Middle-Earth: Shadow of War Review - Just Me and My Uruk, Oh and my Spirit Pal Too - The RPG Files -

SBFordSBFord Associate Editor - News ManagerThe CitadelMMORPG.COM Staff LegendaryPosts: 26,116
edited October 10 in News & Features Discussion

imageMiddle-Earth: Shadow of War Review - Just Me and My Uruk, Oh and my Spirit Pal Too - The RPG Files - MMORPG.com

The Sequel to Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor is out today. Does it hold up to the success of its predecessor? Read on from Rob’s thoughts below.

Read the full story here


¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


«1

Comments

  • YashaXYashaX Baldurs GateMember RarePosts: 2,013
    Thanks for the review. Did you manage to complete the "true" ending?
    Ajvi
    ....
  • AlbatroesAlbatroes Member EpicPosts: 3,707
    edited October 10

    YashaX said:

    Thanks for the review. Did you manage to complete the "true" ending?



    lol I know, right? What makes the whole "p2w" thing even funnier is that even if you buy the legendary orcs, they can permanently die. So, people would probably need to keep buying them or grind forever for them. Loot crates in all major triple A titles it seems. Forza 7, Battlefront 2 will have them as well which is linked to progression it seems, Shadow of War, of course Assassin Creed will have some form of micro-transactions since it's been having them for the past few. I mean I get that games are getting more expensive to make, so a "60$" price tag might not be truly realistic, thus DLC was born (I'm sure it was just made to make more money regardless), but I mean SE doing their whole thing with Deus Ex where the micro-transactions you bought were one time use all around (not one time use when everytime you started over) and things like this just just get out of hand. Linking a game's progression system to RNG boxes and not just the random nature of getting a drop from a stage or boss etc is just going too far imo. Especially when they obviously skew the rate at which you earn the currencies or whatever you can get in game just to add even more incentive to pay after you've already paid upfront. Plenty of Battlefront 2 vids showing how the system is working in beta.
    Post edited by Albatroes on
    Ajvighettoceleb
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Chicago, ILMember EpicPosts: 6,249
    Played Deus Ex and enjoyed it a lot. Didn't buy any in-game cash shop stuff. Looking forward to this game as I enjoyed the last one. Won't use the cash shop there either. If they change content so you have to buy cash shop items in order to progress, that will be the end of the series for me. Way to many games out to have to settle.
    SomeHumanConstantineMerusVyntStjerneoddghettoceleb

    "Change is the only constant."


  • JorendoJorendo EdeMember UncommonPosts: 275
    edited October 10

    Albatroes said:



    YashaX said:


    Thanks for the review. Did you manage to complete the "true" ending?






    I mean I get that games are getting more expensive to make, so a "60$" price tag might not be truly realistic, thus DLC was born (I'm sure it was just made to make more money regardless) beta.



    Except making games hasn't become more expensive, due to there being way more gamers now. Sure it costs a bit more to make games now compared to 2000, but the profit is also insanely higher then back then due to more gamers then ever before who buy games.

    Not to mention that publishers actually spend less money on making games now then ever before. They also store money on bank accounts in tax paradises like the Netherlands. I sugest you watch "Superbunny hop" he made a great video about that with evidence. Publishers are greedy as heck right now, DLC and microtransactions are not made so they can cover the costs....they are made to get even more money out of it. They got billions on tax paradise bank accounts that only keep growing and growing. This is just a move of screwing gamers over just to get a few bucks more and it should stop.

    This review for that matter alone should not end with a high score. No matter how great the game is. You need to look at it from a consumer point of view. The microtransactions are game breaking. You actually have to pay to get the true ending or grind forever. This should have been concidered in the score big time. Also forking out 60 dollars/euro's for a pay to win game? Come on this isn't a mobile F2P game. Game press step and for once for crying out loud stand on the side of the consumers and punish those greedy publishers. It should be at the same level as game breaking bugs "Great game, but it screws over people who already paid the full price 2/10".
    Post edited by Jorendo on
    NildenRexKushman
  • XxxusernametakenxxxXxxusernametakenxxx Member UncommonPosts: 127
    Jorendo said:see

    Albatroes said:



    YashaX said:


    Thanks for the review. Did you manage to complete the "true" ending?






