Showing posts with label shadow of war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shadow of war. Show all posts

Monday, 4 December 2017

Shadow of War Review



Shadow of War is a game that is simultaneously agonising and rewarding. While the experience itself is competently crafted, with eye-popping graphics, an eye for detail and possibly the best enemy-AI system to come out in the last ten years, the final package is a big downfall for a franchise that started so well in its first outing. Unfortunately, the game’s size is its biggest nemesis; forcing anti-consumer mechanics and creating a poor, over-bloated and over-long storyline that fails to showcase what should have been a triumph.
 
The storyline continues directly on from Shadow of Mordor; involving the creation of a New Ring.
Screenshot from in-game.

Shadow of Mordor was perhaps the best licensed video game since Batman: Arkham Asylum. Taking inspiration from the latter, the first entry into the franchise married satisfying rhythm-based button-mash combat with a well-designed open world to create what was at the time the best single player title yet to come out in the PS4/Xbox One generation. If that wasn’t enough, the exciting Nemesis system was brought into the world, creating a platform for emergent stories that put enemy AI in the spotlight. Combat became much more dynamic and exciting, as did the enemy forces themselves. 

It’s a shame that Shadow of War doesn’t follow suit. Despite a strong attempt, the game ultimately buckles underneath the great weight of its horrible design choices. The result is an experience that seems to both hate and love itself; it is just as ready to reward you as it is to destroy you and laugh at your attempts to enjoy the game, oh, and did you know that you could be slightly less annoyed by buying the Mithril Chest for real money?

One of the most controversial aspects of Shadow of War is the inclusion of loot chests, a practice that has been somewhat over-discussed recently as an anti-consumer pricing model, especially for a full-price game. To keep this aspect of the review concise; the inclusion of loot boxes here is painfully unnecessary and clearly informs some parts of the game to be more irksome than they should simply to attract players to dropping cash, which is not okay at best, and a disgusting and shady practice at worst. Given the game’s ambition, it’s probable that the sheer level of investment and production value that went into building Shadow of War was too high to profit feasibly from a simple full-retail purchase. In this case, my argument is this: if your game fails to profit in such a way, that’s a failing of your own budgeting and not of the market itself. 

 
The graphics are so sharp that this orc's eyes actually gave me nightmares.
Screenshot from in-game.


As for the presentation and production values; yes, every aspect of Shadow of War is out of this world, graphically speaking. This game really took my new PC out for a spin and it was an interesting experience to see the sheer power of graphical and gameplay fidelity made possible by ever-evolving technology. The textures often hit jaw-dropping levels of detail on every little part of Mordor. There is little to criticise here, except perhaps that some of the maps look a little bit drab and rely too much on that modern gaming crutch of brown and grey colour schemes, except for maybe one or two specific areas in the game.


The gameplay itself is the real wow-factor here though; the Nemesis system has evolved into its own and is suitably impressive, especially for a game of this scale. There is a multitude of strategies that become viable when considering the weaknesses of the multiple Orcs that one will face on their journey through Mordor. The sandbox nature of the combat that allows one to exploit different weaknesses through experimentation with so many intricately-overlapping systems is a wonder to behold. Many times, I found myself pleasantly surprised with how robustly the game’s engine could create a multitude of interesting scenarios. 
 
One of my favourite Orc Nemeses, was obsessed about his Black Blade but didn't win a single fight with me.
Screenshot from in-game.

Unfortunately, there was a desperate need for some extra tweaking here: while the system itself encourages exploitation of weaknesses in enemy captains, often combat can feel cheap and even painful. Enemy archers are overpowered and the respawn rates are set far too high. They became a constant thorn in my side and a source of annoyance that held me back from truly enjoying the free-flowing combat that I loved in Shadow of Mordor. Some captains often developed immunities to literally every combat move I had as an option, requiring an impressive, but ultimately irksome, set of hoops for me to jump through to create attacking openings. It would have been so much simpler if every orc captain had at least one weakness you could have exploited in combat, instead the game is satisfied with having you jump in and out of stealth for hours luring them between arrow markers on the map. Impressive for encouraging sandbox experimentation, but in combat terms it is often poorly-implemented and even broken at times. 

