Shattered Horizon Review

Entering silent running mode, the world fades away. Silence looms as all space is emptied of sound. The stuttered inhalations and exhalations in my helmet are my only companion and the only confirmation that I still live. I maneuver around an asteroid, praying to not be seen. Radar is dead; all I know is that which I can see. As I round the rock, a yellow-clad astronaut glows before me, his back to my face, the giant sphere of planet Earth blue in the distance. I hear nothing as I unload a burst shot into his tank. White gases whirl from the explosion, and the astronaut's grip on life is lost. He drifts into space, a puppet to fate.

The space-combat sim is the vision of Futuremark's Shattered Horizon, and for this vision, nothing is compromised. Each gameplay aspect is tuned, each element geared, a cog in the vision, each contributing to the play experience. And the experience is wonderful.

Scarce resources necessitate bitter war between the Moon Mining Company (MMC) and the International Space Agency (ISA). A string of disembodied rocks, an asteroid belt, serves as battleground; the International Space Station, as well, a mega-structure of reflective panels and sheet-metal middled in a disarray of rock chunks and cargo boxes; a mining facility, a tunnel gaping, bored through an enormous asteroid, filled with splitting, angular passageways, electronic posts, and a “Zero-G Spot” theatre for off-duty miners. Though levels initially seem nonsensically formed, each is specifically constructed to promote tactical positioning. Multiple entrance paths access each command post, creating dynamic choke-points and allowing for unexpected assaults. Astronauts turned militant (up to thirty-two) strive to control and defend command posts throughout each level, or occasionally, seek only bloodshed.

Zero G is the keystone to all other elements of Shattered Horizon, impacting the emotional experience, the level design, and tactical combat. Zero gravity forces players to think tactics not along a singe plane but to be considerate of multiple axes. Levels are structured as guidelines, not binding rules, allowing for variance in strategy, tactical experimentation, and surprise. Indeed, direct assaults are overtly visible, only marginally effective, and ruthlessly dissuaded, encouraging spontaneous, creative approaches. The strategic topography of any situation is constantly shifting, enemies and allies, like lightning, never occupying the exact places twice. Players must be adaptive in their tactics or else be quickly gunned down.

Shattered Horizon offers one armament: a scope-equipped assault rifle and three grenade types, all of which are available on the fly. The lack of choice feels not limiting, but helps to dampen the gap between newer players and experienced; hard-boiled experience, instead, takes place as the prime player-skill differential. Veteran players are light-years ahead of newer players, dead-eye aim and sharply honed strategy acquired from thousands of kills notched on their rifles. Veteran presence is currently overwhelming, and new players are brutally taught through the time-proven art of failure. The learning curve is harsh and requires that players have significant patience. However, I was rarely frustrated by my failures, recognizing them as necessary steps towards mastery. And being an at least averagely frustrated gamer, I would say that my lack of anger towards the game is due to the sheer joy of each combat experience, success or no.

Combat success, as it were, is shared equally between aiming skill, proper use of grenades, and tactical positioning. Good aiming is vital. Headshots and tank shots, bullets to large oxygen tanks strapped to players' backs, are severely pronounced. Body shots, comparatively, are practically useless. Round after round unloaded into an astronaut's suit will yield nothing but the alerting of the target to your very loud presence. Headshots and tank shots, however, are rewarded with near-instant kills and are absolutely mandatory for survival. Players may also to cling to any surface: walls, crates, and terrain. Walking, naturally, slows movement speed but drastically improves aiming steadiness, a tactical trade-off between being an easy target and a better shot.

Rifles have powerful scopes and make sniping a viable and oft-used technique. A brief animation bridges the entering and exiting of scoped mode and necessarily ensures that players cannot point-blank spam the ten-shot burst. Grenades, also, may not be fired in scoped mode. Additionally, scoped shots fire in bursts of ten bullets, severely damaging targets if hit (even in the body), if not outright killing them.

Often in Shattered Horizon, you will see an enemy player, in the distance, nested from a sniping position. Being suddenly noticed by the enemy, you scope-in for yourself, hoping to headshot him before he does you. Tensity is rarely experienced like those euphoric levels from a sniping standoff, carefully aiming for his tiny pixels, he aiming for yours, while you count the few precious moments remaining before someone makes the fatal shot first. It is these powerful gameplay moments in Shattered Horizon that define the experience and motivate your desire to improve.