    I mean I get that games are getting more expensive to make, so a "60$" price tag might not be truly realistic, thus DLC was born (I'm sure it was just made to make more money regardless) beta.



    Except making games hasn't become more expensive, due to there being way more gamers now. Sure it costs a bit more to make games now compared to 2000, but the profit is also insanely higher then back then due to more gamers then ever before who buy games.

    Not to mention that publishers actually spend less money on making games now then ever before. They also store money on bank accounts in tax paradises like the Netherlands. I sugest you watch "Superbunny hop" he made a great video about that with evidence. Publishers are greedy as heck right now, DLC and microtransactions are not made so they can cover the costs....they are made to get even more money out of it. They got billions on tax paradise bank accounts that only keep growing and growing. This is just a move of screwing gamers over just to get a few bucks more and it should stop.

    This review for that matter alone should not end with a high score. No matter how great the game is. You need to look at it from a consumer point of view. The microtransactions are game breaking. You actually have to pay to get the true ending or grind forever. This should have been concidered in the score big time. Also forking out 60 dollars/euro's for a pay to win game? Come on this isn't a mobile F2P game. Game press step and for once for crying out loud stand on the side of the consumers and punish those greedy publishers. It should be at the same level as game breaking bugs "Great game, but it screws over people who already paid the full price 2/10".
    Clearly the tin foil hat is on way too tight.  This victim mentality you are displaying is pretty pathetic.  
    Asm0deusRexKushmanOzmodanNyghthowler
  • AlbatroesAlbatroes Member EpicPosts: 3,707
    Jorendo said:

    Albatroes said:



    YashaX said:


    Thanks for the review. Did you manage to complete the "true" ending?






    I mean I get that games are getting more expensive to make, so a "60$" price tag might not be truly realistic, thus DLC was born (I'm sure it was just made to make more money regardless) beta.



    Except making games hasn't become more expensive, due to there being way more gamers now. Sure it costs a bit more to make games now compared to 2000, but the profit is also insanely higher then back then due to more gamers then ever before who buy games.

    Not to mention that publishers actually spend less money on making games now then ever before. They also store money on bank accounts in tax paradises like the Netherlands. I sugest you watch "Superbunny hop" he made a great video about that with evidence. Publishers are greedy as heck right now, DLC and microtransactions are not made so they can cover the costs....they are made to get even more money out of it. They got billions on tax paradise bank accounts that only keep growing and growing. This is just a move of screwing gamers over just to get a few bucks more and it should stop.

    This review for that matter alone should not end with a high score. No matter how great the game is. You need to look at it from a consumer point of view. The microtransactions are game breaking. You actually have to pay to get the true ending or grind forever. This should have been concidered in the score big time. Also forking out 60 dollars/euro's for a pay to win game? Come on this isn't a mobile F2P game. Game press step and for once for crying out loud stand on the side of the consumers and punish those greedy publishers. It should be at the same level as game breaking bugs "Great game, but it screws over people who already paid the full price 2/10".
    I'm not really following where you're saying its only a bit more compared to 2000. Its exponentially more compared to 2000. Not only are you dealing with an open world project that is heavily detailed oriented, you also have to factor in a few other things such as people covering separate positions as opposed to multi-roled jobs in the past as well as people simply having to be paid more due to competition. Some elements of projects are outsourced or contracted, so companies are honestly paying more to get a project done. As for DLC, in most logical senses, cosmetic DLC is usually done after the core cosmetics are done since the art designers are usually still under contract. But then you have other elements that can take months/years to tighten up etc. Now I'm not making a defense for any company, but honestly, with the increase in at least cosmetics that used to be automatically incorporated into games as a means of accomplishments and such, maybe the gamer is getting a little entitled. But that only refers to cosmetics imo. I'll never defend day one content based DLC, such as side-arcs/extra missions/etc because to me those were done before the launch of the title and should be included if you're going to day one it. But back to my point, everything has been going up across the board and you have to realize that even more competition is around, be it from other companies and especially those developers that want to branch off to start their own thing. It feels like almost everyone is an indie dev in the past 5 years.
  • YashaXYashaX Baldurs GateMember RarePosts: 2,013
    I really was just wondering if the reviewer had played right to the end of the game, including the "true" ending, because I was curious of his thoughts on how that part of the game played out. No big deal if he didn't, it was still a nice review.
    ....
  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaMember EpicPosts: 13,194
    Only two things for me,gem slots,so old now need something more creative.Skills...purchased,again an old idea that is just wrong.I guess if we wanted to akin it to learning for example Karate from some teacher you would pay but it would not be the act of paying that learns the skill which is the way some games like this are portraying it.

