Shadow of Mordor

What does Sup Forums think of this game?

I just 100% it and I thought it was a lot of fun, only part I didn't like was the main storyline.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=6AV9W2ZdmjU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

an utterly mediocre open world slogfest whose only saving grace is a seemingly inventive mechanic that's so flawed you have to sit and advance time 600 times to make the uruks a challenge.

a good but fundamentally flawed game with a cool innovative system and a refreshingly tight focus on the core gameplay

sums it up
never understood why it exploded in popularity so fucking much

I enjoyed the gameplay but its horribly repetitive and boring.
And painfully dull to look at, like they were trying to out bland the aesthetic of Skyrim.

It's mindless mashy fun in short bursts so long as you know that's what you're getting

Fun killing things but collectibles are fucking awful.
6/10

This. It's crap and a spits on the original story.

Warner Bros have the rights to the film games and could create a game covering middle earth. Instead they have a crappy combat, a tiny repetitive world map (Mordor) and a story that is the worst fanfic ever written.

It was only popular at all because the year it came out was barren of any decent games whatsoever. Having played it it felt like an indie game or a mod. The story, the gameplay was so shallow and lacking.

It was great for screenshots.

...

it's built around western games' biggest and best contribution to the industry in the last ten years (arkham combat) and it doesn't waste too much of your time with bullshit like wraith vision, useless tutorials and having little towns or whatever

plus the nemesis system is cool despite the game being unchallenging, it's cool to discover the different personalities of uruks whether or not they're hard to kill

the lack of challenge is a huge flaw, sure, but it's a genuinely focused game and despite what Sup Forums would have you believe not everyone hates the style of combat it's focused on

...

Can't argue with this.

I'd actually be interested in what a proper developer does with the Nemesis system.

yeah, shallowness really defines a bad game, just like mario and doom and tetris and pac-man and all those terrible games

they need to stop fuicking around and add extensive RPG elements already

literally the ONLY good thing that came of this game was the screenshot feature that they also added to mad max and bamham tank sim. more games should have this integrated.

...

IT
CRASHES
ALL
THE
TIME

muh 50+ year old original story

why are you lotr fans so autistic? nobody complains when games endlessly reinterpret nietzsche in crude ways or whatever

Haha wow yeah pong is totally the best game of all time. It's story is just incredible and it's depth is up there with the likes of Red Dead and Witcher 3.

I've replayed it an unreasonable amount of times. On an average playthrough, I'll fuck around, get killed, and play all the main missions up until the first part of Lord of Mordor.

I just thought it was fucking boring, you know? I'm a huge casual, I'm actually the target audience of this game. I like Assassin's Creed and the Batman games.

But this one just felt so barren, there's nothing for me to see or do. It's just about bashing Uruks in their heads and that's really it. I wonder what kind of reception it would've gotten without the nemesis system, which I have to admit is kinda cool.

Maybe Shadow of War will hold my interest more than just 2 hours like this one.

Haven't played SoM, so i don't fully understand the Nemesis system, but i want to see it in the new Bamham i know they will announce in the next E3.

well rumors did mention that they are actually using it for the next Batman game

If you don't care about LOTR then why does it need to be a LOTR game in the first place?
The films have given a vast array of resources to draw from yet these hacks write shitty fan fic literally on the level of a 5 year old and stick it on their crappy game. Then they get shill such as yourselves to defend it. Or are you so autistic you defend it of you own volition?

I hope they are true, but some of them have already being debunked, like Arkham Insurgency. Shame, 'cause i liked the idea.

nice strawman retard, I didn't say all simple games are automatically the best games of all time, I mentioned examples of simple games which are excellent as a counterpoint to your retarded "muh shallowness" argument

also the games you're choosing to represent as supreme examples of deep story are disgusting

Insurgency was just some faggot making shit up which somehow managed to hit the news, the Damian Wayne shit sounds legit since it's got cunts from Kotaku and other sites backing it up, and Kotaku never lies about new games

>and best contribution to the industry in the last ten years (arkham combat)
industry must be in the shits then

>they need to stop fuicking around and add extensive RPG elements already
the irony

I really enjoy fucking with the Nemesis System. I hate that you can't brand until basically the end of the game. Otherwise its just a bland open world action game.
Going to have to make meaningful changes to the Nemesis System for me to even pirate the sequel.

