Middle-earth: Shadow of War - PC, PS4, XB - Free update will remove gold, war chests and market

...fair point.

Doesn't seem like anyone here gives much of a strawberry float how well (or not) the game plays. I'll buy this game if it's A Good Game. If it's Not A Good Game I will not buy this game.

Having played the original, twice for some reason, I can only see myself playing if it's *exceptional*. (So EG Essential, Metro GC 9 and Edge 9.) Adding in the whole lootbox and Shelob gooseberry fool has just made that a much more difficult line for it to cross. Also, I've kind of had my fill of the AC clone gameplay type.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Gently-Parted Ringpiece wrote:Correct me if Im wrong here, but the books do indicate that she is more than a spider. She definitely isnt a semi-sexy woman, but shes an old spirit on the level of Balrogs and Wizards who has chosen to take the form of a bad bastard arachnid. If its not in the primary text it is for sure in the apendices.

Still not a woman, but not a 'big spider'.

The Eurogamer article states that her sire was this, a spirit who chose the form of a big ass spider, but it seems to be unclear...


What the strawberry float am I writing. It's a shitty decision based on ambiguity in the books and is completely out of keeping with the setting.

The books are not really ambiguous. Shelob is a giant spider. Shelob's mother was Ungoliant, who was an evil spirit but I am not aware of Ungoliant ever being in any form other than a giant spider.

The Elf ghost thing was silly, but that was a new character. Shelob is an established character that they are turning into a human for some bizarre reason ("make her a sexy lady with knockers!!!"). It would be like Smaug being in it but for some reason is now a Hobbit instead of a dragon.

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Gently-Parted Ringpiece wrote:Correct me if Im wrong here, but the books do indicate that she is more than a spider. She definitely isnt a semi-sexy woman, but shes an old spirit on the level of Balrogs and Wizards who has chosen to take the form of a bad bastard arachnid. If its not in the primary text it is for sure in the apendices.

Still not a woman, but not a 'big spider'.

The Eurogamer article states that her sire was this, a spirit who chose the form of a big ass spider, but it seems to be unclear...


What the strawberry float am I writing. It's a shitty decision based on ambiguity in the books and is completely out of keeping with the setting.

The books are not really ambiguous. Shelob is a giant spider. Shelob's mother was Ungoliant, who was an evil spirit but I am not aware of Ungoliant ever being in any form other than a giant spider.

The Elf ghost thing was silly, but that was a new character. Shelob is an established character that they are turning into a human for some bizarre reason ("make her a sexy lady with knockers!!!"). It would be like Smaug being in it but for some reason is now a Hobbit instead of a dragon.

Nah, Celebrimbor is in the books:

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Celebrimbor (unless you mean Talion ofc)

But I get your point. It's utter nonsense.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Gently-Parted Ringpiece wrote:Correct me if Im wrong here, but the books do indicate that she is more than a spider. She definitely isnt a semi-sexy woman, but shes an old spirit on the level of Balrogs and Wizards who has chosen to take the form of a bad bastard arachnid. If its not in the primary text it is for sure in the apendices.

Still not a woman, but not a 'big spider'.

The Eurogamer article states that her sire was this, a spirit who chose the form of a big ass spider, but it seems to be unclear...


What the strawberry float am I writing. It's a shitty decision based on ambiguity in the books and is completely out of keeping with the setting.

The books are not really ambiguous. Shelob is a giant spider. Shelob's mother was Ungoliant, who was an evil spirit but I am not aware of Ungoliant ever being in any form other than a giant spider.

The Elf ghost thing was silly, but that was a new character. Shelob is an established character that they are turning into a human for some bizarre reason ("make her a sexy lady with knockers!!!"). It would be like Smaug being in it but for some reason is now a Hobbit instead of a dragon.

Nah, Celebrimbor is in the books:

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Celebrimbor (unless you mean Talion ofc)

But I get your point. It's utter nonsense.

I did mean the main character, I couldn't even remember his name until I looked it up, let alone remember he was a Ranger and not an Elf.

He is the blandest main character in years. In a game that, orcs aside, looked incredibly bland anyway he stuck out as looking as bland as a bland thing in a bland shop on planet Bland.

I didn't mind his blandness, it let me completely ignore who he was while I went off slaughtering orcs.

Oh yeah, the game knew where it's strength was and ran wild with it.

That Shelob thing is funny. Tolkien would be spinning in his grave.

Squinty wrote:That Shelob thing is funny. Tolkien would be spinning in his grave.

He died in 1973. I am not sure he would even understand what this videogame nonsense was.

jiggles wrote:Doesn't seem like anyone here gives much of a strawberry float how well (or not) the game plays. I'll buy this game if it's A Good Game. If it's Not A Good Game I will not buy this game.

How can we? All we have to go on is a constant stream of terribad announcements because its not out yet. From the video footage it looks like it will play a lot like the last one, but all the lootbox talk etc is a part of that - it is likely to the point of certainty that the game will be skewed to make buying boxes as appealing as possible; all the hand-wringing statements about "its optional, you don't have to buy it" is an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes about how grindy and padded out the game will be to get people to open their wallet. One of the closing points in Jim Sterling's video is that if the developers are so keen to sell you ways to avoid playing the game or boost you through it, maybe its not worth playing in the first place.

