Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor | Review Thread - Welcome to Middle Earf

ryushe said:
GMG's coupon is still live, bringing the game down to $37.50, guys.

Had to jump on it after these reviews and finding out it had Arkham combat with a sword.
Click to expand...

Effectively $38 for some people on console, too.
And $30 on PC.
 
GDJustin said:
Game map is not varied or large. Two big areas that look and feel very different, separated by a loading screen. No forests, mountains, etc. You can travel from one end of the map to the other very quickly. I expect any potential sequel to be much much bigger, geographically.
Click to expand...

Some what disappointing. Hopefully a current gen only release will help game size on the next go around.
 
Not much to say other than so
fucking
excited for this game! Standing ovation for Monolith for creating such a good first entry game (I assume there will be more in the Middle Earth series).
 
Whoa. I certainly did not expect some of these scores. Might add this to my short day 1 list of this year.
 
xxracerxx said:
Some what disappointing. Hopefully a current gen only release will help game size on the next go around.
Click to expand...

The fact that it's getting really great reviews despite the small world is pretty cool though. Better than having a huge world that isn't filled with much of anything.

Could it be possible if they can add to the map with DLC? I imagine that might be difficult.
 
GDJustin said:
Sidequests are three varieties: combat (sword), stealth (dagger) and ranged (bow). There's also random doo-dads to pick up on the map.

Game map is not varied or large. Two big areas that look and feel very different, separated by a loading screen. No forests, mountains, etc. You can travel from one end of the map to the other very quickly. I expect any potential sequel to be much much bigger, geographically.
Click to expand...

What about the caves? Are they decent sized?
 
BenHargrove said:
The fact that it's getting really great reviews despite the small world is pretty cool though. Better than having a huge world that isn't filled with much of anything.
Click to expand...
Looks like I'm skipping AC again this year. Congrats to the team @ Monolith, I wasn't expecting this at all.
 
GDJustin said:
Sidequests are three varieties: combat (sword), stealth (dagger) and ranged (bow). There's also random doo-dads to pick up on the map.

Game map is not varied or large. Two big areas that look and feel very different, separated by a loading screen. No forests, mountains, etc. You can travel from one end of the map to the other very quickly. I expect any potential sequel to be much much bigger, geographically.
Click to expand...
Hmm/ Werent devs saying there was a 3rd big area? Were they lying?
 
xxracerxx said:
Some what disappointing. Hopefully a current gen only release will help game size on the next go around.
Click to expand...

It's a little hard to articulate, but SoM doesn't really put much design or gameplay emphasis on "place." There's not really much reward for exploration and, in my opinion, Mordor doesn't feel tremendously like a real, lived-in locale. It's the area the game has the most room for improvement, for sure.

I don't mean this lack of "place" as additional criticism, though. I actually mean the opposite. You're so focused on killing orcs and gaining intel and slotting runes and just generally being a badass that I didn't even really consider that there's no mountains or forests. It just.... isn't what this game is, if that makes sense. It doesn't draw attention to location.
 
nvm
 
What's with the shitty 6/10 Destructoid review?

Ultimately, like many ambitious projects, Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor doesn't deliver on everything it sets out to do. Although Monolith's heart is in the right place and the studio honors the lore, it doesn't really add anything that's worth seeing outside of some solid open world gameplay. It isn't a bad game, it just feels far too repetitive for its own good.
Click to expand...
 
Higher than expected scores tbh. But then, I said the same thing about Arkham Asylum.

I'll wait for more reviews to pour in, but it's looking very promising.
 
BenHargrove said:
The fact that it's getting really great reviews despite the small world is pretty cool though. Better than having a huge world that isn't filled with much of anything.

Could it be possible if they can add to the map with DLC? I imagine that might be difficult.
Click to expand...

The areas and maps look plenty large enough in all of the gameplay they have shown. And some reviews, like Gamesradar, said that the areas felt pretty huge. It's still a sandbox game, and apparently a fantastic one at that. I'm good.
 
Anyone else here still genuinely surprised that the PS4 version runs at 60fps!?

I mean, the game already looks fantastic at 30fps with both it's art and animation.... I... I just can't even imagine what it looks like at double that! (O___o)
 
So it DID live up to my hype?!?! Well now I'll have to get it. Hopefully Lords of the Fallen will too, then I'll be set when my PS4 comes back from Sony (stupid fan).
 
