Shadow of Mordor (Shadow of War)

SolvableKnave

gizmo wrote: »

Given that emotions tend to run high in this debate I feel the need to preface my reply with saying I'm not defending this stuff, I'm simply pointing out the reasoning behind it and who it generally appeals to rather than grabbing the closest pitchfork.

I never thought you where defending it, I just think arguments like the below to be hollow arguments.

gizmo wrote: »

For people who don't want to invest the time into unlocking and/or acquiring said resources/content.

If a person can't be ar5ed to play through a SP campaign without MT's then I don't know what to say. It's not a race to the end. Just enjoy the journey. So they've only a couple hours a week to play, would you NOT make sure that you got enjoyment out of playing, instead of buying your way through it?

I really don't think alot of posters understand the main issues with loot boxes....having patience is not an acceptable reason to take this in a single player game.

The main problem is what is essentially is in-game gambling.
You see the problems it causes in F2P games on mobile, PC & console platforms.
Now it's weened it's way into single player games which you have already paid full price for and people will still defend it.

gizmo

Penn wrote: »

The issue though is where it does affect people that these boosters/unlocks don't appeal to; the grind. The appeal of the unlocks/boosters/whatever is so you don't have to spend time searching for things, or doing side missions, or levelling up normally, because that would take too long and you either don't have time or don't want to invest that time.

But that tends to mean that in order to make those items more appealing, they stretch things out for everyone else. Levelling up takes longer. Having to repeat largely the same actions or go up against the same enemies repeatedly. Making the best orcs harder to find or more rare, while also dangling them in front of your face in the in-game shop/market.

Proof will obviously be in the pudding and it'll only be when the game is released that it can be determined how well it has actually been balanced between those who don't want to use/buy chest and stuff, but these things, especially when they're related to items which affect gameplay as opposed to cosmetics, are designed to encourage people to buy them. And the way to do that with the most amount of people is to increase the grind and make them want to skip it. And that's tantamount to saying that the game isn't worth the effort it would take to get those items naturally through gameplay, because the cost of buying the items monetarily is less than the time and effort it would take playing the actual game.

Yup, as I said above, if the core game play loop is negatively effected by the addition of these unlocks/boosters then they can, to be blunt, get ****ed. And yes, you're completely right, we need to see how it turns out. As Retro said above we also unfortunately can't rely on statements made from Monolith in this respect because they'll be required to toe the publisher line either way.

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Hellblade is proof that if you don't get into bed with an absolutely abhorrent publisher and throw most of your budget at marketing.
You can make a game not only within the scope of a "Current AAA RRP of €70" (which is a €10 rise over the RRP a few years ago fwiw) but you can sell one at less than half that, and have success

Going the route of signing to be published by Activision, WB Games etc means your integrity as a developer gets compromised as you find "other revenue streams" to ensure you can justify €40 of your €70 game paying for some advertising and marketing

Hellblade worked for two reasons though. Ninja Theory have worked with publishers enough in the past that they've been able to build and fund a studio with a small experienced team to work on such a high quality independent release. Additionally the game is, by their own admission, half the length of the average AAA release which allowed them to also sell it for a considerably lower price than one would usually expect.

While I get your second point, it's still worth noting that, in the case of Shadow of War, Monolith didn't sign with WB, they're a wholly owned subsidiary.

jcd5971

M!Ck^ wrote:

What of people with gambling addictions? The fact that loot boxes are random is even worse. Why not allow the consumer to pick exactly what they pay for to boost them through the game then? No, the publishers want you to spunk money randomly so you spend more and more in the hope that with a bit of luck you eventually get what you want. That's how gambling works.

There is a legitimate argument to be made about micro-transactions

Gambling addiction is not a strong one, almost every large franchise now has some form of micro transactions, and I don't see how its upto them to defend addict's, to be honest that's their problem not developers, regardless of how cold that sounds, games are marketed at the majority not the minority who can't say no to a loot box.


In gaming for example the third dead space got it very wrong whilst the blizzard game overwatch got it right, blizzard incidentally made many missteps launching diablo 3 using real world currency systems in game.

Multiplayer in mass effect 3 and Andromeda both let you buy packs that dropped better weapons and character classes, in 3 there was little said about it but in Andromeda it was roundly castigated as anti-consumer.
Multiplayer in both of these titles was co-op rather than player Vs player.

Fifa ultimate team has spawned an entire division based on the revenue it generates for EA.
And is by and large accepted by the public.

Even rockstar have gotten in on the action GTA V actually this year surpassed sales of the game itself in online transactions making half a billion dollars.