    Not sure what to think of the nemesis system,i don't feel it makes any sense,it is like some auto generation system?I watched some combat videos,the Ai looks really bad.

    To me the game sort of looks like a DnD design,with the auto generation,similar type world eventually i would assume the repeated models just as in the Dnd online game gets old as they look the same just using a different name tag.

    The world looks ok but like dnd online most of the world is just a fake backdrop.

    Overall i can see some fun factor ,so i understand why someone might like the game,the stealth/parkour idea is good although just like a game i play Dishonored,at times is a bit fake in that enemies don't see you when really they should.

    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • AeanderAeander Walker, LAMember RarePosts: 1,597
    I'm concerned about the endgame grind and loot box economy, but I will say that my impressions of the early game have been positive.

    The game fixes my two biggest issues with the original - underwhelming gear and a complete lack of build diversity. Gear drops now feel better and actually reflect on your appearance. And while you still appear to be able to unlock every skill, the 3 upgrade choices for each skill should add build diversity and replay value.
    YashaX
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,221
    edited October 11
    Jorendo said:

    This review for that matter alone should not end with a high score. No matter how great the game is. You need to look at it from a consumer point of view.
    You do know that there are different consumers out there correct? With different agendas, different desires on how to play, why they play and how they want to pay.

    I'm not saying I'm going to buy any dlc (I won't, I'll play the game as it is designed, can't be that hard) but there are people who will have no problems dropping a few bucks and not think a bit about it. They are consumers as well.

    The only thing they can judge is how the game is put together, if it's fun, and if it's worth the initial cost.

    So yeah, if it deserves a high score for game play then it deserves that score. If the monetization is not to your liking then the game is not for you. That's your own personal score and one where you decide if you want to pay or not.

    I should also add the rest of your post is a bit off. If making video games was a no brainer, easy, "doesn't cost that much because of insane profits" venture then the latest Mass Effect game wouldn't have had any issues.

    There is no magic bullet to success and apparently plenty of ways for a company to screw themselves over. So yeah, if a game is not the success that these companies want (remember, publicly traded companies have to make a certain amount of profit and that is what it is) even if it's insanely high then they have to eat those costs.
    Post edited by Sovrath on
    TorvalConstantineMerussaltyd



  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,052
    edited October 11
    Great review. I'm glad the game play feels like the first. I did not want a brand new control scheme.

    When I first played SoM I was amazed by the Nemesis system. I remember an article on Medium by Ken Levine around that time discussing the importance of what just happened in game design and how he would love to explore that. I expected more studios to incorporate that feature or at least the concepts, but it hasn't happened. I'm glad it has been kept as a core system.

    Another article on another site read like an apologist explaining why I shouldn't care that they [microtransactions] affect my game play. But after reading your review it sounds like there weren't even a factor. That is encouraging to me.
    Post edited by Torval on
    ConstantineMerusYashaXlaserit
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,221
    Wizardry said:


    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.
    How can you actually rate something without playing it?
    YashaXlaseritsaltyd



  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus LondonMember EpicPosts: 1,339
    Sovrath said:
    Wizardry said:


    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.
    How can you actually rate something without playing it?
    Only gamers do this. I have never heard once in my life anyone renders an opinion regarding a music they haven't heard or movie they haven't seen. 

    I know I'm not going to like next Tarantino's movie. But my knowledge and opinion ends there. I can't give it 3 stars out of my ass. 

    But this has become a common practice on gaming forums. 
    Sovrath
    Have you ever noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff?
  • krulerkruler PerthMember UncommonPosts: 491

    Wizardry said:

    Only two things for me,gem slots,so old now need something more creative.Skills...purchased,again an old idea that is just wrong.I guess if we wanted to akin it to learning for example Karate from some teacher you would pay but it would not be the act of paying that learns the skill which is the way some games like this are portraying it.