Grenades are a beautifully designed element of Shattered Horizon, cooperating perfectly with other gameplay aspects and augmenting the game's tactical combat. Grenades function as tactical support aides rather than damage bombs, each of the three either jettisoning players, disabling their suit's functioning and slowing their movement, or, like smokescreens, obscuring vision. In both critical moments and prepared strikes, knowing which grenade is equally as important as aiming prowess and consistently means the difference between victory and defeat. But bullets and grenades alone do not win battles, tactical positioning is infinitely valuable. Levels are architecturally arranged so as to promote reactive approaches to enemy strongholds. Walking on ceilings, sneaking from behind, and sidling along asteroids are all suggested maneuvers.

“Silent Running Mode” offers additional tactical options. Activating silent running powers down your suit, losing access to radar, computerized sound simulation, primary thrusters, and vitals information. With no assisted programs, both battlefield intelligence and maneuverability are highly restricted, making you a free kill for enemies by whom you are unlucky enough to be seen. But, alternatively, the tactical advantages and emotional experience are so very grand. Silent running turns out the lights on your suit, making you intrinsically difficult to see and negating your presence on enemy radar and HUD highlighting. But successfully breaching enemy lines and, incognito, dispatching of even one bewildered soldier is exhilarating and awe-inspiring. Space becomes very lonely and very frightening without sound as guidance. With your sensors shut off, unexpected attacks upon yourself come suddenly and harshly and cause you to constantly turn your back in fear. It's spectacular.

Enemies have at their disposal the same tools as you, however. Such open level design means you get ganked, often. Most deaths comes unawares, either from back-stab assassinations or from distant and shadowed snipes. The suddenness of death can be disheartening, especially when repeated, but player moral and friendliness is high, compliments like “nice one” usually rewarded for cool kills instead of hurtful slander. The mood is infectious, and mean-spirited attitudes are swiftly reprimanded by the small, dedicated player-base.

Shattered Horizon falters in one pivotal, prominently featured area: teamwork. And teamwork is lackluster for one primary reason: the lack of voice chat. In an age where voice chat is expected, the absence of the feature feels strange and hampers a lot of potential for synchronized tactics. Text chat being the only means of team coordination at this point, the barrier to cooperative efforts is simply too great. The game plays marvelously well regardless, but voice chat and, subsequently, teamwork could propel the game towards an even greater state of excellence. Fortunately, players and developers alike are well aware of the missing voice chat; it is the most highly requested addition to the game. Upon the inevitable patching-in of voice chat, I will give an updated report on the resulting changes. It should prove interesting.

Shattered Horizon is a unique experience among shooters, but I feel that it has much potential to even further differentiate itself by more specifically emphasizing its tactical, zero gravity gameplay. The drastic difference between headshots/tank shots and body shots, I believe, could be dampened. As the game stands, spatial positioning is important, but rushing headlong into enemies can still be plenty effective, especially when the charging player is experienced and lands headshots easily. Advanced players and beginners are vastly opposed in skill; most teams feed off the success of one-man, herculean professionals for victory, pro players easily quadrupling the kill/death ratio of noobs.

By improving damage dealt to the body, I hypothesize that players would be motivated to assault more tactically more frequently, as even professionals are susceptible to blatant gunfire. This simple change would lessen the valley between pros and noobs and would be less punishing to new players who haven't yet grasped the acuteness of aiming. Tactics and understanding of three-dimensional space would take the primary spots as necessary skills for success and would positively separate Shattered Horizon from other shooters, most of which prioritize headshots over other skill-sets. Tactics is where Shattered Horizon is most interesting, most fun, and most fitting to the space simulation combat, and I feel the game could only benefit from empowering the use tactics even more greatly.

Every aspect of Shattered Horizon is tuned to augment the unique feeling and experience of combat in space. It is the developer's devotion to the experience, palpable when playing, that allows Shattered Horizon to excel as an engaging, fun, and awesome game.

Dead Space, Extraction, and the Value of Movement

Hey everyone! Long time, no see. I'm working on graduating this May and, somewhat unfortunately, have chosen to devote my time to things other than writing articles. That is not to say, however, that I've forgone my game playing, research and design. I am now the proud owner of a PlayStation 3 and am every so slowly working my way through Grand Theft Auto IV (finally). I've also been playing through Burnout Paradise, Flower, and MadWorld, not to mention keeping up with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I'm making some pretty intensive analyses of above games and, in the not to distant future, will have posts here discussing them. I'm also working on a two very interesting discussions of Team Ico's Shadow of the Colossus. On top of playing video games, I am a firm believer in research of video games and game design theory. Naturally, I extensively read articles all over the Internet, but I am also quite enjoying Jesse Schell's The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, lots of wisdom.

