1. I think the reviewers were a little harsh, there's plenty of games out there that don't include a multiplayer but the reviewers don't focus in on that and tear it apart as a result.

Posted at 2:19PM on Jun 25th 2007 by xenocidic

2. I agree with the reviews. Full price 59.99 should have a campaign. Even a rudimentary one to fill in the void is better than none at all. 49.99 would have been more palatable.

Posted at 2:20PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Dadidito

3. I think the whole point of reviews is telling you whether or not you the game is worth your money. If the game is $60 then the reviewer is telling you if the game is worth the $60 or not. It doesn't matter how innovative the game is, if it doesn't last long enough or gets boring to fast to be worth $60 then it will get bad review scores.

Posted at 2:24PM on Jun 25th 2007 by thesavage122

4. I agree with the reviews. I always thought that Microsoft would release this game at $39.99. I was wrong.

Posted at 2:30PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Surreal

5. I'd have to agree w/ the reviewers though they were a bit harsh. It's just not worth the $60. Isn't the whole point of a review to tell us whether something is worth our money or not?

Posted at 2:30PM on Jun 25th 2007 by houkah

6. I personally love the game. It's very misunderstood and it sucks cause it's awesome. The lack of campaign does kinda suck but not enough for me not to buy it.

Posted at 2:30PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Phazzer

7. Its hard not to take price into consideration when 99.9% of games have a campaign to them. Let me say though I never had an ounce intrest in this game even when I thought there would be a campaign.....and still dont

Posted at 2:31PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Aaron

8. Yea, I tend to agree with the reviews as well, it isn't worth the $60 price tag. It lacks a lot of things, including a simple animation of a character climbing a ladder...come on...this is "next-gen" and we can't even put simple animations in the game? Even the Vs. mode isn't that great and doesn't include any kind of local split screen to have friends join in on the online fun.

Posted at 2:32PM on Jun 25th 2007 by DarkKnightScoot

9. I agree with my 59.99 (360) and 49.99 (Vista) purchases. Easily one of my all time favorites.

Posted at 2:33PM on Jun 25th 2007 by HazyCloud

10. Some movie reviewers tell you whether or not the movie is worth the 10 bucks for your ticket, or worth a rental. Games should be reviewed the same way, especially given varying prices in games. We read these reviews to determine whether or not games are worth our time/money, so the reviews should reflect that.

Posted at 2:35PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Pat

11. I don't think any game should EVER cost over 50 dollars. I also probably won't buy this game simply because there is no campaign mode.

So to answer the quesiton, I think the review should include this information. I don't even understand why it wouldn't. What is the point of a review? So consumers can make an informed decision on their purchases? Chalk this up as a successful review, I'm not buying it, which is probably why they're so pissed.

Posted at 2:36PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Scott Beeson

12. I agree with the reviews. Shadowrun is half a game, and the price tag should be half the price.

Posted at 2:37PM on Jun 25th 2007 by GANNONSMASH

13. @ 3 agreed. if people have a problem with that, then thats what the demo is for. as a standalone i felt mitch and the crew could have put in a bit more effort in terms of content and graphics. i acutally got a little angry after trying out the demo...all this hype and lo and behold, a shit game that could have played and looked the same on the orginal xbox.

i bet halo 3 beta was alot more fun to play than shadowrun. and that is only part of a full game.

Posted at 2:39PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Vik

14. Reviewers have every right to mention the $60 price in light of the lack of campaign, few maps, few game types, etc. The reviewer's job is to critique the game from the perspective of the game buying public. I am accustomed to getting a lot more when I spend $60, so I want to know about it if I buy something that is lacking what most people consider standard features.

The bottom line is that FASA spent way too much time developing a feature that nobody wants (cross-platform play). He said on the Fancast that this was FASA's idea, not Microsoft's. If that is true (which I don't believe), then his team made a huge mistake.

Posted at 2:40PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Matt

15. I don't disagree with Mitch, but I agree with everyone that this game should not have been $59. $49 would have been a little easier to swallow. I own the game and I think it's awesome.

Posted at 2:40PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Matt

16. Shadowrun was so crappy, I honestly considered going back to the store I bought it from and punching the guy who sold it to me in the face.

The reviews weren't bad enough IMO. That game was el terrible'

Posted at 2:41PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Ryan Hartman

17. Of course price is a consideration in a review and always has been. In this case it just happen to be a part of the reviews that was highlighted, and for good reason.

Posted at 2:45PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Greg

18. Reviews need to be objective; they need to assess what the game sets out to do, and how well it does it. Reviews should take value for money into account to some extent, BUT, 95% of the review should be based on the game's content. In the case of Shadowrun, many of the reviews have rated it on what users want it to be, rather than what it is, which is an attitude which defeats the point of the review, as you end up reviewing how well the game matches your own personal vision of it, making it ore of a comparison than review.

Posted at 2:46PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Adnium

19. Boo fucking hoo. Cry more you baby.

Lets see, youre developing a game for the 360, a system thats already SATURATED with FPS shooters.

You take an IP thats known for being an RPG based pen and paper game, instead of giving the 360 what it needs (more rpgs) you decide to perpetuate the issue by making a counterstrike clone with elves and magic, slapping the shadowrun name on it .........

You include NO story mode. And then CRY about when gamers done come running sucking your cock?

Look, I know this might come as a shocker to anyone with no common sense (ms game devs) but ....... if youre going to make an FPS on a console thats already got a million FPS titles on it ......... you had BETTER be doing it better and cleaner then the other guy. Most reviews had the same thing to say "neat, but nothing we havent already seen before"

Now this fag is crying because this came as a suprise? LOL, get the fuck out of here.

Whos making business decisions at MS game studios?

Posted at 2:48PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Michael

20. Although I agree with the review including price and specifics about the lack of campaign mode, I would like to state that after playing the demo I loved this game. @14 stating that "cross-platform is a feature that nobody wants", I think you're completely wrong. I thought it was brilliant. I've told multiple people about the game, stating in an excited tone "I don't know why nobody has combined an FPS with RPG/magic aspects like this before!". I think it's brilliant.

I'm just not a fan of multiplayer FPS on the console. I'd totally buy this if it had a campaign mode.

Posted at 2:49PM on Jun 25th 2007 by Scott Beeson