    Not sure what to think of the nemesis system,i don't feel it makes any sense,it is like some auto generation system?I watched some combat videos,the Ai looks really bad.



    To me the game sort of looks like a DnD design,with the auto generation,similar type world eventually i would assume the repeated models just as in the Dnd online game gets old as they look the same just using a different name tag.



    The world looks ok but like dnd online most of the world is just a fake backdrop.



    Overall i can see some fun factor ,so i understand why someone might like the game,the stealth/parkour idea is good although just like a game i play Dishonored,at times is a bit fake in that enemies don't see you when really they should.



    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.

    I had to read this twice just to make sure I understood exactly how you reviewed this game and gave it a 6/10.........I confess I am still baffled, plus comparing it to DnD online then using it is a baseline to score this game, which you have not played, is it just me or is this logic a big bowl of noodles with a whole heap of WTF sauce.
    ConstantineMerus

  • RhoklawRhoklaw Ft. Bliss, TXMember EpicPosts: 5,273
    kruler said:

    Wizardry said:

    Only two things for me,gem slots,so old now need something more creative.Skills...purchased,again an old idea that is just wrong.I guess if we wanted to akin it to learning for example Karate from some teacher you would pay but it would not be the act of paying that learns the skill which is the way some games like this are portraying it.



    Not sure what to think of the nemesis system,i don't feel it makes any sense,it is like some auto generation system?I watched some combat videos,the Ai looks really bad.



    To me the game sort of looks like a DnD design,with the auto generation,similar type world eventually i would assume the repeated models just as in the Dnd online game gets old as they look the same just using a different name tag.



    The world looks ok but like dnd online most of the world is just a fake backdrop.



    Overall i can see some fun factor ,so i understand why someone might like the game,the stealth/parkour idea is good although just like a game i play Dishonored,at times is a bit fake in that enemies don't see you when really they should.



    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.

    I had to read this twice just to make sure I understood exactly how you reviewed this game and gave it a 6/10.........I confess I am still baffled, plus comparing it to DnD online then using it is a baseline to score this game, which you have not played, is it just me or is this logic a big bowl of noodles with a whole heap of WTF sauce.
    I don't know, wasn't too hard to discern that his comparison pointed out that the orcs all look very similar. Granted there are trolls for some added variation, but I get what he's saying. As for the world being nothing more than a imaginary backdrop, that also makes sense. I'm guessing he feels the game is not truly an open world but rather a multitude of large instances.

    So, this game is nothing like Skyrim or Witcher 3 with regards to an open world. However, in my opinion, that's not a reason for me to not like a game, but that is just my opinion. The fact 95% of the mobs all look the same is because of the setting / story. Again, not a reason I would fault the game.

    I agree with his score of 6/10 though but for the simple fact that single player games are using RNG loot boxes. I would rather pay $100 for a game if the developers claim they are doing it to cover increased costs. Using RNG loot boxes is a blatant show of greed and nothing more.
    OzmodanStjerneoddCazrielYashaX

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,052
    Rhoklaw said:
    kruler said:

    Wizardry said:

    Only two things for me,gem slots,so old now need something more creative.Skills...purchased,again an old idea that is just wrong.I guess if we wanted to akin it to learning for example Karate from some teacher you would pay but it would not be the act of paying that learns the skill which is the way some games like this are portraying it.



    Not sure what to think of the nemesis system,i don't feel it makes any sense,it is like some auto generation system?I watched some combat videos,the Ai looks really bad.



    To me the game sort of looks like a DnD design,with the auto generation,similar type world eventually i would assume the repeated models just as in the Dnd online game gets old as they look the same just using a different name tag.



    The world looks ok but like dnd online most of the world is just a fake backdrop.



    Overall i can see some fun factor ,so i understand why someone might like the game,the stealth/parkour idea is good although just like a game i play Dishonored,at times is a bit fake in that enemies don't see you when really they should.



    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.

    I had to read this twice just to make sure I understood exactly how you reviewed this game and gave it a 6/10.........I confess I am still baffled, plus comparing it to DnD online then using it is a baseline to score this game, which you have not played, is it just me or is this logic a big bowl of noodles with a whole heap of WTF sauce.
    I don't know, wasn't too hard to discern that his comparison pointed out that the orcs all look very similar. Granted there are trolls for some added variation, but I get what he's saying. As for the world being nothing more than a imaginary backdrop, that also makes sense. I'm guessing he feels the game is not truly an open world but rather a multitude of large instances.