That's my update on life. But I want to talk for a brief period about Dead Space and its upcoming Wii incarnation, Extraction. Check out the trailer:

EA is aiming to label Dead Space: Extraction a "guided first person experience." And though the game is essentially an on-rails shooter, I think EA has a right to posit their games as they please. Anyone seeking to innovate, in whatever manner, deserves gold stars in my book. And, based on what we know, I think they are attempting improvements to the genre. The on-rails shooter has a meaty history, including Time Crisis and House of the Dead. I also think many would agree with me that Killer 7 is an on-rails shooter, and an excellent one at that. Wii particularly has received much favor from the light-gun genre. Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles was designed specifically for Wii, but games like Rayman Raving Rabbids, Call of Duty: World at War, and Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 feature specific light-gun modes. While these all may be fine and good, it's starting to get a little out of hand , actually. So when yet another on-rails shooter is announced for Wii, it's easy to say "pshaw" and move on with life (with full motion, zing!), Extraction bears a particularly interesting design.

My initial reaction to Dead Space: Extraction was "lame." I'd basically decided that the genre was of diminishing value and that Extraction was likely a cash-in on Wi''s 50 million units. I've since changed my mind, however. And here's why: Dead Space is perfectly suited to on-rails gameplay. Even more specifically, Dead Space is perfectly suited to on-rails gameplay on Wii.

I've played Dead Space, or rather, the first four chapters on hard mode (before my friend returned it to GameFly; I intend to purchase and finish it this summer). My friends and I actually had a blast playing the game. It is highly polished, quite beautiful, and fun. We would watch each other play, with much back-seat gaming, and weigh the pros and cons of the various weapons and upgrade paths. I do not believe the game was particularly scary, except for the fear of dying and having to restart. Fear and vulnerability is something I've been thinking about a bit and will introduce in another post. But Dead Space is an enjoyable game, and at the least very interesting, and is making a marked transition to Wii.

My cause for reconsideration of Dead Space: Extraction was two-fold: the plasma cutter and the value of movement.

The default gun of Dead Space is the plasma cutter. Because of the limb-dismemberment focus in Dead Space, the plasma cutter is truly the ideal weapon for facing the game's necromorphs. The plasma cutter fires a short line of plasma, the rotation of which can be adjusted with the alternate-fire button to be horizontal or vertical. Skillful employment of the plasma cutter comes down to manipulating the reticule's rotation and, obviously, aiming effectively. Do you see where I'm going with this? In Dead Space: Extraction, rotating or tilting the remote on its side rotates the plasma cutter vertically, as well as serves as the alternate-fire button for every other weapon. There is something extremely tactile about this mirroring of in-game action with real-world control.  It's amazing how such a minor change can have such a massively-damaging impact. Expounding the implementation of this control in Extraction is the other key element to fighting: aiming. Aiming via Wii's sensor-bar has proven to be quite effective thus far, and Dead Space: Extraction is likely to follow suit.

This adaptation of control got me to thinking about other potentialities about Extraction, which ultimately led me to an interesting thought: the value of movement. Dead Space is a third-person shooter and, unlike on-rails shooters, allows for full range of movement in the world. As Isaac, players are free to go where they please within the levels. Additionally, unlike Resident Evil 4 and 5, Isaac can move, albeit slowly, while aiming and firing. Let's examine a few basic reasons players move in the game:

1. To advance in the levels.
2. To pick up items.
3. To maneuver around necromorphs.

Obviously, advancing is an important goal, one achieved via movement. Picking up items may seem trivial but,  while playing the game, I found it to be a pointed aspect. Finally, and most importantly, tactically maneuvering around, and often fleeing from, necromorphs is essential to winning battles. There is a fourth reason for movement: exploring the game. The game's setting, the space craft the USG Ishimura, is a beautiful creation. Exploring and taking time to note its craftsmanship is fun in its own right. Therefore, I would indeed say that movement is, in fact, of value in Dead Space. Its omission would likely be a mistake.

However, given these aspects of the game, exploration, puzzle solving, etc., in terms of challenge, Dead Space boils down to a serious of fights with necromorphs. And of the necromorphs, there are only a few, (slight spoilers perhaps) the standard zombies, the babies, the gorillas, the bat-stomachs, and a couple others. Zombies mob Isaac from all angles, and running to a more optimal firing position, so that the zombies group together, is vital. Gorillas need to be dodged, generally with the help of stasis, and backed-around to hit their exposed butts (line gun ftw). The difficulty of these enemies drastically changes with chosen difficulty setting. To kill a basic zombie, the number of shots to the limbs doubles between medium and hard. The need for maneuvering and/or fleeing the enemy, therefore, scales with difficulty. Even so, aside from the aforementioned, killing necromorphs by and large requires little movement. Aim, flip the reticule, and shoot.

