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.
A lot of people reading reviews actually just scroll down to the score and maybe read the verdict. If the score is a 9.0 and the verdict is entirely about how Shadow of War is better than Shadow of Mordor in every way(which is the case in the IGN review), no one's going to notice Dan saying 'please do not buy the lootboxes', that includes WB/Monolith.
Say what you will mate but your post says that you not buying because the game is boring unless you pay when in reality you're not buying because this is the same as the first which you didn't like, only bigger and better in many aspects. Using the lootboxes fiasco to convince yourself on why you are not buying this game doesn't make any sense.
I would actually like to find someone who liked the first and was convinced to buy the 2nd but won't do it because the reports we've been getting. I'd like to see that line of reasoning.
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.
When you skew and distorts available data and/or just pick data that fits your wanted narrative then yes, it can be seen as fearmongering. For e.g. OP of this thread has none of commentary from multiple reviewers that say that amount of needed grind isn't as bad as some make it out to be and that loot boxes aren't mandatory for progression like some suggests.
It doesn't excuse practices of loot boxes and how predatory they can be on those who like gambling, but lets at least look more data than just what we want to hear.
Middle-earth: Shadow of War feels tuned for players investing into war chests due to the sheer numbers of orcish troops that die during a siege, or weapons that constantly need to be upgraded whenever Talion levels up. However, it shouldnt matter what chests youre unlocking, as youre constantly making progress up the ranks.
That's a very useful breakdown, props for putting in the workLets 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.
Yes, there are bad implementations of microtransactions, as there are bad implementations of practically anything. By most accounts, what's happening here in Shadow of War does NOT seem to interfere with the game though.
And yet, the absolute ire aimed towards WB by you and others in here is the exact same as if it were to have absolutely ruined the game. People seem to be so wrapped up in this hatred towards the big bad "microtransactions" to a degree where you're not really getting the point.
Let me set this straight right now: Microtransactions are here to stay. Budgets are rising, companies want bigger profits, and they can't very well hike up game prices too much, so this and season passes and DLC and whatever else is what we're getting instead. So why is it that people seem to be so eager to lambaste every single implementation of it, whether it be innocuous or not?
I mean shit dude, I still remember this very same type fear mongering back in the day, where everyone feared that with the coming of DLC, games would be packaged up and sold in parts. Did that ever come to pass? Sure, most games have some type of DLC these days, but it's not as if you're not getting your dollar's worth in most if not all cases.
Fact of the matter is, games will always be about profit maximization. That's just a reality of any industry, and I'm not sure why you expect anything more. Companies aren't here to do you any favors. They want your dollar for the least amount of effort, and yes, microtransactions are a way to find that happy mean. But it is in fact a happy mean, where both consumer and producer are happy with what they're getting. Because a race to the bottom, where you're getting nothing but shit games loaded with microtransactions - that's not to the developers benefit either.
Well then, so be it. People like us won't buy those types of games, which means other developers will see a gap in the market, and make games for us. That's how I see this working in the worst case scenario.
That's just a reality of any industry, and I'm not sure why you expect anything more. Companies aren't here to do you any favors. They want your dollar for the least amount of effort, and yes, microtransactions are a way to find that happy mean.
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.
Agreed thanks so muchThat's a very useful breakdown, props for putting in the work
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.
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.
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.
I love that recognizing trends and trying to take a stand on something before it gets worse is frowned upon in this stupid shitty community. "It's not that bad"-- why does it have to be bad at all??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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..
Always online. Won't work.
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.
Ok if people are gonna keep reiterating this we're gonna need some receipts on this specific number linked ITT.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.
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.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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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?
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's 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.
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.
No one?
Some people like having extra stuff to do in a game they like. Just saying.
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.No one?
Some people like having extra stuff to do in a game they like. Just saying.
I don't think the devs would do this.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.
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.
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.
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.
The press also got the Gold Edition which gets extra shit
The press also got the Gold Edition which gets extra shit
The press also got the Gold Edition which gets extra shit
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.
The Gold edition does not alter the drop/appearance rates within the game itself.
The press also got the Gold Edition which gets extra shit