ComputerBlue
Member
Loved the first game, adore middle earth and always welcome anything new revolving the universe...But I'll be avoiding this game, might play it if it hits PS+...but that's about it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shadow of Mordors true ending - Grinding or Lootboxes
- Thread starter Chairmanchuck
- Start date
Petrae
Member
Gaming press, man. The ultimate in industry defense.
Okami Haundo
Member
I'd argue that the same people who just skip straight to the review score, are also people who wouldn't buy a game that scores a 6 or 7. If anything, I feel that removing "scores" from reviews entirely would be the better approach as it encourages people to make a decision for themselves. Your suggestion is the equivalent of "review bombing" which just exploits a somewhat broken system. At the same time, I don't feel that scoring the game based on the gameplay is encouraging people to partake in the lootboxes.
I didn't say I didn't like it, I said it became so tedious that I couldn't finish it. I'd say it's normal to hope that a sequel would remedy that problem. You know, make it better instead of worse. But I understand that you had to put words in my mouth in order to make your argument make sense.
Did you read the reviews or you stopped when you got your confirmation bias? I say that because I haven't read a review yet which didn't say that the game is bigger and better than the previous one.
Oh I also assumed that you didn't like it because you said it was tedious, you can chalk that up as "putting words in your mouth", I guess.
Lets see.
I ve read all the reviews concerning SoW to notice if anyone reports the true ending and the amount of time needed to reach this ending without using loot boxes and how they commented on that.
[links at the review thread] http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1443359
cogconnected : no mention of true ending/no amount of time mentioned 94/100
Polygon: mentions true ending/"dozens of hours" 74/100
Gameinformer: no mention of true ending/dozens of hours total time 9.5/10
PressStart.au no mention of true ending/no amount of time mentioned 8/10
PCGamer no mention of true ending/no amount of time mentioned 73/100
WCCFTech no mention of true ending/no amount of time mentioned 8.9/100
*bought a couple of gold chests - Also
CriticalHit no mention of true ending/ >30h full completion 9/10
Gadjets 360 no mention of true ending/ >30h full completion 8/10
Pushquare no mention of true ending/ >30h full completion 8/10
Gamesradar no mention of true ending/ 54-70 h for map unlock 4.5/5
Shacknews no mention of true ending/no amount of time mentioned 9/10
UsGamer (Our own Mike Williams) no mention of true ending/ "feels like a ~ 30-50 hour game" 4/5
GameSpot mentions a final cutscene/no amount of time mentioned 7/10
IGN no mention of true ending/more than 50 hours total 9/10
GodisaGeek no mention of true ending/no amount of time mentioned 10/10
Dualshockers no mention of true ending/more than 30 h 8.5/10
So, most of the reviewers failed to notice there is a true ending that involves grind or buying boxes. Maybe there is no grind or maybe they were buying loot boxes to complete the game (for anyone that completed the game).
However most of them fail to mention if they bought loot boxes or not and that is a crucial information because it would possibly affect their final score for the obvious reasons.
Most of them put the time needed to complete the game up to 30 hours or more and few of them went up to 40 hours. So, either they were successful in their grind, bought boxes or never reached the "true ending". Or there is no true ending grind needed.
Or some few of them never truly finished the game they reviewed.
That's a very useful breakdown, props for putting in the work
Audioboxer
Member
Other devs manage absolutely fine without monetizing absolutely everything from cosmetics, to mods, to game modes to levelling up. Does it not say something to you that the ones often convincing people like yourself all of this is simply needed are the ones who are usually the richest? They can chase even more money if they want, people will continue to call out paid for games that end up being carved into F2P mobile experiences under the guise of "we couldn't make this game without doing this". Sure, and the higher-ups in Sony, MS, Valve, Blizzard, EA, Activision, 2K and so on are at risk of their empires collapsing due to Destiny, Forza, NBA or Star Wars potentially NOT having loot boxes and in your face MTs. Makes sense.