I do not think this is bad. And, again, maneuvering around enemies is an important part of gameplay. But most of the player's time in combat will be spent shooting, standing still, not running around. This is to the game's benefit. With the camera, and with the the transition between aiming (bringing up your weapon) and moving (putting down the weapon), switching between the two too often would be tiring. I'm not saying that Dead Space is exclusively aiming and shooting, I'm saying that aiming and shooting is what Dead Space does best, and what it primarily features.

Dead Space: Extraction, though potentially perceived as a nerfed rendition of its big brother, is designed specifically to Wii. Wii has less power than the other consoles, it's fact; Dead Space in its original form could not run on Wii. So necessity calls for change, either in the form of significantly reduced polygons and enemies, or, better, via a complete overhaul. Dead Space: Extraction removes free movement (though it will reportedly allow for branching paths). We don't know enough yet to say whether players advance forward automatically point-to-point or move gradually on a line, ala Killer 7, but the limited movement will work well, I believe.

"Strategic Dismemberment" was a tag line for Dead Space, and rightly so, because it is certainly a high-point of gameplay. What EA is doing with Extraction, under the limitations of a less-powerful system, is to highlight the qualities of Dead Space and not offer movement for movement's sake. The phrase "a guided first person experience" is apt. Extraction looks to do offer all of the original's best aspects, and just maybe, improve upon them. From first-person, yes, with limited movement, yes, but Extraction retains what matters most: the challenge of properly dismembering limbs.

As I said before, light gun games are a proven genre; they're fun. Dead Space works so blatantly well as a light gun game, it's amazing nobody thought of it sooner. Dismembering limbs is the new head-shot. And within the confines of the genre, lack of movement loses nothing; indeed, controlled play, limitation of movement and options, may enhance the game. It's like tree sap. 97% of sap is water. By boiling down the sap, we are able to procure the sweetest 3%, the wondrous maple syrup.

Mirror's Edge Trailer

From Game Trailers

Designing to a First-Person-Shooter

Update May 01: Wii
This is an update, or extension, to the proceeding paragraphs.
My friend brought up the issue of designing an FPS for Wii, as it was not discussed in this article. Essentially, I feel designing an FPS for Wii is the same as designing an FPS for any other platform: the design must be specific. The Wii pointer is not a perfect emulation of a PC mouse, nor do the remote and nunchuck perform similarly to a keyboard. Though there are similarities, per pixel tracking in particular, designing for Wii possibly requires the most specific attention of any current platform. The Wii interface is still new, and though many an FPS has been developed for Wii, many have also failed to work well on the system. The game design industry is still experimenting and learning about Wii's capabilities. It will likely be a whiloe yet before we have the Wii interface fully figured-out. Many Wii games reviewed are labeled as "shoe-horning" in the motion functionalities of the remote or nunchuck. These are the games that are not taking advantage of the Wii interface but instead ascribing traditional controller functions to a completely different control method. As with any other platform, we need to look at what the Wii controller offers, what does it do, what does it not do, and think about how these controls will best fit a game, and how a game will best fit these controls.

Original Article
Last night, my friends and I had a long conversation about the first-person-shooter. It eventually turned into an argument, or at least a debate. Which was really nice, actually, because we discussed a very interesting topic with widely differing view points.Eventually, the topic turned to PC FPS versus Console FPS. This is a big debate for a lot of people. Some hate console first-person-shooters, some love them. Some are indifferent. My friend's basic stance was that the console controller analog stick will never match the precision of a mouse. And, therefore, the console is an inferior platform for first-person-shooters.

