Talk:Shadowrun (2007 video game)

Article name
This should probably be renamed, as it has now been confirmed at E3 that it will be on Windows as well. --Phorteetoo 20:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Shadowrun (2007 video game)? I'm going out on a limb and saying 2007. Thunderbrand 03:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that should work. Far as I know, early 2007 is the planned Vista launch, so that'd be a pretty good guess. --Phorteetoo 04:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am agreeing with 2007 as well - it is coming out for Vista as well, and Vista is 2007. I'd like to say Q3 or Q4 2007, but I am not putting my eggs into that basket.--Phae 08:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on the names for the other two Shadowrun computer games, shouldn't this article be named Shadowrun (Microsoft) —MJBurrage • TALK  • 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it should simply be Shadowrun. That's the title of the game. There should just be redirects that point to this article, I think. Just my 2 cents. EDIT: Sorry, what I meant was: Shadowrun (Xbox 360, Windows Vista). Tenraixtreme 00:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

More Information!
As this is ongoing, I feel it is about high time to update this article with more information pertaining to this upcoming game. I took the liberties of adding in the official Shadowrun site to the links, as well as changing the platforms to mention that Shadowrun is a Vista game. If you have any questions, my talk page is open! --Phae 23:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Vista fix. My first impression was that it was just Windows in general, didn't realize it was going to be Vista only. Kind of a strange move; I guess they must be doing something shiny with it that will require the capabilities of Vista. --Phorteetoo 04:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's no problem! It's Vista only as it will be a part of Microsoft's big push for PC gaming, and it will take advantage of DirectX 10. Halo 3 will also have a PC counterpart with Vista requirements. I'm working on updating this article with a LOT of information on the Xbox 360 Shadowrun game, however it is currently VERY difficult to do as there is SEVERE backlash going on as the game is a flat out team based FPS with a Shadowrun tag on it. Lot of tripe to wade through to get to the facts. If you see anything, feel free to add it into the wiki page and i'll help you edit it, or I am sure soon that other Shadowrunners will pop out to help get this page in order. --Phae 07:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added in a small thing. There are pictures of ingame floating around the WWW I am sure, just hunting them down and getting them in is the difficult part. It is becoming very hard to maintain a NPOV (I am a Shadowrun fan), but I am trying my hardest. If it seems I am slamming this game at any point, please yell at me in my talk page, and edit whatever I said out.--Phae 08:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Microsoft's intent here is to create a Dystopia clone, and bait in the MechWarrior fans with the lure of the Fasa tag. I have yet to see any evidence of more than a nominal connection to the series at all. This really seems to be their MO for licensed games, and it's yet another reason to support my conviction that they are simply evil. Fdgfds 04:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think there is need for more info about the horrible reception amongst Firstpersonshooter fans and Paper and Pencil nerds alike. The fact that there is need to edit out the controversy from developers themselves show that something is obviously going on.68.117.204.185 03:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dev Edits
Hey there guys and gals. I'm the lead program manager for the FASA game. I've popped my head in to add whatever information I can and correct any factual errors. I did a minor edit to the page a few days ago with a few additions / corrections. I hope this can be a page for facts only; www.shadowrun.com is a great place to discuss subjective stuff. --justdana
 * this game is gonna suck baals and its all ur fawlut--65.102.136.42 01:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good then maybe you can explain why game designers today seem to go out of their way to make the exact opposite of what their customers want.
 * agreed

Hello Fasa employee. No offense but I feel your post asking to discuss subjective stuff on www.shadowrun.com is directly in hopes of avoiding the controversy and facts pointed out about the differences between shadowrun and shadowrun fps. I think the most informative and factual approach would be to list on the page the differences between shadowrun and shadowrun fps, because while they share the same name, there are a lot of things the design and story team have taken liberty with. For instance not including shadowrunning, the namesake of the game. Decking, rigging, magic system, breaking canon, new race abilities, new timeline for SR named games, and a plethora of other things. It is perfectly valid that while owning the name to one thing, to recreate or cut major aspects of the original and not receive any mention or notation would be a diservice to a factual shadowrun FPS page.

Also please note that there are lots of other websites with controversy sections that go into great detail and imo the controversy section needs to be heavily expanded.