Orc recruitment and training is perhaps the biggest aspect of the game, and while it is a fun quest, this is where things start to turn from mediocre to worse. While it is fine enough to gather your army in the open world, especially in the later stages of the game this becomes a slog. One time I lost out on ten hours of progress developing my army because of a cheap love-tap by a captain who happened to have a one-hit kill perk. This is the point where the game is meant to encourage the purchase of loot boxes and microtransactions, and it is so transparently designed that the game almost becomes a parody of itself at this point. It is so clear that the latter part of the game is meant to encourage you to buy the loot boxes that I left feeling that on some level like I was treated to a worse game because of it. 

As for the game itself, it is certainly a ‘bang for buck’ purchase, microtransactions notwithstanding. There is such a mountain of things to do that at first it is intimidating to a new player. This has its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of how inviting and non-convoluted the game is to play, but the sheer size of the package itself is noteworthy. At over 40 hours I still am nowhere near seeing everything that the game has to offer and as a sandbox it is competently designed enough to create the right mood in the player for exploration and play. However, this is also a downside to the game because at the half-way mark it starts to feel over-long, like a painful slog. Enjoyment of the game eventually diminishes to a point that all it will take is a single frustrating battle to go wrong and the player will put down the controller completely.  The game is absolutely bloated and it is a shame to see such promise be underwritten by such a mixed bag, especially given that the maps themselves aren’t particularly memorable on their own; here the only location that really rivals Shadow of Mordor’s maps is perhaps Minas Ithil, but the player only spends a scant amount of time there such that its impression is somewhat missed.

Then there is the plot. There are so many mis-steps here in terms of Tolkien story that the game might as well be considered non-canon, and a face-heel turn toward the end that doesn’t quite hit the right notes. Story was never this series’ strong point. While the setting promises an epic tale that will engage gamers, instead there are a couple of charming scenes where some of the more interesting orcs can shine through. Unfortunately, here it is also a case of bloat where the storyline suffers from feeling padded because of the game feeling twice as long as it should have been.

Bruz is one of the more fun characters in the game.
Screenshot from in-game.
While Shadow of War offers a well-designed open world with a backbone of a great Nemesis system that promises more interesting orcs than the previous entry in the series, ultimately the poor, anti-consumer decisions force it into being a much worse game than it has any right to be. Despite amazing production values and satisfying gameplay, instead the fact is that the game seems at every turn to offer you something to love and something to hate.

Shadow of War is my marmite game of 2017; I have a love-hate relationship with it and it is difficult to occupy a middle-ground at any one point in the game. At some points, you’ll hate where things are going, while at other times you’ll find some genuine sandbox enjoyment, but ultimately the loot chests and terrible post-game create something that I would only recommend if it was at least half of its full-retail price.

This orc knew it, apparently.
Screenshot from in-game.


Tuesday, 10 October 2017

Why Shadow of War's Loot Crates are not okay


I was initially very excited for the new Middle-Earth: Shadow of War game coming out. I loved Shadow of Mordor, especially its Nemesis system and its fluid, Arkham Asylum-styled combat. I loved the idea that a sequel was going to come out and that it would iterate on the system in a way that delivered on the initial promise. I can’t wait to fully experience a fleshed out enemy system where I can manipulate an army’s loyalties for my own bidding.

But then I heard about the micro-transactions that will be soiling the game, and I decided that for a full-priced retail product, I’m just not going to buy it. This is because Micro-transactions overall sully the experience and are an anti-consumer practice that ultimately shows the flawed value of AAA videogames.