While I completely agree with his first sentiment, the latter point I do not.It would be naive to assume that an analog stick can match the precision of a mouse. The way analog sticks are currently configured, it is simple not possible. At least in my opinion. The mouse tracks per pixel, and the targeting reticule follows the movements of the player's hand. Analog sticks cannot emulate this. Not that they don't have their own merits. I personally find the analog stick very tacticle. In fact, the mouse of a PC can sometimes feel too accurate. Fortunately, most games offer sensitivity adjustment for both platforms.While the mouse may always be more accurate than the analog stick, that doesn't mean the analog stick is unsuited for first-person-shooters. It just means the analog stick is unsuited for the PC first-person-shooter.Do you see the difference? A first-person-shooter, like any other game, must be designed specifically for its intended platform. A PC first-person-shooter must be designed with a mouse and keyboard in mind. The mouse and keyboard is the use interface, the means by which players will interact with the game. Naturally, therefore, the first-person-shooter should be designed to implement the PC interface. The console FPS, likewise, must be designed specifically for the console controller and even more specifically designed for the exact console on which the game will be played. The console FPS must be designed differently than it would be for a PC. The fact is, players will not be interacting with the game via mouse and keyboard. Players will interact with the game with a controller.Which platform is more suited for the first-person-shooter is not the question we want to be asking. This question occurs when people begin to ascribe one platform design to the other. The PC first-person-shooter will not work as well on console. A console first-person-shooter will not work as well on a PC.

An example: Halo, when ported to the PC, was maligned for its slowness of movement in comparison to its speed of aiming. Halo was designed for the X-box. Bungie, knowing the ability of analog sticks, designed Halo to play well on console, movement was intentionally made to be slow because the analog sticks lacked the precision required for tracking the quick movements of characters in PC staples like Quake or Unreal. Hence, when Halo was ported to PC, the character movement speed remained the same, but the sensitivity of aiming was adjusted to match the per-pixel accuracy of the mouse.You cannot expect a PC first-person-shooter on a console. You cannot expect a console first-person-shooter on PC. They are two different platforms, two completely different interfaces. Therefore, you cannot design a PC FPS for consoles. And you cannot design a console FPS for PCs. True, the console controller will never be as accurate as the mouse. But that is really not the point. When designing a console FPS, the designer should know this fact and design an FPS for play with an analog stick, with all its strengths and limitations, and not for a mouse. There is a reason Halo is so good. It was designed to be played with a controller.

That said, I've come to learn that there are many people who will always prefer a PC FPS to a console FPS. They just prefer the precision, regardless of the design of any console FPS. I came to this realization when playing Mario Kart Wii, oddly enough. I played Mario Kart Wii with the Wii wheel for probably a couple of hours spread out over a couple of days. I do enjoy the unique feel the Wii wheel offers when steering karts. Its fun and works pretty well. This is because Mario Kart Wii was designed to be played with the Wii wheel as its primary interface. However, I still felt off playing the game. I just couldn't figure out the control; most problematically, I would frequently drift into walls.

Eventually, I decided to try playing with a Gamecube controller to see how it felt. As soon as I did, I immediately felt better. The game opened up and I was finally driving with some skill. Then I realized: at least for Mario Kart Wii, I will probably always prefer the GCN controller, even though the game was designed to be played with the Wii wheel. And I understood where the PC FPS players were coming from. Given that, I will probably still play with the Wii wheel because I enjoy the novelty and appreciate what the developers are attempting. I want to support the innovation; plus, its more hardcore.The console FPS can be just as good as the PC FPS. However, if the console FPS tries to be a PC FPS, it will likely fail. The console controller is equally as good as the mouse and keyboard, in that they both have inherent strengths and weaknesses. Console FPS's should not be designed to be played with the precision of a mouse; they should be designed for and to the controller, and specifically, the analog stick. The analog stick is a wonderful interface. It has plenty to offer as a means of control, as evidenced by the multitude of quality games released for consoles. Though the first-person-shooter was founded as a PC genre, the design can be adapted for the console, and has been successfully. We just need to look at the console controller and think, "what does this interface offer and what does it not? What are its strenghts, what are its pitfalls?" Then, we should approach the design of this FPS game for the console. Forget the PC first-person-shooter and design for what the console has to offer, and how the FPS form can benefit from the console interface.

Images from Kotaku, SlipperyBrick, GameSpot, TheManRoom,

Team Fortress 2 Statistics

Now here's something awesome: a series of graphs and maps showing statical analyses of Team Fortress 2. I haven't had a chance to play yet, unfortunately, but the information is fascinating nonetheless. For example, the Scout is the most played class. More interesting, the final graph shows the team balances of each map. Your not the only blue player getting owned on dustbowl. There is something I'm curious about, though, how does the Sniper have the most points/hour, but not the most kills, captures, or assists? Do headshots warrant extra points? Let me know. Also, if, like me, you don't know every detail about the game, check out this expansive guide at Custom PC.

Kind of makes me want to take a statistics class. You?