Actual controversy or vindictive fans?
The only reason there's a huge "controversey" section in the first place is only due to the neurotic obsessive problems that certain people have and their fanaticism over a pen and paper game. Want proof? How about the fact that 3/4ths of this wikipedia page is nitpicking that has next to NOTHING to do with the actual game, as in no information that a regular person who wants to know about the game needs to see. I played plenty of Shadowrun back in my high school days too but I have a normal persons perspective and know that a game should be judged on it's own merits not condemned just because two numbers in the year that the game takes place got changed.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be mention at all that the setting is slightly changed from the PnP game, but what in the world is the use of sticking the phrase "although it leaves out many staples and core aspects of Shadowrun PnP while using the name." in it's description? Should we go around to every single X-Men game or World War 2 game and write up big lists of battles that weren't put into Call of Duty or backstory and characters they left out of the x-men arcade game?

No ones arguing about whether this information is factual or not, I'm arguing that it's not at all relevant to the game or a person (Ex: me) who's looking for information on the game.

So if you want to vent about the horrors of all the terrible little things keep it off the article and keep it on the talk page and the forums.

Bottom line: This is not a simulation of the PnP game. It's a game based on it.

IntelSebastian 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I streamlined much of the controversy. I removed most of the "Shadowrun doesn't include..." since no game, movie or book can ever include every single feature of the universe it's from.  I also moved the footnote about the "Loosely based" to the existing game description.  It was redundant to have the statement in both the controversy and the description.


 * The change in date and should be inferrable from the game's description "The game takes place in Brazil, year 2031".


 * The setting is on planet earth. Just because most shadowrun games take place in Seattle for instance, doesn't mean all have to.


 * Same with the Racial Traits. The specifics of the racial traits are already in the gameplay description.  No reason to repeat them in the controversy.


 * Removed orcs (See "not listing things not included.")


 * Removed history of controversy. It's irrelevant, since all that matters is the current state of the game.


 * I would argue that Shadowruns still exist in the game, however, I think that point could use some discussion before a decision on its pertinence is made.


 * I also attempted to make it a controversy, not a list of complaints. Even a controversy implies a neutral tone, the previous iteration, was not in my opinion neutral. Im.thatoneguy


 * The "Shadowrun" video game contains no actual shadowruns or shadowrunners? Bah. :-( Axl 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Today I came here to find out what the major changes were from the Pen and Paper game. The only one I knew for certain was that resurrection is explicitly stated as being a completely impossible thing for magic to accomplish, and now I find that even that fairly major detail has been censored and sanitized. Thank you for making this article a useless waste of space, we certainly need more garbage on Wikipedia. I'm sure that you've struck a major blow against "neurotic obsessive ... fanaticism" by removing relevant information from Wikipedia instead of doing the job you chose to do correctly and simply giving it NPOV correction.


 * To start with, deviations from the source material are important. If they could be reasonably considered to be an unavoidable result of adapting something to a new medium (For example: Pen and Paper rules do NOT work for a real-time game), then no, they do not need to be included unless it's something of unusual interest. However, if something directly contradicts what the original has established - such as radical alterations to the timeline or violation of major rules which play a vital role in the original work, then they are most certainly worthy of mention. The addition of resurrection to ShadowRun would seem to be similar to if they had decided to remove it from The Chronicals of Narnia, a change which would radically alter the core plotline and the mechanics of the world. By way of example, the deaths of major figures often play key roles in the outcomes of events. Imagine what real life would be like if Alexander the Great had been resurrected instead of buried? How about Pol Pot? Stalin? Hitler? What would things have been like if the Christian bible said that Jesus rotted in the ground, and said there would never be a second coming? (No, I'm not trying to win an argument with religion, I'm simply pointing out a case where such a change might have had a massive impact on the history and very nature of western culture, and through it the world.)


 * As for the date change, it wouldn't have been a problem if they actually had the game take place in the time they picked, but it appears that they completely scrapped the existing timeling in favor of one made-up just for the game. According to Wikipedia's ShadowRun timeline, cybernetic implants weren't developed to the extent that cannon fodder would get them until 20 years after the game 'takes place'.