I expect something more because as I said, some developers and publishers are a million times better than others. Try and hold everyone to the best standard accountable lest you be happy when it's your favourite game franchises that become something akin to going on your mobile and downloading something you haven't paid any money for. This is yet another SP game trying to do what Forza and NBA are beginning to do to SP games. Up next Bethesda will probably move on from paid mods to loot boxes in Fallout/Elder Scrolls if gamers don't pushback now. As will Borderlands, Diablo and whatever else. Sorry if I do not want loot boxes normalised in SP games like they are in MP. MP devs occasionally have some grounds to play with when they genuinely make all MP DLC free, but even then, criticism can still be warranted for some behaviours around gambling. We used to play MP games without any paid DLC and MTs (no forced paid for online either), and the developer world didn't end. Just in the same way people can criticise a F2P game without busybody defenders just screaming "but it's F2P!".
You say this
Yet you're almost acting like their friends with some of the lines you're saying. Don't be dissing my boy Bobby Kotick, he's just trying to make some coin! I know they're not my friends/wanting to do me a favour, so I return that to them. They potentially get my money as a business transaction, and outside of that I can happily criticise without feeling like I'm attacking one of my best mates. I try to disengage from all feelings, and as I said earlier, sure, sometimes everyone gets caught up in console wars with things they like. I used to with Sony, and even although I still prefer PS platforms as I've gotten older I've grown out of seeing Sony as anything other than a business wanting all my money. I can still praise good decisions, but I have no issues lambasting on the criticism. Occassionally criticism gets things stopped/changed, but not if it's just a few loud voices. Said voices if small in number easily get squashed by massive corporations with skilled and numerous PR agents, before we even get to other gamers who get insanely hostile at their fellow fans being criticial.
Zombie James
Banned
Thank you. This is, unfortunately, another one of those cases where we're going to have to wait for an Angry Joe review or some other independent to find out all the things "official" reviews completely missed or glossed over.
Grady Durden
Member
Agreed thanks so much
A more condensed version of this post should be added to the OP as it's very useful. Thanks for taking the time.
How many reviews 100% a game in general in case there are true/bonus/hidden endings that they could reflect upon in the review and might alter the score?
Very few outside of the shortest titles, I would imagine.
Yeah, it really depends how substantial the True ending is beyond the regular ending. If it is a huge chunk of the story, it is a problem, but if is just like a boss fight or two and a few cutscenes, then I don't think it it is that unreasonable. It's a collectathon open-world game, and it seems like there's a lot to do / procedural content?
BreezyLimbo
Banned
If you think Shadow of War is the first to start this trend or the worst to do it in the modern era
I have a bridge to sell you.
Andodalf
Banned
It's ridiculous to ask a reviewer to 100% every game. Were Witcher 3 reviews bad because not every reviewer played every side quest to receive the full experience? no. You don't need to do every little thing to have a sense of a game's quality
Audioboxer
Member
I'd say there is a difference between 100%-ing a game if it means a collectathon of crap, and if Shadow of War actually has some sort of "proper ending" with cutscenes behind a second game mode.
It's a story based game. Maybe not the best story game ever, but if there is a proper ending behind another mode that will be of interest to many playing it.
Even if reviewers don't want to/cba or don't have time for the proper ending, they should at least be pointing it out like Polygon did to say this 2nd game mode is pretty bad when it comes to trying to encourage spending to avoid grinding.
Given the discussion at hand i would say it's more accurate to say that you are the one having a bridge being sold to.
Plague Doctor
Member
Well this is eye opening. Thanks for breaking it down.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Hmm no.
You have people believing that there are no legendary orcs that can be captured, as recently as last page, and that can only be gotten through chests, when multiple reviewers have said that you can find then in the wild.
So about that bridge..
2blackcats
Member
The Shadow War end game sounds fantastic to me as someone who was disappointed by the end game of the first one.
20 Fortresses to take down.
Daily and community challenges.(for gold)
Attacking other players fortresses in asynchronous pvp.
And all without the shit story cutscenes that I'll have to put up with in the main campaign.
No way I'd ruin that for myself by buying shitty loot boxes.