Team Fortress 2 Statistics

Halo Wars: Staying True

Ensemble Studios, the team behind the Age of Empires series, is working with Microsoft on another RTS based on a completely different franchise: Halo Wars.

Halo Wars is an interesting animal. Halo was originally intended to be an RTS, but in the end became an FPS, as we all know. Now Microsoft is dishing out the original goods with a new RTS based on the Halo franchise. While Halo Wars may seem like a perfect fit for the franchise considering its history, Ensemble is in fact designing one big juggling act.

What is more important: That Halo Wars stays true to Halo, or that Halo Wars is a good RTS. Its an interesting question and not one so readily answered as one might think. Watch the following video, and while doing so, think about this question.


Did you notice anything? What happens to a guy that decides to sit idly in a warthog? He gets sniped, instantly. Heck, warthog drivers get sniped just as often while moving. Such is the nature of Halo. But is it, or rather should it be, the nature of Halo Wars?

The thing about RTSs is that they need to be balanced. The thing about Halo is that people get capped nigh every second. That fact that how ever many covenant can't take out two warthogs, or at least their drivers, is completely absurd. For Halo. But as an RTS, maybe the over-powered warthog isn't so ridiculous afterall. How is it possible for Ensemble to retain the Halo feel in its translation to the RTS genre?I do not have an answer, nor an opinion at the moment. I shall reflect on it a while longer and let you know my thoughts. But what do you think?


On a completely different note: this screenshot from Devil May Cry 4 owns my soul. So does this parody on Rayman Raving Rabbids and Assassin's Creed. Except that it would technically be "Bunny's Creed."

Shadowrun-Ressurection

Shadowrun is a first-person-shooter for the PC and 360 in the vein of Counter-Strike. Shadowrun is developed by FASA interactive and Microsoft Game Studios. The game releases in June, but testers and the media are already checking it out. Unlike Counter-Strike and most all other online FPSs, Shadowrun is set in a fantasy setting with a large set of abilities available to players. Players can glide, teleport, and perform other feats that seem to really shake the strategy of the traditional FPS.

A report from Siliconera brings up the player class of healer. Many FPSs offer revival of some sort, Battlefield 2 has the medic for example. Shadowrun is no different, a spell available to the healer is "Resurrect." But unlike other games of the genre, Resurrect comes with a supsrising set of gameplay variables. Dan Zuccarelli from Siliconera posts:

In more than one match I was keeping numerous people alive through resurrect spells, and then running off and hiding so as not to get killed (resurrecting someone means they’re tied to you, So if you die so do they).

Resurrection comes with a cost, and a realistic one at that. Or at least, realistic enough for a fantasy setting. Healers are bound to their resurrected; if you die as a healer, all the players you revived will instantly die as well. Digging up some more stats on this feature, I turned to the official Shadowrun page. They offer a fine rundown of what to expect of the resurrect spell.

First, Resurrect requires a body for it to function properly. If your teammate’s body has been destroyed then it can’t be resurrected.

Second, if you resurrect someone you will have a smaller essence pool while your teammate is alive. A portion of your life essence is being used to maintain the life of your comrade. One quirk of the resurrect spell, however, is that if you resurrect two or more teammates with one cast of resurrect you pay the same essence cost as if you had resurrected only one.

Third, if you are resurrected it is considered customary to tithe some of your earnings to the teammate who resurrected you. Expect to make less cash once brought back to life. This, however, certainly beats the zero money you would have made if you remained dead.

And finally if you are resurrected by a friend then protect that friend at all costs! Because if he dies you will quickly follow him since his life essence is no longer sustaining your recently animated corpse.

Here is something interesting. Shadowrun takes the high-fantasy story and mythos and weaves it into gameplay. The gameplay is faithful to its source, there is a reason resurrect works the way it does. In addition, the spell effects have a tangible and strategic effect on the game. Their is a clear tactical aspect to resurrection now. Healers will have to balance use of their spells, so as not to drain their life away. And, good healers will have to work at staying alive. They take on a true "support" role, sacrificing themselves for the good of the team. Opponents will have a distinct advantage to hunting down healers by effectively killing at least two birds with one stone.

The tithing however could be an issue. I like it, its a cool concept. The exact fee for being resurrected is important though. If its too much, players will get upset, the healer is taking their money, and, maybe they didn't even want to be revived. Furthermore, sometimes its not advantageous to be resurrected in an FPS. Like when a medic revives you in Battlefield, and getting shot as soon as you wake up. So balance of these aspects will be important for the development team.

Tithe
How do you feel about these resurrection effects on gameplay?