 * So, to sum up a long, angry, and frustrated rant: We need somebody to create an NPOV section on differences from the PnP game. Fdgfds 04:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If I were genuinely interested in buying a game possessing Shadowrun's title that actually has nothing to do with Shadowrun (aside from sharing the name and a couple races), then I too would like to know more about how it differs, being a fan of the original tabletop. Now, this point is entirely academic for me, since the game is reportedly not that great even if you judge it on its own merits instead of as a poor copy of the original, but even a simple list of major changes could be included for the benefit of those making the choice; heck, it's done for books made into movies, why not this game? Jachra 11:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I want to know how this differs from the P&P game I've come to know and love over the last decade. This game truly is only Shadowrun in name. It's loosely based on archetypes and items from the game, but it does not even closely relate to the plot or the established universe of Shadowrun. 136.176.84.33 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

??
In the differences section, it says "Poison Text-- 5 minute reset" - what on earth is that supposed to mean? 76.202.57.153 17:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No idea. I axed it. EvilCouch 13:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
I removed most of the criticism, not because it isn't true or the concerns aren't real, but because no sources have been provided. WP:V and WP:NPOV are very clear about requiring information, especially that which is controversial, to be provided with sources. 74.121.231.230 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The main criticism point now - that the PC version features crosshair distortion that the 360 version doesn't - seems a bit iffy. On watching the video linked, the only distortion I saw was standard -- as you run, jump, or indeed turn, the reticule balloons out because it's realistic not to be able to aim so well in such situations. If the 360 crosshair doesn't feature some of this ballooning because a gamepad can't be used to turn as fast as a mouse can -- well, that's hardly deliberate, is it? Rawling 4851 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than crosshair distortion, I believe it should read that the PC game features more reticle bloom than the Xbox 360 version. Things like turning should make the crosshair larger on PC than 360. I will post if I find the source.

I changed the wording of a couple parts where it mentioned auto-aim. The 360 version features aim assist, not auto aim. Aim assist helps bring the crosshair to a character while auto-aim locks on to a character.

This seems a little redundant, and I think it needs to be reworded, so I have made a change. Feel free to discuss, of course. Here is the redundant part: "...given Xbox 360 players aim assist technology (basically it interpolates your movement to go towards the enemy player)." ..... "The console players will also have aim assist since controllers are not as capable of 'pixel-accuracy' adjustments." I am not really sure about the magnet analogy, but it seemed like a good description of what was happening. I have also removed the part that says the reticle expands only in the PC version, because this happens in all versions. I hope this is acceptable.P337 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Box covers
The Xbox 360 and Vista versions have two different covers. They both have characters in similar poses, but the designs are different. Should we put up both covers, or is the 360 cover sufficient? --TonicBH 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Controller for PC?
I was under the impression that the xbox 360 controller (wired or wireless with adaptor) had to work with a game (on windows) for it to be 'games for windows' certified?? yet controller support is only listed for the 360?. ~blah.

System Requirements
The requirements given are the recommended system requirements, and not the required. Is this normally how the system requirements section works? I feel like it should list the minimum, but I am unable to find any information on which is the standard practice. P337 04:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Both if possible, otherwise use minimum.SYSS Mouse 13:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm checking over in the CVG project, but every (modern) PC game I spotcheck seems to be only one set of reqs, so I think this is the minimum. --Masem 13:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, well here are the minimum from Microsoft: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/938630 Operating System- Windows Vista Processor      - 3.2 gigahertz (GHz) RAM            - 1 GB of RAM Hard disk      - 7 GB of available hard disk space, the dedicated server and the map editor require more hard disk space Video Card     - ATI X800 or NVIDIA 6800 display adapter with 256 MB of RAM or more and the following features: Vertex Shader Model 2.a Pixel Shader Model 2.b DVD Drive       - 32x speed Audio          - Sound card, speakers, or headset Mouse          - Microsoft mouse or a compatible pointing device Online Play    - Network adapter for LAN multiplayer gameplay Broadband Internet access for Windows Live multiplayer gameplay P337 20:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
I have never played the original paper version of Shadowrun though familiar with the concept and just comparing the game story to the story line for the original game on WP, it's obvious there's differences.