>Batman: Arkham combat is bad

My least favorite Sup Forums meme.

it comes down to whether you'd prefer to keep a tight focus on what's actually good, or whether you'd prefer to arbitrarily switch things up because you're so overstimulated that you can't enjoy a simple game

Mordor's strength is precisely in its simplicity

because the iconography is cool and it doesn't have to waste time establishing the world or why you should care about anything in it, also because people like the universe and know what it is so they'll buy the game

you might as well complain that people use nazis as a shorthand for bad guys instead of painstakingly establishing their own fiction in a game that doesn't call for it

if the Glorks came to kill your wife and afterwards they went back to the Glork Plains and you got possessed by the Hallano spirit so you could get revenge on the Glork King the game wouldn't be as compelling

it's literally made for the lowest common denominator
it's entirely style over substance

the west hasn't really done much for gaming in the past 10 years yeah but at least we have the souls games from the east

I'm aware the sequel is doing exactly that, and it's going to be a worse game and lose its unique strength in the market

it's more ironic because the original game already did that, it's only getting worse in the second

>it's entirely style over substance

and? how is that any different from 99% of things in the industry?

at least arkham combat is actually successful at being stylish

I wouldn't say an upgrade tree the game doesn't even seem to be designed to accommodate qualifies as 'extensive' RPG elements

>not everyone hates the style of combat it's focused on

Whether or not it's hated is irrelevant, the combat is just bad. It's soulless and not at all stimulating, and is pretty much made to be all spectacle.

You're perfectly within your rights to enjoy it, but don't act surprised when people point out how shit it is.

because even shitsouls is better than this garbage at having some depth, bamham combat is just polished up asscreed combat
and if you're saying the industry as games as a whole, then you're literally only looking at the surface

It's a good example of a 6/10 game. Has good elements but it's very forgettable.
>fun combat, but not challenging at all
>shit story that's a disgrace to LotR
>good looking graphics
>interesting nemesis gimmick that just isn't deep enough to stay interesting

I don't know what you mean by "soulless", I don't think combat in videogames has a soul

it's stimulating precisely because it's a spectacle, it's visceral and visually striking to slice the heads off uruks

saying arkham combat is polished up assassin's creed combat isn't an argument against it

you're right about only looking at the surface though, I don't really bother with the hundreds of bad indie games that are released every week

>if the writers bothered to create their own world, introducing their own characters, factions, locations and historical events, the game wouldn't be as compelling

This is absolute shit tier logic. You're arguing for the death of originality.

how is it not when asscreed has one of the worst combat systems devised
it's devised to be so that anybody can win with no effort, its been like that since the series started
>you're right about only looking at the surface though
that was pretty obvious when you're praising garbage like bamham combat and asscreed combat

What i like about it is it's efficiency (i love cuhrazyness like everyone else, but i love even more how Batman takes down the crowd in the fastest way possible, with semi realistic martial arts moves) and "elegance" (one button for attack, one for counterattack, you don't need more).

I agree that it's easy, but it doesn't have to be like that, they could make it less braindead with a few tweaks, but they won't since they aim these games to casuals, for ensure more sales.

it wouldn't be as compelling, no, because the entire setup for the game lasts about two minutes (mercifully) and it's almost completely gameplay focused. the intention with this game was never to tell the best story in the world or explore the little known bits of the universe, it's a game about slicing heads off uruks. do you think doom would be better if it painstakingly developed its own fiction instead of just using demons from hell? no nigger because the strength of doom is completely opposed to wasting time on that kind of bullshit

>how is it not when asscreed has one of the worst combat systems devised
it's devised to be so that anybody can win with no effort, its been like that since the series started

it being easy doesn't automatically make it bad

>that was pretty obvious when you're praising garbage like bamham combat and asscreed combat

yeah I'm sure if I played the new release on steam 'NEKO-NIN exHeart' I'd find much more compelling gameplay

>I don't know what you mean by "soulless"

I guess what I mean is that it doesn't ever feel like I'm playing Shadow of Mordor. I'm just playing Arkham City with orcs. The game doesn't stand out has having its own identity, because everything it has is just carbon copied from another game.