    So, this game is nothing like Skyrim or Witcher 3 with regards to an open world. However, in my opinion, that's not a reason for me to not like a game, but that is just my opinion. The fact 95% of the mobs all look the same is because of the setting / story. Again, not a reason I would fault the game.

    I agree with his score of 6/10 though but for the simple fact that single player games are using RNG loot boxes. I would rather pay $100 for a game if the developers claim they are doing it to cover increased costs. Using RNG loot boxes is a blatant show of greed and nothing more.

    You've played it? And as a result you feel like it's just a bunch of connected instances? Because I never got that out of SoM. How is it different in this game?
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHMember RarePosts: 8,740
    The first game in this series was great and I was looking forward to this one, but with the revelation of the loot box nonsense, I doubt I will bother with it.  I have too many games to play right now and I don't need the loot box scam.  Developers should never hide necessary stuff behind a paywall and yes if you grind enough, you do not have to buy loot boxes, but who has that kind of time.

    Probably will pick it up when it goes on sale, but atm not worth the $60 to me.
    Cazriel
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Ft. Bliss, TXMember EpicPosts: 5,273

    Torval said:


    Rhoklaw said:


    kruler said:



    Wizardry said:


    Only two things for me,gem slots,so old now need something more creative.Skills...purchased,again an old idea that is just wrong.I guess if we wanted to akin it to learning for example Karate from some teacher you would pay but it would not be the act of paying that learns the skill which is the way some games like this are portraying it.





    Not sure what to think of the nemesis system,i don't feel it makes any sense,it is like some auto generation system?I watched some combat videos,the Ai looks really bad.





    To me the game sort of looks like a DnD design,with the auto generation,similar type world eventually i would assume the repeated models just as in the Dnd online game gets old as they look the same just using a different name tag.





    The world looks ok but like dnd online most of the world is just a fake backdrop.





    Overall i can see some fun factor ,so i understand why someone might like the game,the stealth/parkour idea is good although just like a game i play Dishonored,at times is a bit fake in that enemies don't see you when really they should.





    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.



    I had to read this twice just to make sure I understood exactly how you reviewed this game and gave it a 6/10.........I confess I am still baffled, plus comparing it to DnD online then using it is a baseline to score this game, which you have not played, is it just me or is this logic a big bowl of noodles with a whole heap of WTF sauce.


    I don't know, wasn't too hard to discern that his comparison pointed out that the orcs all look very similar. Granted there are trolls for some added variation, but I get what he's saying. As for the world being nothing more than a imaginary backdrop, that also makes sense. I'm guessing he feels the game is not truly an open world but rather a multitude of large instances.

    So, this game is nothing like Skyrim or Witcher 3 with regards to an open world. However, in my opinion, that's not a reason for me to not like a game, but that is just my opinion. The fact 95% of the mobs all look the same is because of the setting / story. Again, not a reason I would fault the game.

    I agree with his score of 6/10 though but for the simple fact that single player games are using RNG loot boxes. I would rather pay $100 for a game if the developers claim they are doing it to cover increased costs. Using RNG loot boxes is a blatant show of greed and nothing more.


    You've played it? And as a result you feel like it's just a bunch of connected instances? Because I never got that out of SoM. How is it different in this game?



    No, I haven't played the sequel yet. I just figured maybe the game was instanced based off what he was saying about the world being a backdrop. I guess that will teach me to try and comprehend someone's description of a game, lol. In other news, I did find this to be funny...

    Sovrath

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,221
    Torval said:


    You've played it? And as a result you feel like it's just a bunch of connected instances? Because I never got that out of SoM. How is it different in this game?
    I suppose it depends on how this game is made.

    The first game, which was great, loved it (except for the ending. Might as well have done a forced shutdown of the game and e-mail me "what happened") yet the world did seem like it was very much created to be jumped around, scaled, etc.

    You know, you could look out over the landscape and see every tier, every climbable place as the landscape was just a series of "chutes and ladders" (well sort of).

