Anyone really think shadowrun can survive after H3 releases?

[SNÖT]

i personally love everything about the game except the fact that ur aim is effected by movement...thats just plain retarded (and for the pple that r going to say "thats realistic", its a game w/ magic spells...i dont think they were going for realistic)

[Shad3]

Originally Posted by I EAT SNOT

i personally love everything about the game except the fact that ur aim is effected by movement...thats just plain retarded (and for the pple that r going to say "thats realistic", its a game w/ magic spells...i dont think they were going for realistic)

lol like earlier when me and you were shooting at each other and we were both running around and I finnaly died.......

[MoGL3YyYy]

lol at breece.. learn to QC nub!

and for snot... it puts more skill into the shooting, instead of just aim and fire... now it takes timing and precision

i <3 this game so much, so i wish h3 came in like a year, i would be so happy

[SkeTToIsTheReUp]

Originally Posted by ImDyxlesic

Terribly reviewed by critics?

Shadowrun Reviews

I don't think MlG has enough pull to have an unpopular game as their flagship.

[MoGL3YyYy]

Originally Posted by SkeTToIsTheReUp

Shadowrun Reviews

I don't think MlG has enough pull to have an unpopular game as their flagship.

thats the thing, they do

mlg is about competitve games, not games that have a competetive campain, this game gets bad reviews for stupid shit, this game was made for the competetive player, not the guy who wants achievments, and the ppl who dont have live, and the ppl who just dont play ever

[SkeTToIsTheReUp]

Exactly its competitive, but who's going to be the audience for it?

Sure the reviews were a little unfair, but 60 is a lot for 9 maps and multi only.

[MoGL3YyYy]

Originally Posted by SkeTToIsTheReUp

Exactly its competitive, but who's going to be the audience for it?

Sure the reviews were a little unfair, but 60 is a lot for 9 maps and multi only.

the competitive gamers are the audiance... duh

[ImDyxlesic]

Originally Posted by SkeTToIsTheReUp

Exactly its competitive, but who's going to be the audience for it?

Sure the reviews were a little unfair, but 60 is a lot for 9 maps and multi only.

That's exactly my point, that is the only complaint ever. This game was built with competitive play in mind like Serg said. Who gives a f*ck i there is no campaign? Think about halo 2. How many times did you play the campaign, a few maybe? The reason you keep playing that game is because of the multiplayer/competitive aspect of it. So the developers of Shadowrun got rid of the thing people would play least. Sure it would have been cool to have a campaign, there are definitely a lot of avenues they could have gone down, but that is not the goal they were trying to achieve. So to give a game bad ratings, and say it is bad because it doesn't have something it was never going to in the fist place is bullshit in my opinion. Rate the game for what it is and what it said it would deliver. They said they would deliver a competitive first person shooter where no fight would ever be the same. Did they deliver exactly as they promised? I would say they did for the most part, sure there are only 12 maps, some of which are just sanctioned off areas of other maps, but the replay value is still there, and it is still a great competitive title.

Oh, an 7/10 is an average score for a game, not terrible.

[SkeTToIsTheReUp]

Um I definitely bought Halo 2 because of the campaign. The campaign was stellar and had a lot of replay value with the different difficulties and the easter eggs.

If you give an incomplete game to someone they are going to dislike it. You give an incomplete game to someone and charged sixty dollars like it was complete they're going to trash it. Saying you where going to give an incomplete game from the start doesn't change the fact that it's still an incomplete game.

6.8/10 is just the average critics score. It got terrible reviews from more than one critic.

Originally Posted by ImDyxlesic

Think about halo 2. How many times did you play the campaign, a few maybe? The reason you keep playing that game is because of the multiplayer/competitive aspect of it. So the developers of Shadowrun got rid of the thing people would play least. Sure it would have been cool to have a campaign, there are definitely a lot of avenues they could have gone down, but that is not the goal they were trying to achieve. So to give a game bad ratings, and say it is bad because it doesn't have something it was never going to in the fist place is bullshit in my opinion. Rate the game for what it is and what it said it would deliver. They said they would deliver a competitive first person shooter where no fight would ever be the same. Did they deliver exactly as they promised? I would say they did for the most part, sure there are only 12 maps, some of which are just sanctioned off areas of other maps, but the replay value is still there, and it is still a great competitive title.

Oh, an 7/10 is an average score for a game, not terrible.

[SkeTToIsTheReUp]

Originally Posted by MoGL3YyYy

the competitive gamers are the audiance... duh

No, competitive gamers will play in the tournament.

Shadowrun is not popular so good luck to MLG to try and get casual gamers to watch shadowrun tournaments.