Much better than I was expecting score wise was expecting 8's not high 8's and 9's. Looks like it will be my GOTY if I enjoy it.
 
Y'all are missing the point about the size of the world. There's much greater significance per square inch in here when compared to the meaningless geometry of Assassin's Creed that size really doesn't matter.
 
GDJustin said:
It's a little hard to articulate, but SoM doesn't really put much design or gameplay emphasis on "place." There's not really much reward for exploration and, in my opinion, Mordor doesn't feel tremendously like a real, lived-in locale. It's the area the game has the most room for improvement, for sure.

I don't mean this lack of "place" as additional criticism, though. I actually mean the opposite. You're so focused on killing orcs and gaining intel and slotting runes and just generally being a badass that I didn't even really consider that there's no mountains or forests. It just.... isn't what this game is, if that makes sense. It doesn't draw attention to location.
Click to expand...

Would you say it's designed as a "game world" first? (By that, I mean areas with plenty of ways to approach an enemy, objective, or whatever.) Also easy to get around in.

Sorta like Batman: Arkham City's gameworld, minus the central prison area that's a huge bummer.
 
AgentOtaku said:
Anyone else here still genuinely surprised that the PS4 version runs at 60fps!?

I mean, the game already looks fantastic at 30fps with both it's art and animation.... I... I just can't even imagine what it looks like at double that! (O___o)
Click to expand...
Impressive stuff for sure. PS4 version for me without a doubt.
 
Last minute preorder placed. Was always on the fence for this one, as i tought it could turn out either way. Turned out the right one it seems
 
GDJustin said:
Sidequests are three varieties: combat (sword), stealth (dagger) and ranged (bow). There's also random doo-dads to pick up on the map.

Game map is not varied or large. Two big areas that look and feel very different, separated by a loading screen. No forests, mountains, etc. You can travel from one end of the map to the other very quickly. I expect any potential sequel to be much much bigger, geographically.
Click to expand...

Thanks,

A sequel would be great, but it's great to see this start off so well!

A bigger open world with more sidequests and lore will really take this game into the top of the cream for the generation.

I'm good with picking up random doo-dads too. Any idea what they are? Does the world have cool places where you can do some small exploring to find the collectibles or are they more straightforward?

Also, do we know their DLC plans?
 
Wait if Polygon was only given a PS4 copy why are all 3 platforms reviewed? Could be game breaking bugs on Xbone/PC that ruin the the experience or maybe the performance chugs.

Not saying it does but why do they even mention them if they didn't play it on them?
 
LurkerPrime said:
Would you say it's designed as a "game world" first? (By that, I mean areas with plenty of ways to approach an enemy, objective, or whatever.) Also easy to get around in.

Sorta like Batman: Arkham City's gameworld, minus the central prison area that's a huge bummer.
Click to expand...

No - I would say the opposite. 100% speculation on my part, but it feels like your abilities and the nemesis system came first, game world last.

There's fortresses dotting the map and each of them are filled with interesting enemy patrols, stealth spots, ways to infiltrate in, get a vantage point, orc lookouts, etc. They're all polished and fun. But they kinda just seemed plopped into the map and running to and from these enemy encampments isn't especially interesting. I don't think I could look at a screenshot and have any clue where in the game world it is, for example. Beyond knowing which of the two maps its on.

It's not something I've thought about in the moment when playing, which I want to re-emphasize. The game is amazing. When specifically prompted about the environment, I'll answer. But when considering the whole package, it doesn't weigh down the fun.
 
Dastardly Jerks said:
What's with the shitty 6/10 Destructoid review?
Click to expand...

28d39f8a35da8d4fa06e1054c658c067.png
Click to expand...
Chris Carter, Dtoid reviewer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ghost of Yotei | Review Thread
Analysis Review  11 12 13 14 15
731
732
Toots replied
Hades 2 | Review Thread
Review  2 3 4
177
514
manfestival replied
Wizards of the Coast tries to position itself as a Monolith in gaming as they hire former Shadow of Mordor/Black Panther devs
19
246
Inspector Q replied
Lost Soul Aside | Review Thread
Review 
49
788
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
Dying Light: The Beast | Review Thread
Analysis Review  2 3 4
164
1K
Alpha Male replied
Top Bottom