Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pagey279
  • 42 comments
  • 2,152 views
Not sure why people were comparing this to Assasins creed, it's a bit like Batman meets small ish open world LOTR
 
Combat is like Batman but the general climbing, going up towers then jumping off is very much like Assassins Creed. From what I've heard its slightly improved upon both those games.
 
Combat is like Batman but the general climbing, going up towers then jumping off is very much like Assassins Creed. From what I've heard its slightly improved upon both those games.

The climbing isn't really Assasins creed like but I guess there could be some similarities, only Assasins creed feature for is the whole climb a tower sync that part of a map and do a leap of faith.

Gollum is recreated brilliantly and Ratbag or what's his face is actually an interesting character, story gets more interesting with each passing mission. Love the nemesis system.

Edit: forgot to mention there is eagle mode vision, so yes maybe Assasins creed comparisons are in some features fair 👍
 
Edit: forgot to mention there is eagle mode vision, so yes maybe Assasins creed comparisons are in some features fair 👍

Yes, I was going mention that too. Crux of the game is Batman style combat for me. A good job they didn't emulate AC combat there. I feel that's just a fair progression.

The watch tower thing is in Watch Dogs, AC, Far Cry and Shadow of Mordor, and is getting a little silly
 
Yes, I was going mention that too. Crux of the game is Batman style combat for me. A good job they didn't emulate AC combat there. I feel that's just a fair progression.

The watch tower thing is in Watch Dogs, AC, Far Cry and Shadow of Mordor, and is getting a little silly

Agree and it doesn't really add much. Yeah the Batman combat style is the highlight, one of the best interms of fun.
 
Very good game, I think. It takes the best bits from a bunch of popular games and puts them together in a way that is really fun. It's not revolutionary, but every game doesn't need to be. It's very solid and enjoyable, and the Nemesis thing is really, really well done. It adds a surprising amount of depth to the game world.
 
@Imari
Reminds me of Darksiders I and II, in that regard. Neither was very innovative, but great games nonetheless. Goes to show that innovation for innovation's sake isn't the best way to design a game. IMHO, of course.
 
I played this at the weekend and pleasantly surprised. Huge fan of the Arkham game series so the combat / stealth system was vastly a known quantity. I ADORED the hierarchy system of the Uruk Captains / Warlords, can see that given the game a good longevity beyond the main story. Being able to bump into Captains in free-play is a brilliant side-affect of the NPC model, as it adds such a huge amount of realism to a world like this.

I had 1 gripe with how the system was implemented though. I was playing on a friend's PC using an Xbox controller, the main difficulty for someone only owning Playstations. It therefore took me a little longer to learn the controls, costing me a few lost battles and therefore promoting Uruks early on. My game was doomed from this point on, as no matter how much better I understood both the game and foreign controller, the Uruks kept getting stronger still and raising the difficulty even more.

I am now thoroughly considering getting this on PS3 and seeing whether the controller knowledge helps, however some minor changes to the system would make it even better. I noticed that after each loss, the Captain that killed you was always available for a revenge kill. When time progressed though, the known Captains would ALWAYS triumph and would gain power again. It became very frustrating never seeing a revenge target being beaten, as it would open the opportunity up to strike whilst running scared or wounded.

As I'm likely to get this on PS3 in the near future, I will see whether a better start to the game helps the progression more evenly.
 
I had 1 gripe with how the system was implemented though. I was playing on a friend's PC using an Xbox controller, the main difficulty for someone only owning Playstations. It therefore took me a little longer to learn the controls, costing me a few lost battles and therefore promoting Uruks early on. My game was doomed from this point on, as no matter how much better I understood both the game and foreign controller, the Uruks kept getting stronger still and raising the difficulty even more.

I had a similar problem, it takes me just a fraction of a second longer to convert an Xbox button mapping into the right button to press, whereas I've been playing Playstation so long that it's automatic by now.

Still, the captains are always killable, even if they're bloody hard. I had one guy get up to 15 power and was damn near unstoppable, but I got him in the end. And then the bastard came back from the dead! And I got lucky and slaughtered him first time.

I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised at how long the single player campaign is. Right when I thought I was about done, it turns out I'm only halfway and have a whole new bunch of guys to slaughter. Hooray!
 
I think I was probably unlucky a lot of the time. Some of the fights I lost almost instantly, but the ones I was gaining the upper hand in would be ambushed by another Captain. Couldn't take on 2 of high power and so lost yet another fight and increased power of two already strong captains!

It was annoying as I came across a stronghold at 1 point and there was a Captain randomly wandering alone. Killed him no issue as I hadn't boosted his power with my deaths. This just gave me false confidence when I ran into a powerful Captain seconds later...

I'm really tempted, but I just don't know if I'm going to have to keep restarting this. Is the difficulty adjustable? There is a chance my friend was on a high difficulty setting and I wasn't told.
 
Guess which game got photomode

B0E4UEoIEAA7Yp0.jpg:large
B0E4UEoIEAA7Yp0.jpg:large
 
Back