It is widely speculated that, this was one of the leading reasons for no single player dlc being created despite previous titles having multiple expansions.


Point is whether you agree or not micro transactions are here to stay.

EoinMcLovin

Review Embargo just lifted
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/middle-earth-shadow-of-war/critic-reviews

Game Informer -9.5
GamesRadar - 90
IGN -90
DualShocker -85
USgamer -80
Push Square -80
Polygon - 75
GameSpot -70

gizmo

SolvableKnave wrote: »

I never thought you where defending it, I just think arguments like the below to be hollow arguments.

It was more of a general point but cheers nonetheless.

SolvableKnave wrote: »

If a person can't be ar5ed to play through a SP campaign without MT's then I don't know what to say. It's not a race to the end. Just enjoy the journey. So they've only a couple hours a week to play, would you NOT make sure that you got enjoyment out of playing, instead of buying your way through it?

Personally I totally agree and would never have even considered that point of view until I heard it myself from other folk. It just gave me a different perspective on the topic although one can still argue that you can provide these kinds of options for free without resorting to paid options.

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I really don't think alot of posters understand the main issues with loot boxes....having patience is not an acceptable reason to take this in a single player game.

The main problem is what is essentially is in-game gambling.
You see the problems it causes in F2P games on mobile, PC & console platforms.
Now it's weened it's way into single player games which you have already paid full price for and people will still defend it.

Most of my points above relate to the Warchest mechanic in the game, the one where you buy specific items in-game, rather than the loot boxes.

Loot boxes themselves aren't something I approve of in general and share your opinion that if you want people to purchase additional content then just let them buy it. Overwatch is the only game I play which features them and I would never ever consider buying them in any quantity. I view them as rewards you get for accomplishments in game which drip feed the additional aesthetic content during play. If I wanted to give Blizzard more money over time for the extra content they've added since release this certainly isn't the means I would use.

Penn

M!Ck^ wrote: »

I really don't think alot of posters understand the main issues with loot boxes....having patience is not an acceptable reason to take this in a single player game.

The main problem is what is essentially is in-game gambling.
You see the problems it causes in F2P games on mobile, PC & console platforms.
Now it's weened it's way into single player games which you have already paid full price for and people will still defend it.

Again, I think when done in the form that Overwatch do it (not that it's a perfect system either) where the items are purely cosmetic or superficial, and for duplicate items you get currency to buy the items you actually do want, then I have no objection to those types of Lootboxes. To me, that's a fair system (especially once Blizzard reduced the chances of getting duplicate items and increased the currency you get for duplicates).

When they affect gameplay, they can get f*cked.

Generic Dreadhead

Valid point on Monolith, but mine was more so a overarching point regarding the argument of "€70 is not enough to make a profitable game these days"... that statement is nonsense when ~50% of your money is spent on marketing. Bungie got into bed with Activision, so I'm not simply aiming that at Monolith and WB Games

But... where you are getting "half the length of a AAA game" I don't know, I mean in a vague sense I understand it's short, but there's not some Gaming Regulation Body saying "€70 must equal >16 hours", many games with under 10 hour campaigns have come out and still were seen as value/worth it

SolvableKnave

jcd5971 wrote: »

blizzard game overwatch got it right, blizzard incidentally made many missteps launching diablo 3 using real world currency systems in game.

Blizzard REALLY fecked up with the RMAH in Diablo 3. They where hounded for it and they, eventually, listened.

jcd5971

jcd5971 wrote: »

TPoint is whether you agree or not micro transactions are here to stay.

Oh I agree. No doubt in mind they are.
When people are willing to accept them and buy the games anyway that's the nod for the publishers to continue.

jcd5971

SolvableKnave wrote:

Blizzard REALLY fecked up with the RMAH in Diablo 3. They where hounded for it and they, eventually, listened.

I know that's why I said it :-)

Digital Solitude

jcd5971 wrote: »

There is a legitimate argument to be made about micro-transactions

Gambling addiction is not a strong one, almost every large franchise now has some form of micro transactions, and I don't see how its upto them to defend addict's, to be honest that's their problem not developers, regardless of how cold that sounds, games are marketed at the majority not the minority who can't say no to a loot box.


In gaming for example the third dead space got it very wrong whilst the blizzard game overwatch got it right, blizzard incidentally made many missteps launching diablo 3 using real world currency systems in game.

Multiplayer in mass effect 3 and Andromeda both let you buy packs that dropped better weapons and character classes, in 3 there was little said about it but in Andromeda it was roundly castigated as anti-consumer.
Multiplayer in both of these titles was co-op rather than player Vs player.

