Support NeoGAF

[PayForYourGas]

Does the PS4 Pro version have HDR, or is it an XbonX exclusive thing?

 

[Lucreto]

The CE seems to come with a gold and Mythril war chest.

 

[Okami Haundo]

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.

I'll clarify that in this context, I do believe it would be review bombing as Dan didn't feel that the loot boxes lowered his enjoyment of the game. I don't feel that way about Polygon's review, because they spent some time explaining their problems with the game. As for what I feel the purpose of a "review" is, I'd be happy to talk with you about that via PM. That's a bit off-topic for this thread.

 

[DrBo42]

Bought a couple of silver boxes, got a legendary orc right off the bat. Currency generation seems okay early on, and some gear sets from the marauder tribe are all about currency generation. Ultimately I'm not sure how much of an issue it's going to be for the end-game. But if you don't want to use your in-game currency for boxes I can see how it could be rough. Only a couple hours in so I have no idea what I'm in for this weekend.

 

[wesleyshark]

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.

Or... These loot boxes don't really affect the game in a negative way, thus not having the need to dock the review score for their inclusion.

 

[shimon]

Offtopic but could someone change the title so it says the correct game? lol

 

[wesleyshark]

Offtopic but could someone change the title so it says the correct game? lol

Lmao. Didn't even notice that

 

[DrBo42]

Or... These loot boxes don't really affect the game in a negative way, thus not having the need to dock the review score for their inclusion.

As someone that's actually playing it, it actually does bother me. The circle indicator in the pause menu trying to pull my attention to the market after getting a box from an activity. Picking up Mirian that has almost no other use (other that unlocking gem slots or upgrading gear). You're reminded of it pretty often. I see that as a negative.

 

[shimon]

As someone that's actually playing it, it actually does bother me. The circle indicator in the pause menu trying to pull my attention to the market after getting a box from an activity. Picking up Mirian that has almost no other use (other that unlocking gem slots or upgrading gear). You're reminded of it pretty often. I see that as a negative.

Could you answer my question from earlier?

Is the world bland like it was said in some reviews? How much is there to do besides Nemesis system and is it interesting stuff?

 

[wesleyshark]

As someone that's actually playing it, it actually does bother me. The circle indicator in the pause menu trying to pull my attention to the market after getting a box from an activity. Picking up Mirian that has almost no other use (other that unlocking gem slots or upgrading gear). You're reminded of it pretty often. I see that as a negative.

Is not buying loot boxes making the game more difficult? Are resources scarce?

 

[DrBo42]

Could you answer my question from earlier?

Is the world bland like it was said in some reviews? How much is there to do besides Nemesis system and is it interesting stuff?

It's a pretty bleak world but there's some beauty in it. There's variety in locales. Not sure if I'd call it visually bland, maybe that's more applicable to what's available to do. There's collectible/lore stuff but almost everything else is nemesis based. You're not going to get assassin's creed or other open world variety of activities here. Not sure it would make sense.

Is not buying loot boxes making the game more difficult? Are resources scarce?

Early on, no. Mirian generation seems fine. I'm pretty sure you'd be able to get through the core of the game without the boxes. The gear boxes I tried didn't even drop level appropriate gear. If the end-game is rough I can see how you'd be tempted to buy some orcs as opposed to a grind without any missions or side activities to give you the bulk of your Mirian. But yeah, early on they're not necessary. Just an annoying inclusion in the menu.

 

[Neverwinter27]

Third option: YouTube

 

[DrBo42]

Third option: YouTube

Yeah, just like Arkham Knight.

 

[shimon]

It's a pretty bleak world but there's some beauty in it. There's variety in locales. Not sure if I'd call it visually bland, maybe that's more applicable to what's available to do. There's collectible/lore stuff but almost everything else is nemesis based. You're not going to get assassin's creed or other open world variety of activities here. Not sure it would make sense.

Gotcha,thanks!

 

[Valonquar]

So basically wait for the game to get serious backlash for the microtransaction or inane grind, get nerfed in patches and inevitably pricedrop sub $20 to purchase?

 

[Plague Doctor]

So basically wait for the game to get serious backlash for the microtransaction or inane grind, get nerfed in patches and inevitably pricedrop sub $20 to purchase?

Yes, but the inevitable GOTY Edition with all DLC included and then physical used version of that. If I do get this game, that's my plan. Lots of games are releasing and I have a back log.

 

[butman]

Yes, but the inevitable GOTY Edition with all DLC included and then physical used version of that. If I do get this game, that's my plan. Lots of games are releasing and I have a back log.

My modus operandi this gen.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

I was pondering it last night but yeeeaaaahhhh I think I'm going through with sending a request to cancel my Bundle Stars (bought the gold edition 30% off) pre-order there's plenty of other things and I can wait for the sharp discount.


EDIT: Annnnnd done.

 

[JPS Kai]

1 loot box worth of 2 orcs and season pass if I remember right.

That's correct. GameStop pre-orders technically get more orcs than the Gold Edition.