>it's stimulating precisely because it's a spectacle

I don't know, I'm not exactly entertained by something as simple as flashing lights and loud noises - SoM is barely a step above that.

Like I said, it's okay to enjoy that type of stuff. But it's pretty disingenuous to argue that the game is made to appeal to anyone other than kids and dudebros.

>it being easy doesn't automatically make it bad
being so easy you can play it without watching the game does
destiny's a complete faggot but his video is on point
youtube.com/watch?v=6AV9W2ZdmjU
>yeah I'm sure if I played the new release on steam 'NEKO-NIN exHeart' I'd find much more compelling gameplay
maybe you would but i don't play weebshit

>the intention with this game was never to tell the best story in the world or explore the little known bits of the universe, it's a game about slicing heads off uruks

And if slicing heads off uruks was fun and interesting, I could give accept that. But it isn't, so what the fuck is the appeal of the game?

I'm not gonna give the devs credit for trying and failing.

How hard is it to set up something like the Nemesis system anyway? I have a feeling it's going to be a very long time before we see something like it outside of WB properties, which is a shame because Shadow of Mordor is pretty bare-bones outside of it. Shadow of War seems to be expanding on the system in interesting ways, but I'd really like to see it in other games.

>being so easy you can play it without watching the game does

no it doesn't, and you can't really play it without watching anyway because the game requires spatial awareness to progress (like you need to go towards your objective, actually do whatever the objective is, and occasionally the nemesis system or boss encounters will prevent you from spamming those chain kills and dodge)

>defending a game so easy you can turn the monitor off and still win
you're just being contrarian at this point

it is fun, but you're probably right about it being not interesting

at least after a while, because initially the nemesis system is very interesting to play around with

>it is fun

Maybe for kids, I suppose.

The combat is so incredibly simplistic that I'm amazed anyone with half a brain can enjoy it. Even fighting a legendary warchief only elevates the game from being an outright chore to simply boring.

if you have the upgrade that allows you to chain execute enemies you can kill a bunch of standard enemies fairly reliably without looking

so?

That's not Bamham and you know it. Either you keep pressing the triangle button and don't end that fight ever (or die, if the enemies have shields, knifes or stun batons) or keep pressing square and die.

>what does Sup Forums think of this game?

Who cares what Sup Forums thinks? They spent months hyping utter dog-shit like Dark Souls 2.

the combat in super mario bros. is pretty simplistic as well my dude

it's also not exactly hard to slice people up in metal gear rising when you're in ~cut anything~ mode but that's a highlight of the gameplay

challenge doesn't automatically equal quality, and complexity definitely doesn't automatically equal quality

I just borrowed it from a friend I enjoyed it. 100% and got the Platinum trophy in like a week or two.

This baka desu senpai. Fuck Sup Forums in his tight ass.

Shadow of Mordor is the best Assassin's Creed

It would be if Black Flag didn't exist.

>the combat in super mario bros. is pretty simplistic as well my dude

And the combat (such as it is) is not the focus of Super Mario Bros, you dummy, the platforming is.

You're claiming that the majority of the development effort revolved around making the fighting in SoM enjoyable, at the expense of other parts. But what we got was more indicative of a development team spreading it's focus across several different aspects of the game. As a result, nothing (especially the combat) is particularly noteworthy. Threads like these are particularly telling - you'll notice that nobody ever says why the combat in SoM is good, they'll just say "Well I think it's fun so there" or "The Arkham games do the same thing."

If you can't defend a game using its own merits, then the game isn't worth defending.

>challenge doesn't automatically equal quality, and complexity definitely doesn't automatically equal quality

Agreed, but in the case of Shadow of Mordor we got
>no challenge
>no complexity
>low quality
so what point are you trying to make here, exactly?

it's not low quality at all though, it's flashy and visceral as fuck

>flashy and visceral as fuck

That means nothing - if I can get the same experience from watching a video on youtube, then it's a failure as a game.

Don't tell me why it looks good, tell me why it plays good.

Neither of those are an indicator of quality. In fact, 9 times out of 10, "Flashy" is an indicator of a low quality product.