Firstly, there’s the issue that having micro-transactions, even ones as tiny as cosmetic upgrades or those not required to beat the game, imprint a psychological barrier into the mind of anyone that’s playing the game. Gamers aren’t getting the ‘full experience’, they’re getting something where content was taken out to be sold back to them. Even if they are there purely for cosmetic reasons, micro-transactions have a reputation for being linked with shadier practices. On some level, I will always associate micro-transactions with poor-quality mobile phone games, because this is where the practice was born.

The use of any kind of micro-transaction in a game came from a need for smaller developers to make money out of something where the initial outlay was nowhere near enough to recoup cost, and while this worked for many developers there is no denying that the use of the practice has become synonymous with a kind of ‘dirty’ experience. Any kind of in-game purchase carries with it the weight of Candy Crush.

Then there is the statement that companies are making when they use micro-transactions. When implementing such systems in Shadow of War, WB Games are ultimately saying that as a gamer, your £42 is not enough. That in some way you aren’t paying enough for the privilege of playing their game. They are saying that they value gamers so little that they will ask them to pay for something that should be free. This shows the kind of psyche behind these anti-consumer decisions; ultimately each customer is nothing but a collection of transactions to be exploited and mined through any means necessary, and even if it’s not, if the company tries to convince you that this is not the case because such items are only an added bonus, that they’re not needed, then why at all should you ever consider paying the outlay for a microtransaction if they’re not needed? If they were as small as an added bonus, surely it would be easy to implement cheat codes as a sign of goodwill toward gamers, but no, they’re selling it.

Such a practice may be justified by some by looking to other companies, such as Overwatch. But let me be clear here; just because another game did it does not make the practice okay. I hate that Overwatch, as a full-retail priced game, still has micro-transactions and loot crates. It never was okay in the first place, no matter how great the underlying game is.

All of this would be bad enough, if it was not for the nature of the micro-transactions themselves. When loot crates are implemented with randomised loot, you aren’t paying for an item. You’re paying for a chance at an item. This means that you may not even get what you want from the purchase at all. This means that as a practice it ultimately is no better than gambling. Don’t tell me that any kind of value mindset was considered when this was implemented in Shadow of War, because if it was, we’d have full-sized DLC, and not the shitty consumer practices implemented in the product as it is.

It is scant justification that Shadow of War is too expensive a project to be paid for by full retail price; if so, it is WB that should suffer the punishment for being overzealous on production value, not the consumer. Make better, more efficient decisions. Not only that, but are we really saying that such a massive, hyped and clearly in-demand product that benefits from the huge license power of Tolkien’s Middle-Earth and the gamer goodwill that came from Shadow of Mordor won’t generate enough revenue to meet cost? If not, then it is clearly a failing of the corporation’s production and not in the pricing.

As an aside, does this show that AAA gaming is quickly becoming unsustainable in the modern market? Clearly, the drive for bigger and bigger blockbuster games is top-heavy and expensive and if a company can’t make a profit on a AAA title with any kind of reasonable pricing system in place, then that is surely a problem with the typical practice used in developing AAA games. Perhaps this is a sign that the gaming industry at large, at least the blockbuster one, is showing some fatigue.

Ultimately, when any company makes the decision to engage with microtransactions in their product, they are making a judgement call on how much they value their audience, and how much they value the nature of their product. If they believe that their product is not good enough to stand on its own without a shady, anti-consumer practice powering the gears, then why should we, as gamers, believe that such a product is worth our full retail bucks? If the full RRP of a game isn’t enough, either raise the RRP or look at the costings before passing on shady practices to the customers.


Here, instead WB Games has decided to say that their customers aren’t good enough, and are sullying the name of their franchise to do so. Not only this, they are also lowering the perception of their product and creating a poor brand image. Saying that such transactions are optional only begs the question of why they are included at all, and why should consumers foot the bill by continuing to put up with the shitty practices of a top-heavy industry that is showing signs of bloat and fatigue?