Trelliz wrote:From the video footage it looks like it will play a lot like the last one, but all the lootbox talk etc is a part of that - it is likely to the point of certainty that the game will be skewed to make buying boxes as appealing as possible; all the hand-wringing statements about "its optional, you don't have to buy it" is an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes about how grindy and padded out the game will be to get people to open their wallet.

Here's my point: All this thread has been lately is a bunch of knee-jerk reactions by people who hear something like "paid loot boxes" and draw their own conclusions because those words are bad. The implementation in this game is obviously, obviously, likely to the point of certainty, the most exploitative mess you could imagine because... uh....

Also, maybe I'm misremembering Shadow of Mordor, but I don't recall much of the game centering around an extensive squad-management system of recruiting and fleshing out an army to lay siege to enemy strongholds in large-scale battles. Sure, the single combat parts look like they control the same on the surface, but to say that this game looks like it's going to play a lot like the last one is as reductionist as saying Football Manager and Excel are basically the same thing.

Trelliz wrote: One of the closing points in Jim Sterling's video is that if the developers are so keen to sell you ways to avoid playing the game or boost you through it, maybe its not worth playing in the first place.

Yeah, and that point stuck out in my mind at the time as weak. Something taking a long time doesn't make it inherently unenjoyable. And neither does someone with limited time wishing to skip it to get to the highlights. Yes, it could be that it is an unfun slog without paying, or it could be that there's no grinding really necessary to beat the game. I don't know either way, and neither does Jim strawberry floating Sterling Son. But his "brand" is that he gets in a right old state at gaming publishers. He won't take any of their gooseberry fool, and that's what his audience expect. Doesn't matter if it's an unfounded conclusion being drawn, as long as he drops a sweet zinger. That's what keeps his Patreons subscribing.

For the record, I do think that WB are one of the worst AAA publishers around today. But they do put out some very good games, and the last game of theirs that was rammed full of random loot crates (Injustice 2) didn't suffer for it, and wasn't exploitative at all.

Not that any of that has any bearing on how invasive they are here, or how good the game will be. But then again, nobody in this thread cares about either of those things.

Two of the newer videos they stuck up on their YT channel:

Moggy wrote:

Squinty wrote:That Shelob thing is funny. Tolkien would be spinning in his grave.

He died in 1973. I am not sure he would even understand what this videogame nonsense was.

True.

Computerised boobs would have blew his mind.

The fact the full experience costs. £90 on the PS Store as did Injustice 2 is an issue. A season pass is already planned for a game that has already seen a delay for a few months. Loot boxes, tacked on online mode and WB previous behaviour with the youtube reviews of the first gam.

The game is sadly a representation of what is wrong with AAA games publishers. I have no doubt the game will be amazing, but if people can hold out buying it or at least pre ordering it they should. As nothing makes a publisher change course like a loss of revenue.

jiggles wrote:Here's my point: All this thread has been lately is a bunch of knee-jerk reactions by people who hear something like "paid loot boxes" and draw their own conclusions because those words are bad. The implementation in this game is obviously, obviously, likely to the point of certainty, the most exploitative mess you could imagine because... uh....

Deus Ex Mankind Divided. Dead Space 3. Mortal Kombat X selling easy fatality tokens, something which used to be an game option or cheat code now being sold for real money. What links these games is a series that did well and the publishers realised they could tap the money well even harder with a sequel. Over the last few years everything from Tomb Raider and Halo to Forza has turned to the infinite money well of microtransactions, pushed to the limit of what people will bear. I suppose its that they are an overt reminder that games are there to make money, breaking the suspension of disbelief of developers/publishers being our friends, an image they put out during the kinds of videos Monolith did to announce how convenient and optional their blind boxes are.

jiggles wrote:Also, maybe I'm misremembering Shadow of Mordor, but I don't recall much of the game centering around an extensive squad-management system of recruiting and fleshing out an army to lay siege to enemy strongholds in large-scale battles. Sure, the single combat parts look like they control the same on the surface, but to say that this game looks like it's going to play a lot like the last one is as reductionist as saying Football Manager and Excel are basically the same thing.

Its a sequel to a super-mainstream hit game, I doubt they're going to rock the boat at all. The main problem I have with a lot of modern games is that their menu UI is completely contradictory to the fabled immersion they claim to project, a problem which I think Skyrim is largely to blame for, looking indeed like a spreadsheet for Talion to run his Orc Resources department through.

jiggles wrote:Not that any of that has any bearing on how invasive they are here, or how good the game will be. But then again, nobody in this thread cares about either of those things.

Talking of reductionism, I am annoyed about this stuff exactly because I care. There are loads of grindy pay 2 win bullshit korean mmos but I don't give a gooseberry fool about any of them, and they are far, far worse than this. But how this stuff interacts with the moment-to-moment gameplay, the asynchronous multiplayer stuff with timed fortress assaults which naturally favour those with better resources/orcs, is what I am concerned about. I really enjoyed the original game and am sad to see it go down this route. As I said before, I am glad that Mad Max seemed to be under the radar of the WB suits and can be remembered with fondness rather than disdain.

Godzilla wrote:

Very well said.

On point again, brilliant

It's a shame that WB have decided to take this route with SoW. I've recently started SoM again it really is a kick ass game. I was unsure about it at first, but now I think it's one the of the best this gen has seen.