My suggestion: I don't believe it's wrong to not include anything about the retcon'ing or other inconsistencies between this game and the paper version history, but 1) it should not be nit-picky but instead hit a few brief major points. and 2) I would figure there would be some well-written level-headed fan essay or two on how "bad" the 360/PC implimentation of SR is compared to what they expected, or something from FASA that states that they took liberties with the game, or the like. Having these would help keep us unbiased and just citing sources that observe the significant deviations as a negative of the page. --Masem 05:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely needs controversy section
Where do you add the fact that the pc version was indeed runnable on windows xp and that the whole Direct X10 only was a ploy by microsoft?68.117.204.185 12:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving some Forums.shadowrun.com posts ahead of imminent closure
Since these posts are used as reference in the article, I'm going to go ahead and cut and paste the text here. xenocidic (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FASA Studio has closed its doors

Dear Friends,

It is my sad duty to announce that FASA Studio has officially closed its doors. Today was the official last day of employment for those of us who had not moved on to other positions within Microsoft Game Studios. While the rumors have been circulating forever, we chose to wait on an official announcement because we didn’t want people’s attention distracted from our last product, Shadowrun, a game we love.

As a testament to the team's commitment to Shadowrun, we released three title updates to improve the product even after the team learned we were losing our studio. We have kept our Community Manager and Technical Support Manager on the job to aid and support you and will continue to do so while people continue to play our game. I am pleased that about half of us have found great positions elsewhere in MGS and Microsoft where they can share their experience and passion with the great people there.

But now, as the last of us say our goodbyes to each other, I’m saying goodbye to you on behalf of a group of talented and dedicated professionals who busted their humps for the love of the game. I am proud to have worked with and represented them to you and know that wherever they go, they will continue to kick ass.

Mitch

Forums Now Closed

Thanks to everyone for being part of the Shadowrun community. Although the forums are now closed, we hope to see you all again on Xbox LIVE for a quick Favela or Powerstation. You can also check out the Shadowrun forums on www.xbox.com.

This site will be shutting down soon as we transition the domain to Jordan Weisman's new company. We're looking forward to seeing what's next in the Shadowrun universe and wish Jordan and his team the best of luck in the venture.

-Kimona

Announcement: Dedicated Server Support

Hi folks,

I've inquired with the Powers That Be, and they have verified that the Microsoft-hosted dedicated servers for PC players are still up. They'll be up until at least the beginning of February, at which time the team that maintains them will evaluate plans for future support.

Please note that whether or not the dedicated servers remain available long-term, Shadowrun will still be playable on Xbox Live, on Vista, and head-to-head with cross-platform. The game is hosted on Xbox Live, so if you have an Xbox Live Gold or a Games for Windows Live Gold subscription, you'll be able to continue playing Shadowrun in multiplayer mode indefinitely.

Happy teleporting.

-Kimona

XP crack
Razor1911 released an XP crack for this game. I feel it should be included in the article. Please discuss. Fireice (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"cracked" XP version
seems to think that we ought mention the "cracked" version that runs on Windows XP in the infobox. I'm against this for a number of reasons, Now what I would support is if a reliable source were found that commented on the fact that Shadowrun can indeed run on XP and speculates that it was intentionally not released for XP to push Vista. I seem to recall some rumblings about this back when Shadowrun was initially released. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 01:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Lack of a reliable source (a link to an .nfo from Razor 1911 doesn't qualify)
 * 2) The version that runs on XP is quite useless; it can't go online (as far as I know, he claims otherwise)
 * 3) Generally a lot of things can be done with "Cracked games", Wikipedia rarely reports on this
 * 4) It is not an official platform and thus doesn't belong in the infobox


 * 1. Lack of a reliable source (a link to an .nfo from Razor 1911 doesn't qualify)
 * This looks like the source that you talked about, it mentions that a lot of users report that is works (official reviews are unlikely given the nature of the release).
 * 2. The version that runs on XP is quite useless; it can't go online (as far as I know, he claims otherwise)
 * Even if it is single-player and lan only, it still deserves a mention.
 * 3. Generally a lot of things can be done with "Cracked games", Wikipedia rarely reports on this
 * Ture, but changing an entire platform is notable IMO.
 * 4. It is not an official platform and thus doesn't belong in the infobox
 * I think a reasonable compromise might be a mention in the article blurb, sourced with the news article.
 * Fireice (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm not completely against including this fact, that source looks pretty good and yes, it has the speculation I was talking about - good find. It doesn't belong in the infobox, though. Go ahead and work it into the body, don't worry, I won't consider it to be a 3RR violation because we've agreed on it. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'm not completely against including this fact, that source looks pretty good and yes, it has the speculation I was talking about - good find. It doesn't belong in the infobox, though. Go ahead and work it into the body, don't worry, I won't consider it to be a 3RR violation because we've agreed on it. – xeno cidic  ( talk ) 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)