Fifa ultimate team has spawned an entire division based on the revenue it generates for EA.
And is by and large accepted by the public.

Even rockstar have gotten in on the action GTA V actually this year surpassed sales of the game itself in online transactions making half a billion dollars.

It is widely speculated that, this was one of the leading reasons for no single player dlc being created despite previous titles having multiple expansions.


Point is whether you agree or not micro transactions are here to stay.

So we should lie down a take it? Can't wait until its the norm to pay €60 for the games menus and €10 a pop for each level, sure that's just the ways games are these days.

Its not up to companies to defend addicts, but how many people are subconsciously gambling hundreds away on FUT packs, not realising they're actually gambling? Same goes for any lootbox based system, you're buying something hoping to get what you want, with no guarantee. There's no term for that but gambling.

Never played GTAV but from what I've seen, people buy the Shark Cards because the higher tier stuff is basically impossible to get through grinding, and the prices of the cards are steadily increasing. The online is seemingly designed around getting people to pay instead of to play.

What's your legitimate argument for MTs anyways?

Polygon the only reviewer it seems calling it out. IGN barely mention it....

And here you go, purposely stinting progression in the game as expected.

"The bigger and more pressing problem with Shadow Wars is that it’s the main home of one of Shadow of War’s more controversial additions to the first game’s formula: microtransactions. Technically, you can jump into the marketplace and purchase loot chests earlier in the game, but there’s really no pull to do so during the main campaign. You can find plenty of nice armor and weapons and all the orcs you need by playing regularly.

SHADOW OF WAR’S MICROTRANSACTIONS FEEL AT LEAST GREEDY IF NOT PREDATORY
In Shadow Wars, however, things get more complicated. With all other side content drained, the only thing left to do is to play fortress defense missions (and collect more orcs to help with more fortress defense missions). Finding powerful orcs becomes the be-all, end-all focus of the game, and the easiest way to find powerful orcs is, cynically, to purchase them. The cheapest chest on the marketplace (which offers the barest guarantees on the quality of allies you unlock) can be purchased using the in-game money Talion picks up. That money also buys upgrades to your fortresses, though, and between the two I spent all 60,000 or 70,000 coins I had gathered over the course of the campaign in a few hours.

When you run out of in-game money, you have two choices: Make a huge time investment by hunting down orcs in your game world and earning chests via vendetta missions, or spend some real money to get the more powerful orcs you need now. Does the game ever force you to spend money? No. I’m sure you can get to the end of Shadow Wars without spending a dime, as long as you’re patient and persistent. But locking progress through this mode (and, again, toward the game’s true ending) behind either spending more money or doing tons of tedious busywork feels at least greedy if not predatory."

johnny_ultimate

There are more and better ways to deal with people who don't have the time to play a 40+ hour game than charging them for the privilege of speeding through it. Rockstar have 'skip mission' buttons; Nintendo introduced various generous shortcuts for those stuck on a level; fast forward mode in JRPGs like Bravely Default etc... Of course, one of the best solutions is simply to design a game that doesn't waste the player's time in the first place - there are tonnes of widespread 'content' indulgences that could be easily cut across most AAA games (I'd point to South Park: The Stick of Truth to show what can be done when you largely cut the grind and repetition out of an RPG, for example - made me wonder why other games don't do it more often!).

If there's an argument that any of the above alter the nature of the intended experience... well IMO that's less so than charging for the privilege of giving a player a shortcut As I've suggested before, monetising mechanics or systems is always a deeply flawed and cynical concept: even if it doesn't alter the intended flow, its mere presence (often inescapable reminders in menus, for example) undermines the game's artistic value. And yes, even the biggest of AAA games have some sort of artistic value that can be compromised

gizmo

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

Valid point on Monolith, but mine was more so a overarching point regarding the argument of "€70 is not enough to make a profitable game these days"... that statement is nonsense when ~50% of your money is spent on marketing. Bungie got into bed with Activision, so I'm not simply aiming that at Monolith and WB Games

Apologies if this comes across as pedantic but there's a few issues with the €70 figure. Firstly, out of total sales for most titles, only a small percentage will be at the highest level of RRP. Even at launch larger retailers will have applied a discount and then, as we've seen more in recent years, the price often falls dramatically within a couple of months. That figure also doesn't account for either the cut taken by the physical or digital distributor which can be up to 30% as we're aware.

