This isn't a question of whether the game rocks or not. It's a question of whether you want it to succeed. I am divide, so I won't vote.

I was very excited when I learned that another Shadowrun video game was coming out, but my excitement died screaming when I learned that it was going to another frelling multiplayer shooter. It's an unconscionable waste of the license, IMO.

I think you should probably make it clear that you are refering to the Shadowrun Video Game, and not the RPG itself.

Of course, that isn't necessary now.

Although I try not to be so small hearted as to wish their game to do badly, my initial reaction to it is one of offense. Shadowrun has a rich and evocative background with a very distinctive feel to it. So why bother using the name if you're going to throw all of that away? The only reason that comes to mind is to capitalise on the name. If you're merely exploiting something's name to sell something different then I think most of us would agree that this a poor thing to do. Worse, it can tar the image of the RPG when people mentally associate it with a poor FPS.

For those reasons, I dislike it. I'm forbidden from actually wishing failure on the game by my morality, but I find it hard to wish it well at present.

I wish failure on it. The last thing I want is a group of kids asking me why I play an RPG based on a first person shooter. I would have to kill them. I hope it just dissappears from the memory of everyone.

I want it to fail. My reaction is based on both spite and rationality—the spite comes from what the game is, and the rational desire comes from what organization profits by the sales.

~J

I sort of hope it does well, even though it looks like crap, in the hopes that better Shadowrun related video games could come of it.

If a crappy game does well, then they will produce more crappy games...

I hope it does well. It's coming out regardless of whether or not anyone likes it, and if it ends up being popular, it'll draw people to the Shadowrun franchise. If it crashes and burns, that failure would be associated with the Shadowrun name in the minds of anyone who knows of it. And hell, it's not like I have any personal stake in the issue, so why not give 'em a godspeed?

I don't think we'll get SR game now, no matter what. If this "SR" game tanks, I still doubt Microsoft will sell the license to someone else, and even if they would be willing, it will have hurt the value of the license in the eyes of other companies, too.

So you're saying that only people who are insane can be discharged from the army, and only those who ask for an insanity discharge can be evaluated for one, but anyone who wants to be discharged due to insanity is automatically deemed sane because only an insane person would want to stay in the army?

I guess I'm in the minority when I think the game is close enough to SR to count.

I mean, the old games had mage with full ware running around.

Fundamentally, what does this game do wrong?

It mucks with the races some. I'm okay with that - it's close-ish, and makes a good system from what I've read.

It breaks the timeline a bit. Ehh. I played Star Wars Galaxies. I'm immune to concerns about breaking the timeline.

It's a first person shooter. So is Morrowind, and Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, to some extent. I imagine mods coming out to make a Morrowind style experience. And from what I've read, it does a lot to mess with the normal FPS genre. So it becomes "that wierd fps that was based on that one game."

Maybe people will come to the pen and paper game expecting something different. They'll still come....

I would die happy if Bioware took over SR and made a Knights of the Old Republic quality game. But I'm willing to give this one a chance.

I voted No, but my reasoning is not based on deviation from canon. The license should have gone to Bioware, but that was not to be.


This use of the license is very unprofessional, and therefore they should fail. They paid for the rights to use the SR background, yet they neither use the strength (ultra-cool tech + magic as different ways to power), nor do they market the game to the shadowrun fan. SR does not gain by this game, but so doesn´t Microsoft, who could have made this game without buying the license.

The game might become a good shooter, but the economist is offended at the thought that the only possible gain they had from buying the license is stopping someone competent from making good use of the license. Market denial is an ugly strategy.

Real life corp warfare... Welcome to Shadowrun 200X...

Sr could have worked as an fps. No question in my mind. However, this is Battlefield 2026, not a proper fps/rpg (in the Deus Ex style that would have worked so damm well). Thus I wish it horrible failure, never minding that its MS.

Lets face it, MS has done nothing but crap on all of FAFSA's old licenses. Crimson Skys was a flop. Mechwarrior would be a flop if it wasent A) so damm easy or B) cheep. And now SR is being perverted into JACTF (just another capture the flag). Besides, from the release dates its going to be in competition with Halo 3.

I voted yes. It might have been better as a Splinter Cellish stealth shooter, but SR where I live has been dying.

I liked Crimson Skies! And it got tons of good reviews. It just didn't do that great in sales.

I'm going to continue to watch the game, and see what happens. It's also possible that MS sat down and looked at the idea of releasing an RPG out of the gate and said "Yeah, this game is pretty weird - I'm not sure anyone but the true fans would really pick it up. Maybe we can start out with something more accessible, then move on to the other games once we see how people respond to it."

I mean, you can say a lot of nasty things about MS, but "You're pretty bad at marketing" really isn't one of them.

Those are even better! I still play Battletech: Crescent Hawk's Revenge via emulators!

We now have another example - buying a license just to annoy users with pre-defined expectations does not make good business sense.

There's this great way to split up package deals called "reselling".

~J

Might be they had to sign a contract stating that they weren't allowed to or somesuch.

I dunno. Haven't seen the agreement, so I'm probably just rationalizing something that makes no sense either way.

Considering Shadowrun was FASA's cash cow, I rather expect MS didn't need their arm twisted to accept rights to it.

It was their cash cow? Seriously? Why? And why do you think they went out of business?

Machinimation (?) might be this game's saving grace, as long as it looks SRish. Some of the HALO movies are mildly entertaining.

I'd like the game to fail. I don't want the videogame to act as a means of attracting more gamers to Shadowrun, because I don't want the designers of SR5 to feel any obligation to cater to that audience.

You're right, that was a stupid statement of mine, especially considering that my first exposure to Shadowrun was the SNES game. I suppose getting the "Shadowrun" name out there, even in the warped form of the Xbox/PC game, can't do much harm.

But at least they lifted the story for that out of pretty much every early Shadowrun story.

I disagree, but my counterexample to "can't do much harm" would be controversial.

~J

Hey, what's the fun in things if they ain't controversial?

I, for one, am interested in hearing your opinion.

I'm curious.

SR4.

See? Controversial

~J

Bah!

Well, the game will at least get the name Shadowrun out to the target demographic. From that point on the RPG will have to be convincing on its own.

When reading a preview on the game I was constantly thinking "cool, but not Shadowrun". Maybe they had to use the license in order to keep the rights? If they want to make good money on this, they should resell the license to bioware and see what that does to the bottom line of anything they publish with SR logo on it.

I'd rather the rights went to, say, Irrational Games - the people behind System Shock (and now Bioshock.) As of late, Bioware doesn't seem to be too keen on making gritty settings; their games have a very clean look to them.