20 Fortresses to take down.
Daily and community challenges.(for gold)
Attacking other players fortresses in asynchronous pvp.
And all without the shit story cutscenes that I'll have to put up with in the main campaign.
No way I'd ruin that for myself by buying shitty loot boxes.
dragonelite
Member
ooh a 35~45 hour grind end game, thats like nothing if you played those old skool korean mmo or wow or destiny loot cave grind. Still shitty practice in a single player game.
I'm trying to figure out what particular point you are attempting to make here. Maybe it's obvious and I'm being dense?
That said breakdown is nice and like you summarize in last paragraph, that I left in from original post, you sum up breakdown nicely. It raises a lot questions about whole list and how reviewers ended up with final thoughts and scoring on the game. There is a lot unknowns. Curiously Gamesradar scored game very high while ripped into it quite a bit in that write up about loot boxes, interesting disconnect. Why score so high if you feel that strongly and that way about loot boxes effect on gameplay?
That said at least WCC Tech reviewer and fellow gaffer straight out admits he used in-game currency to purchase boxes so there is that at least.
From where you pulled that figure? Please don't say "Eurogamer rando comment"...
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
If those legendaries have to be found through RNG and can only be guaranteed by buying microtransactions or through grinding and praying to the RNG gods, it's almost as bad as them being locked behind the paywall. It's not acceptable and this should absolutely be mentioned in reviews.
Unless all stats, XP, money, etc are stored server side that doesn't matter.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
er
how else would you expect them to be found? If the best gear and best orcs are behind RNG.....
....how different is that from any other game that employs RNG to get the best gear? Some games like Ratchet and Clank have a path towards the best weapon(IE RYNO in this case), others force you to grind out bosses until it drops(IE raid bosses in Borderlands/Borderlands 2).
Which makes loot boxes really negligible. I've played RPGS where you have to grind randomly dropped parts(IE getting the ultimate weapons in FFVIII), and as long as the game is fun, it's enjoyable. Having locks behind RNG is really nothing new. Selling loot boxes to speed that up is kinda new, and it's optional at best but not completely locked behind it.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Ok if people are gonna keep reiterating this we're gonna need some receipts on this specific number linked ITT.
How much you wanna bet that leveling up increases the RNG spawn rate of higher tier orcs like so many other games? The more people who've played the game clarify the more I feel like this was completely blown out of proportion.
So the difference is a cut-scene, which presumably the reviewer can't know is there until they 'complete' that section of the game.
I'm not criticising Polygon for going the extra mile, I just think it's a double-standard to make a big deal about this when countless other games are reviewed without taking into account how a 'completionist' will experience the game.
EDIT: Isn't this almost exactly similar to the MGSV 'Disarmament' cut-scene. Why aren't we calling the cut-scene an Easter Egg?
BreezyLimbo
Banned
That's what I feel like. You have some reviewers mentioning that they saw an area full with legendary orcs.
Of course, maybe it's possible that they had their spawn rates increased just for reviewers and in truth they'll be impossible to find in retail copies but well, we just won't know till we get our hands on it.
ChosenPredator
Banned
this is the thing i feel is worth fighting for when it comes to gaming, they need to stop this garbage with the loot box fixation.
Audioboxer
Member
RNG when it's a level playing field for everyone is one thing. A game which aims to create a wedge between gamers and wallet emptier is another. Yes, many games out there have true MMO style drop rates. Diablo 3 is one. Gamers have to grind out results and put up with RNG in a lot of places. It frustrates many from time to time, but it's that level playing field. Or in some games items obtainable in game can help drop rates or loot rarity. Again, for everyone.
When a dev or pub introduces a get rich quick scheme to try and influence to hand over money to skip the grind it muddies the waters. Especially when they aren't taking your money to give you want you want directly, but just more chances at the RNG/spin the wheel. That is what bugs many more than the "unlevel" playing field between whale and ordinary gamer. It's that even when you hand over actual cash in these schemes the modern game just gives you more quick attempts at the RNG. Not a guaranteed legendary or something guaranteed that you want from your money. There's not many things in life you pay for a chance to get what you want. Unless you are gambling.