Marketing, as loathsome as I find it, is also a necessary evil due to the costs issue discussed above. Ultimately, when you're dealing with mega budget games they need to expand their potential audience to sell as many copies as possible which means you need to get as many eyes on your release as possible. This kind of advertising isn't cheap no matter which way you look at it. Generally speaking though, marketing costs will scale with the size of the production so we're not likely to see Destiny-scale marketing and its associated costs applied to a smaller title such as Hellblade.

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

But... where you are getting "half the length of a AAA game" I don't know, I mean in a vague sense I understand it's short, but there's not some Gaming Regulation Body saying "€70 must equal >16 hours", many games with under 10 hour campaigns have come out and still were seen as value/worth it

I meant purely from a development cycle context and the assumption that longer games will require more content to be generated for them which can increase development costs dramatically.

gizmo

To follow up on what Mick posted above and since I didn't know that Shadow Wars was the games fourth act....

First, it’s not just postgame content. While the main plot of Shadow of War wraps up in relatively tidy fashion before act four begins, Monolith has confirmed that there is a “true ending” hidden behind Shadow Wars. I love the idea of offering dozens of hours of grindy yet fun content for players who really adore this game to sink their teeth into. But that works better as an option rather than a looming obligation for completionists. Having the game’s real finale locked away behind those dozens of hours — hours that, while fun, are devoid of story missions, side quests, cutscenes or other distractions that help mix up the pace — is a disappointment.

Emphasis mine so unless that particular ending is completely throwaway, as I said above, get ****ed.

Kiith

They hid the "true" ending behind 200 Riddler trophies in Arkham Knight, which was total bull****. Better not be the same thing here.

Kiith

Kiith wrote: »

They hid the "true" ending behind 200 Riddler trophies in Arkham Knight, which was total bull****. Better not be the same thing here.

It is.

jcd5971

Digital Solitude wrote:

What's your legitimate argument for MTs anyways?

I don't have one I think their nonsense. And I won't be buying any in this game either nor did I buy any in mass effect nor gtav even overwatch , I think I posted a pic in the overwatch psn group we have they guys were on about lootboxes and I had 90 something unopened, ones you get just for playing.

I just laid out a post showing how they are rampant rather than coming across as an apologist for wb.

I suppose my opinion on micro transactions is I don't care really.

Penn

gizmo wrote: »

To follow up on what Mick posted above and since I didn't know that Shadow Wars was the games fourth act....


Emphasis mine so unless that particular ending is completely throwaway, as I said above, get ****ed.

Better buy a load of lootboxes to make the endgame easier and quicker watch the true ending on Youtube

kunst nugget

M!Ck^ wrote: »

It is.

I think that would be the final nail in the coffin for me. I was never going to be using microtransactions in the game and I was iffy about the game in terms of grinding my way through the single player campaign but locking the true ending behind a slogfest of superfluous content like Arkham Knight. I don't think I'll bother…

Generic Dreadhead

F**king hell Warner Bros are so f**king clueless it's actually cringeworthy embarrassing.

Did they not learn from that Riddle "True Ending" mess the last time?

J. Marston

Flicking through the reviews here...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/74fuv1/middleearth_shadow_of_war_review_thread/

and I'm seeing phrases like...

It's a massive game with so much to do that it can feel like a bit of a grind later in the game.

Middle-earth: Shadow of War is massive, yet at the same time a prime example of a sequel that's bigger, but not necessarily any better than the original.

Shadow Wars seems set to provide a much meatier extended playtime than Shadow of Mordor ever offered.

The nemesis system shines in this unwieldy, bloated, and occasionally magnificent fantasy epic.

A huge Lord of the Rings experience that's always enjoyable, although its scale leaves it straining at the seams at times

It's a gigantic time-sink of a game that's well worth your time and attention.

it's a gargantuan sequel in both size and scope.

Wasn't going to buy it anyway but those reviews have put me off it anyway.

Mickeroo

Those reviews seem unanimously positive?

Kiith

Yeah, they all seem pretty positive. I know some people prefer smaller tighter games these days, but this was always going to be bigger than the original.

Generic Dreadhead

I genuinely liked the 1st cause it was short personally. I knew this was gonna be bigger. Just hope it's not a jump from 16hours to 40hours tbh

Mickeroo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Those reviews seem unanimously positive?

If grinding and bloated is your idea of being fun.....

J. Marston

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

I genuinely liked the 1st cause it was short personally. I knew this was gonna be bigger. Just hope it's not a jump from 16hours to 40hours tbh

Well, the phrase "Gigantic time sink of a game" was used.

Generic Dreadhead

Well to be fair, I changed from "Day 1 pre-order" on this to "Maybe pick it up at X-mass" so will check HLTB to see what the consensus is

Generic Dreadhead

Video Review by Gamespot