And I saw TotalBiscuit mention the opposite yesterday, but you CAN get legendary orcs out of the free chests. It was in the video I posted in the supplement to my review.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

That's correct. GameStop pre-orders technically get more orcs than the Gold Edition.

And I saw TotalBiscuit mention the opposite yesterday, but you CAN get legendary orcs out of the free chests. It was in the video I posted in the supplement to my review.

Thats great that they come out of free boxes.

So paying for chests seems to basically speed up acquisition, and imo thats fine.

 

[JPS Kai]

Thats great that they come out of free boxes.

So paying for chests seems to basically speed up acquisition, and imo thats fine.

Exactly. And it's not like orcs are in short supply in the wild. Sometimes you need to cull the herd and kill the low level/non-epic ones.

With how everything in the nemesis system is time based (three 'turns' per a mission, dying/completing a sidequest spends a turn, all missions even in other regions go off simultaneously), you can automate the process by sending your NPC orcs on missions to do the grunt work for you and get more powerful.

 

[Tovarisc]

And I saw TotalBiscuit mention the opposite yesterday, but you CAN get legendary orcs out of the free chests. It was in the video I posted in the supplement to my review.

I don't expect much more than some hypocrisy from TB on this matter. He was railing hard against SoW last night on Twitter, but today is fine with basically same MT model in Battlefront 2.

He just shrugged it off as "Part of gaming" basically.

 

[2blackcats]

Thats great that they come out of free boxes.

So paying for chests seems to basically speed up acquisition, and imo thats fine.

You've been a voice of reason in this thread (after initially being very skeptical too).

Most of the over the top responses in this thread have ruined the chance of a proper discussion on an important topic.

 

[GDJustin]

Most of what I'm seeing in this topic isn't true, FYI.

Everyone can make up their own mind next week, but in my experience the loot boxes in Shadow of War are no different than any other game and are completely ignorable.

You could (and I expect millions will) play through the entire game without being aware of the possibility of spending $$ on loot boxes.

 

[2blackcats]

Most of what I'm seeing in this topic isn't true, FYI.

Everyone can make up their own mind next week, but in my experience the loot boxes in Shadow of War are no different than any other game and are completely ignorable.

You could (and I expect millions will) play through the entire game without being aware of the possibility of spending $$ on loot boxes.

Good to hear.

 

[DrBo42]

Most of what I'm seeing in this topic isn't true, FYI.

Everyone can make up their own mind next week, but in my experience the loot boxes in Shadow of War are no different than any other game and are completely ignorable.

You could (and I expect millions will) play through the entire game without being aware of the possibility of spending $$ on loot boxes.

I'd agree until that last bit. That's a bit absurd to think:

1. Millions won't open the Market menu.
2. Won't realize you can buy things with real money. Especially considering how common this nonsense is.

 

[GDJustin]

Well, I mean maybe I phrased that poorly. People will be aware of the existence of paid loot boxes.

I was just saying that the experience for the vast majority of players will feel the same as it was in Shadow of Mordor. The paid loot boxes don't change how the gameplay loop feels.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

You've been a voice of reason in this thread (after initially being very skeptical too).

Most of the over the top responses in this thread have ruined the chance of a proper discussion on an important topic.

Thanks. Yeah, i was negative towards the initial impressions(even falling for the misinformation of no legendaries in the wild) but it doesnt sound bad how its implemented. But Im glad to hear that its not that bad? And I really dig the idea of assaulting fortresses in a Dynasty Warriors-esque battle, so its good to hear that parts decent.

 

[DrBo42]

Well, I mean maybe I phrased that poorly. People will be aware of the existence of paid loot boxes.

I was just saying that the experience for the vast majority of players will feel the same as it was in Shadow of Mordor. The paid loot boxes don't change how the gameplay loop feels.

Still feel that way during act 4?

 

[liezryou]

How do people feel about cracks/hacks/cheats to circumvent the lootboxes/grinding? On one hand i feel like it's kind of creeping up the line that leads into piracy. On the other hand, why the fuck would i pay for something that is essentially a cheat code?

 

[DrBo42]

How do people feel about cracks/hacks/cheats to circumvent the lootboxes/grinding? On one hand i feel like it's kind of creeping up the line that leads into piracy. On the other hand, why the fuck would i pay for something that is essentially a cheat code?

There's a huge legal agreement as soon as you get to the main menu about not modifying it. Lol. They need that money.

 

[PFD]

LOL passing so hard on this

 

[theonerayman]

If the reviewers are right, and the MTs aren't terrible and you can still get good orcs/gear through grinding i'm fine. I beat Shadow of Mordor 3 times on 3 different platforms so I don't mind playing these games. Not to mention, getting true endings are always a pain. Beating Halo 3 on solo legendary and all that fun stuff, riddler trophies in batman. It's something extra for the extra dedicated.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Well, I mean maybe I phrased that poorly. People will be aware of the existence of paid loot boxes.

I was just saying that the experience for the vast majority of players will feel the same as it was in Shadow of Mordor. The paid loot boxes don't change how the gameplay loop feels.

If "just ignore it" is the best defense people can come up with in regards to a huge mechanic in a video game, dont you think its fair to say that its a bad mechanic and shouldnt be in the video game?

