are, who's publishing it (This matters A LOT, the bigger the budget title, and the bigger the publisher the better score), and how big the PR budget is.

How well the actual game is, factors in aswell, but not as much as you would think. In alot of the cases, the reviewers don't even play the entire game (thank you Xbox Live achievement system, because achievements don't lie).

An example of this is Gears of War:

Gears of War was Microsofts biggest budget title last year, it was also the most hyped up one, AND with the biggest PR budget. It was microsoft's baby. Giving this game a bad review isn't an option, because it might cost you a lot of money in terms of lost advertising, AND it might piss off Microsoft for their future titles aswell.

Editor-in-cheif at gamespot, Jeff Gerstmann gave this title a 9.6, one of the highest scores in gamespot history.

Did Jeff Gerstmann actually finish, atleast the story before he decided that this was the game of the year 2006?

The answer is, ladies and genetlemen, "NO".

He played the first 2 chapters (out of 5).

And Xbox live recorded the proof: Take a look at Jeff's achievements

Thank you, that's exactly why I no longer read reviews. Now I read forum posts about games and try to play the demos for myself before deciding.
 
You do realize that they usually review games on the debug systems at work and they can't transfer their gamerscore to their personal gamertag. Dan Hsu from 1up (who has admitted to being an achievement whore) has complained multiple times that he has to replay games that he reviewed so he can get the achievement points for it.
Dan Hsu said:
I still remember the satisfaction of getting every single-player Achievement during that review -- and the heartbreak when it sunk in that those points would never show up on my "real-life" Gamertag (I was playing the review version on our special debug Xbox 360s that plays pre-release games...and those accounts get periodically wiped when we update the firmware).
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7706362&publicUserId=5379799

The only reviews I respect anymore are 1up/EGM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe he was laid-off by Fasa.







.......... ;)

I'd have expected him to be bringing in all the reviews , good or bad. :???:

I don't work for Microsoft/FASA. I just love great innovative games, and Shadowrun delievers that in spades.


Shadowrun and its online gameplay experience is amazing and lots of fun. By ditching stat tracking, people really just cocentrate on teamwork while playing. It's not like Counter-Strike where someone will camp and just try to increase their kill to death ratio and not care about the team objective. People are just more relaxed, so the player enviroment is much more friendly than most online games. Sort of a beer and pretzels atmosphere.

Shadowrun is sheer brillance.
 
Did Jeff Gerstmann actually finish, atleast the story before he decided that this was the game of the year 2006?

The answer is, ladies and genetlemen, "NO".

Of course the answer is "who knows". They could play on accounts that are not their own (shared or generic work ones), co-op splitscreen on other people's accounts. This is not proof of anything and if you are going to be lazy, don't so it on a 8 hour good game, do it on some crappy 50 hour RPG.
 
Felt like CS with WarCraft3 mod but not nearly as fun. I couldn't even get through the training missions :(

Now Overlord, that was a fun demo!!!
 
Felt like CS with WarCraft3 mod but not nearly as fun. I couldn't even get through the training missions :(

Now Overlord, that was a fun demo!!!


The only Counter-Strike on consoles is for X-Box 1. There are no mods.


Even then the WarCraft 3 mod is nothing like Shadowrun. Neither magic or technology does direct damage in Shadowrun.


Shadowrun is all about tactics, not upgrading to super massive damage powers.


Shadowrun has immsense vertical gameplay thanks to teleport and glider.
 
I jumped straight into a botmatch and learned how to play. It took a few rounds to figure out that you assign the left trigger and bumper and right bumper as you buy things, but that's about it. The controls are fairly similar to Halo except for no direct melee attack with a gun unless it's empty.
 
Did Jeff Gerstmann actually finish, atleast the story before he decided that this was the game of the year 2006?

The answer is, ladies and genetlemen, "NO".

He played the first 2 chapters (out of 5).

And Xbox live recorded the proof: Take a look at Jeff's achievements
Not that I necessarily believe he DID finish the game--or even get the majority of the way through--but that's not precisely eating the pudding there. Any major review company would quite probably have review/anonymous accounts for their official reviews (and so they can remain unknown when connecting online), rather than attaching them to anyone's personal one. Especially since parts of the review may be passed between multiple hands, with the one person doing the write-up.
 
IGN AU did not like it much.

It's a shame to see the acclaimed lads at FASA pump out such a generic, hobbled and shallow game. If it wasn't for the technical issues we've experienced, perhaps Shadowrun might be worth its bargain basement price, especially for those who crave a new online fix. But considering we spent more time waiting for a match than actually playing in any, there's no way we could recommend Shadowrun

5.5/10

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/797/797220p2.html
 
Back
Top