At the end of the day it's still story put behind the games most egregious use of the loot boxes and grind. Fair enough some reviewers have missed it but it's now up to the gamers to make it known.
2blackcats
Member
The loot from loot boxes is tied to the player level.
I remember they did something similar with Batman Arkham Knight. You had to complete all the side quests to get the game's true ending. It was a shitty idea then without microtransactions and an even shittier idea now with them. No one's going to be motivated to do tedious side quests after getting to the first ending. They'll just watch the true ending on YouTube.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
I agree. If they sold loot boxes in World of Warcraft that guaranteed a Legendary item at random, that would be shit. That would be buying power. Likewise in Battlefront 2, the Star Cards seem to be a version of Clash Royales own loot system(Get the card, level up the card by feeding it similar cards, get more stats from fed card), so that in a way is buying power at random.
For Shadow of War though...eh? If the grind is enjoyable, then loot boxes become less of a necessity. It has asymmetrical multiplayer which you don't have to participate in, and that's fair? Some people just want to speed up their gameplay, thats fine tbh. I see loot boxes like cheat codes-I dislike cheat codes because they take away the progression. In this case, I don't care about loot boxes because they take away that progression, and if the game is fun, it'd ruin that.
2blackcats
Member
abracadaver
Member
How much would it cost to immediately unlock the true ending?
It's a poor way to add replayability to a game once you've reached the end though. In Arkham Knight's case I had to solve all of the The Riddler's challenges. This wasn't very fun or engaging so I just quit after I completed the main missions and saw the first ending. Hiding the true ending, which is nothing more than a 60 second cutscene, behind a bunch of tedious grinding or enticing people to buy loot boxes to get there more quickly is stupid to me.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
I don't think the devs would do this.
Mass Effect
Member
This topic does have me wondering if companies will start using DMCA takedowns from preventing people from just going to YouTube to watch "true endings" locked behind nonsense like this as it becomes more common.
I assume there's also a trophy/achievement involved to entice completionists to go for the true ending? That would at least keep some playing all the way through.
I assume there's also a trophy/achievement involved to entice completionists to go for the true ending? That would at least keep some playing all the way through.
If they are smart there will be an achievement.
Okami Haundo
Member
Ugh, I just looked it up and there is indeed a trophy for beating "Shadow Wars". Fuckin a'.
That definitely changes my stance a bit, as having an achievement/ending at the end of that act makes it tempting for completionists.
2blackcats
Member
Well if it's nothing more than a 60 second cutscene and you you didn't enjoy it, why do it?
Most games I don't bother with that junk bit sometimes I make a connection with a game and love to go hunt down all that "tedious" crap. Black Flag and Mad Max being recent examples.
BigEmil
Junior Member
The press also got the Gold Edition which gets extra shit
Okami Haundo
Member
The Gold edition does not alter the drop/appearance rates within the game itself.
It "gets" one lootbox. It doesn't get any increased chances of anything and doesn't make the true ending any less grinding.
Is lowering a score because you disagree with a core concept of the game really 'review bombing'? I would consider it review bombing if for instance Jim Sterling reviews the game and gives it a 1/10 just because he disagrees with the lootbox system. I'm not saying a game should get a failing grade just because one (extremely shitty) mechanic, but I do think that it should impact the score in some way, not just mentioning it in one paragraph and then giving the game a near perfect score regardless. Polygon criticising the system and giving the game a 7.5/10 is more in line with what I'm talking about. A review isn't just about 'gameplay' or the graphics, it's about the whole picture and lootboxes are a part of that and yes, I think that a €60 game relying on lootboxes for a pretty significant part of the game is something that should be looked at critically and if that means reducing the score or at least mentioning it in the verdict, so be it.
2blackcats
Member
It also comes with only 1 loot crate according to a gaffer who reviewed it.
1 loot box worth of 2 orcs and season pass if I remember right.