 

[theonerayman]

If "just ignore it" is the best defense people can come up with in regards to a huge mechanic in a video game, dont you think its fair to say that its a bad mechanic and shouldnt be in the video game?

But according to most of the reviewers it isn't a huge mechanic. It's a short cut to help out other mechanics. Those aren't the same thing. I'm not defending loot boxes. I don't like them, and I won't be buying them. But many of the reviewers say ignore them and move on with your game enjoyment.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

But according to most of the reviewers it isn't a huge mechanic. It's a short cut to help out other mechanics. Those aren't the same thing. I'm not defending loot boxes. I don't like them, and I won't be buying them. But many of the reviewers say ignore them and move on with your game enjoyment.

Its intertwined with the games economy, its absolutely a huge part of the game. And my point still stands, if the absolute best defense is "just ignore it", should it be in the game?

 

[2blackcats]

Its intertwined with the games economy, its absolutely a huge part of the game. And my point still stands, if the absolute best defense is "just ignore it", should it be in the game?

Of course it shouldn't be in the game but it is. So just ignore it.

 

[theonerayman]

Its intertwined with the games economy, its absolutely a huge part of the game. And my point still stands, if the absolute best defense is "just ignore it", should it be in the game?

Should it be? Hell no. it 100% shouldn't be. But it is. And at this point we have two choices. We can not buy the game, and while that does punish WB it also punishes Monolith. Who has shown themselves to be a very good developer over the years. And since WB owns them, if their game doesn't sell then what happens to those people? It's a shitty situation to be in. But if I can buy the game, support Mono and never touch the boxes to show WB I don't want them, need them, or welcome them. Maybe it will help.

 

[texhnolyze]

How do people feel about cracks/hacks/cheats to circumvent the lootboxes/grinding? On one hand i feel like it's kind of creeping up the line that leads into piracy. On the other hand, why the fuck would i pay for something that is essentially a cheat code?

I think cheats would be a very good alternative for these loot boxes, yes.

 

[Brad Grenz]

You are assuming that every reviewer 100% the game to acquire the 'True Ending'. I'm willing to bet that most simply completed the main game, got the game's end credits, did a few side quests/activities and submitted their reviews. How would you know how grindy the true ending is if you never did it?

Curious, how many reviewers do you think got the true ending in Batman: Arkham Knight before submitting their reviews? There is a lot of witch hunting going on here it seems.

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.

So you're saying most reviewers played the game like a normal person and not someone obsessed with grinding out a completionist run? You know, like 95% of the audience?

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I think cheats would be a very good alternative for these loot boxes, yes.

I'm pretty sure Sony and MS would ban your account if you were cheating a game with microtransactions.

 

[m_dorian]

So you're saying most reviewers played the game like a normal person and not someone obsessed with grinding out a completionist run? You know, like 95% of the audience?

Next time you read a book, dont read the last chapter but feel free to review it, ok?

 

[Jangowuzhere]

Next time you read a book, dont read the last chapter but feel free to review it, ok?

Books are not video games

 

[m_dorian]

Books are not video games

They both tell stories.

 

[Jangowuzhere]

They both tell stories.

Yes, but there is a lot more to video games then just storytelling.

Most people don't even finish the games they buy.

 

[m_dorian]

Yes, but there is a lot more to video games then just storytelling.

Most people don't even finish the games they buy.

Most(?) people are not reviewers for gaming sites. And a good number of people finish the games they buy so they ll want to know how to access the game's story.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

They both tell stories.

This would be a more apt analogy if books had a bunch of side stories not easily accessible and actually hidden.

How would you compare Dark Souls to books? Is dark souls a book with all but 10 pages ripped out of it, and even then these pages are out of order?

This whole book analogy is bad.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

The last time I posted about this game, it was in some thread where I said something like "damn. I was looking forward to this. Ah, well. Bright side is, that's one less expensive game to buy" and it turned out not to be the case, or something. That put me on the fence.

But this? I'm off the fence now. Hard no-buy.

 

[LegitMcfalls]

Most(?) people are not reviewers for gaming sites. And a good number of people finish the games they buy so they ll want to know how to access the game's story.

That is not true. If you look at playstion trophies usually less then 50% of people actually finish the game they were playing. Its actually crazy to see how many people drop out of games before the first level/chapter is even finished.

 

[Peroroncino]

This would be a more apt analogy if books had a bunch of side stories not easily accessible and actually hidden.

How would you compare Dark Souls to books? Is dark souls a book with all but 10 pages ripped out of it, and even then these pages are out of order?

This whole book analogy is bad.

But let's not forget that Dark Souls is a game that isn't particulary focused on telling you a story, whereas games with a lot of dialogue, cutscenes, character expositions etc. actually are.

In this particular example I'd say that SoW wants to tell you a story, though from what I've read it's a bad one, with last 2 pages seemingly being pinned on the mount everest of bullshit - so I'm not blaming reviewers for not wanting to do that, however what I don't agree with is not putting up a disclaimer or a mention in most reviews that true ending exists and they didn't do it because of this or that, seems really unprofessional.