    I don't know if this is the same way. I'm hoping the landscape is a bit more.



  • GruntyGrunty TexasMember RarePosts: 8,172
    Sovrath said:
    Wizardry said:


    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.
    How can you actually rate something without playing it?
    Only gamers do this. I have never heard once in my life anyone renders an opinion regarding a music they haven't heard or movie they haven't seen. 

    ...
    You've never hung out with car people.  
    TorvalrertezConstantineMerusMrMelGibson
    She was grimacing. "That does sound like what America's has been trying to do for the last century or two--get rich faster than the parasites could steal it."   The Free Lunch by Spider Robinson
  • AeanderAeander Walker, LAMember RarePosts: 1,597
    kruler said:

    Wizardry said:

    Only two things for me,gem slots,so old now need something more creative.Skills...purchased,again an old idea that is just wrong.I guess if we wanted to akin it to learning for example Karate from some teacher you would pay but it would not be the act of paying that learns the skill which is the way some games like this are portraying it.



    Not sure what to think of the nemesis system,i don't feel it makes any sense,it is like some auto generation system?I watched some combat videos,the Ai looks really bad.



    To me the game sort of looks like a DnD design,with the auto generation,similar type world eventually i would assume the repeated models just as in the Dnd online game gets old as they look the same just using a different name tag.



    The world looks ok but like dnd online most of the world is just a fake backdrop.



    Overall i can see some fun factor ,so i understand why someone might like the game,the stealth/parkour idea is good although just like a game i play Dishonored,at times is a bit fake in that enemies don't see you when really they should.



    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.

    I had to read this twice just to make sure I understood exactly how you reviewed this game and gave it a 6/10.........I confess I am still baffled, plus comparing it to DnD online then using it is a baseline to score this game, which you have not played, is it just me or is this logic a big bowl of noodles with a whole heap of WTF sauce.
    Pretty much sums up his entire post history. 
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,052
    Rhoklaw said:

    Torval said:


    Rhoklaw said:


    kruler said:



    Wizardry said:


    Only two things for me,gem slots,so old now need something more creative.Skills...purchased,again an old idea that is just wrong.I guess if we wanted to akin it to learning for example Karate from some teacher you would pay but it would not be the act of paying that learns the skill which is the way some games like this are portraying it.





    Not sure what to think of the nemesis system,i don't feel it makes any sense,it is like some auto generation system?I watched some combat videos,the Ai looks really bad.





    To me the game sort of looks like a DnD design,with the auto generation,similar type world eventually i would assume the repeated models just as in the Dnd online game gets old as they look the same just using a different name tag.





    The world looks ok but like dnd online most of the world is just a fake backdrop.





    Overall i can see some fun factor ,so i understand why someone might like the game,the stealth/parkour idea is good although just like a game i play Dishonored,at times is a bit fake in that enemies don't see you when really they should.





    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.



    I had to read this twice just to make sure I understood exactly how you reviewed this game and gave it a 6/10.........I confess I am still baffled, plus comparing it to DnD online then using it is a baseline to score this game, which you have not played, is it just me or is this logic a big bowl of noodles with a whole heap of WTF sauce.


    I don't know, wasn't too hard to discern that his comparison pointed out that the orcs all look very similar. Granted there are trolls for some added variation, but I get what he's saying. As for the world being nothing more than a imaginary backdrop, that also makes sense. I'm guessing he feels the game is not truly an open world but rather a multitude of large instances.

    So, this game is nothing like Skyrim or Witcher 3 with regards to an open world. However, in my opinion, that's not a reason for me to not like a game, but that is just my opinion. The fact 95% of the mobs all look the same is because of the setting / story. Again, not a reason I would fault the game.

    I agree with his score of 6/10 though but for the simple fact that single player games are using RNG loot boxes. I would rather pay $100 for a game if the developers claim they are doing it to cover increased costs. Using RNG loot boxes is a blatant show of greed and nothing more.


    You've played it? And as a result you feel like it's just a bunch of connected instances? Because I never got that out of SoM. How is it different in this game?



    No, I haven't played the sequel yet. I just figured maybe the game was instanced based off what he was saying about the world being a backdrop. I guess that will teach me to try and comprehend someone's description of a game, lol. In other news, I did find this to be funny...


    I asked because come to find out he hasn't played it either even though it certainly sounds like it from the description. So I keep hearing conflicting information about gameplay. I like this review because it focuses on how the game plays for him and his response rather than other stuff. I just want to know about the game.
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,221
    Rhoklaw said:

    Torval said:


    Rhoklaw said:


    kruler said:



    Wizardry said:


    Only two things for me,gem slots,so old now need something more creative.Skills...purchased,again an old idea that is just wrong.I guess if we wanted to akin it to learning for example Karate from some teacher you would pay but it would not be the act of paying that learns the skill which is the way some games like this are portraying it.





    Not sure what to think of the nemesis system,i don't feel it makes any sense,it is like some auto generation system?I watched some combat videos,the Ai looks really bad.





    To me the game sort of looks like a DnD design,with the auto generation,similar type world eventually i would assume the repeated models just as in the Dnd online game gets old as they look the same just using a different name tag.





    The world looks ok but like dnd online most of the world is just a fake backdrop.





    Overall i can see some fun factor ,so i understand why someone might like the game,the stealth/parkour idea is good although just like a game i play Dishonored,at times is a bit fake in that enemies don't see you when really they should.





    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.



    I had to read this twice just to make sure I understood exactly how you reviewed this game and gave it a 6/10.........I confess I am still baffled, plus comparing it to DnD online then using it is a baseline to score this game, which you have not played, is it just me or is this logic a big bowl of noodles with a whole heap of WTF sauce.


    I don't know, wasn't too hard to discern that his comparison pointed out that the orcs all look very similar. Granted there are trolls for some added variation, but I get what he's saying. As for the world being nothing more than a imaginary backdrop, that also makes sense. I'm guessing he feels the game is not truly an open world but rather a multitude of large instances.

    So, this game is nothing like Skyrim or Witcher 3 with regards to an open world. However, in my opinion, that's not a reason for me to not like a game, but that is just my opinion. The fact 95% of the mobs all look the same is because of the setting / story. Again, not a reason I would fault the game.

    I agree with his score of 6/10 though but for the simple fact that single player games are using RNG loot boxes. I would rather pay $100 for a game if the developers claim they are doing it to cover increased costs. Using RNG loot boxes is a blatant show of greed and nothing more.


    You've played it? And as a result you feel like it's just a bunch of connected instances? Because I never got that out of SoM. How is it different in this game?



    No, I haven't played the sequel yet. I just figured maybe the game was instanced based off what he was saying about the world being a backdrop. I guess that will teach me to try and comprehend someone's description of a game, lol. In other news, I did find this to be funny...

    I love the clueless gamer.
    RhoklawAllerleirauhOctagon7711



  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 15,052
    Grunty said:
    Sovrath said:
    Wizardry said:


    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.
    How can you actually rate something without playing it?
    Only gamers do this. I have never heard once in my life anyone renders an opinion regarding a music they haven't heard or movie they haven't seen. 

    ...
    You've never hung out with car people.  

    Hahaha... I can almost hear Monster Truck Announcer's voice... "SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY! Ford vs Chevy! TRUCK-A-SAURUS! MOOOOONNNNSTER TRUCKS! Be there race day!" (cuz he announces in allcaps with exclamation marks :wink: )
    The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Howard Blake, Peter Auty (vocalist)
    Album: The Snowman
    Featured Tracks: Walking in the Air
  • CazrielCazriel San Francisco, CAMember UncommonPosts: 246

    Grunty said:




    Sovrath said:


    Wizardry said:





    Where would i rate it...hmmm well i don't feel that it looks good enough to warrant a purchase,it looks ok but again similar to dnd online,i played a bit but got bored soon after.I'd give it a 6/10.


    How can you actually rate something without playing it?


    Only gamers do this. I have never heard once in my life anyone renders an opinion regarding a music they haven't heard or movie they haven't seen. 

    ...


    You've never hung out with car people.  



    Or movie people. If you've never seen/heard an opinion about a movie by someone who hasn't seen it, then your friends/acquaintances are kind indeed. In any event, opinions are just like that, forming in a void of uncertainty and prejudice just waiting for the right moment to spring fully formed into the world.
    Octagon7711
Sign In or Register to comment.