Shadow of Mordor deserves more attention. Come in and be hyped with me.

Brad Grenz said:
While I'm not surprised to learn you have the same stick up your butt as the Tolkien estate, it may shock you to learn they are not the ultimate authority on how his work should be interpreted. While it is popular these days to read LOTR as an anti-war polemic, and it is obvious that Tolkien himself was horrified by his experiences in WWI, it is also clear that he romanticized the past and pined for an age when warfare was more "civilized". For why else would we get so many loving descriptions of mail clad armies glittering in the sun or spears arrayed like a forest. And the fact remains that war is basically how every conflict in Middle-Earth is solved. The Valar warred with Morgoth. The Last Alliance warred with Sauron. Gondor and Rohan assault the Black Gate to occupy Sauron long enough for Gollum to bite off Frodo's finger and steal back the ring, and even Sam, Frodo, Merry and Pippin muster the Hobbits when they return how to rout Saruman's occupying force.

And I'll remind you again that you continue to condemn the game based on things you have prejudicially assumed about it without considering the possibility that it will have thematic depth.
Click to expand...

I don't know what about my posts has got you so wound up, but I'll end this now with the following points:

As much as Tolkien liked to describe the pageantry of armies in romantic terms, his depiction of war is pure tragedy. Your point about war being how every conflict in Middle Earth is solved is a logical fallacy. The conflict is the problem in question. The forces of the West don't use war as a solution to their problems. It is something that is forced upon them by Melkor/Sauron, and they can only respond in like kind or die. You don't get to use people being forced into self-defence as an example of the glorification of war. When Sauron and Melkor are forcing war on the free peoples, of course they have to resort to fighting to survive. The point is that war is a disease inflicted on Middle Earth by the forces of evil, not some noble pursuit of the heroes.

Every main point that could be considered a romantic portrayal of war in the novels has something elsewhere to counterbalance it. Gimli engages in a bit of killcounting at Helm's Deep. That means Dwarves enjoy a bit of war, right, and Tolkien was endorsing a Dwarven viewpoint that sees conflict as fun and thrilling, yes? Except that the same Dwarves fought a war against the Misty Mountain orcs which absolutely decimated their population, and ended up achieving nothing at all. Moria was kept from them. Thror was still dead. That war absolutely broke the Dwarven race, with half their warriors killed in what was ultimately a futile endeavour. That really is romantic.

Then there are the Easterlings and Haradrim, who we see fighting at the Pelennor fields and in other conflicts... and one of whose soldiers Sam ends up pitying, as he wonders whether the soldiers really wanted to go to war at all, or whether they'd rather not just go home. There's Boromir, who is the most stereotypically 'heroic' of the main characters in fellowship, who has lead campaigns and dreams of leading the armies of Gondor in war against Sauron...
and who by the end of the novel has been utterly corrupted by his dreams of war and glory, to the point he tries to murder Frodo. His romantic view of warfare leads to the breaking of the Fellowship.
There's Frodo himself who starts the novel off as a jolly everyman, and ends it
being psychologically broken by the war's toll, and unable to reintegrate with society.
Again, real friggin' romantic there. If we go to the earlier book of The Hobbit
Bilbo is knocked out literally at the start of the battle, and wakes up to find that three of his friends are suddenly now dead.
The Scouring Of The Shire that you mention is a textbook example of the negative consequences of war on a peaceful community
as soldiers and key players left over after the war are left to wreak havoc on those who can't defend themselves, just as in many post-war communities.
There's Denethor, who is not just grieving for his son lost in war, but
has actually been driven mad by the loss of his son and his fear of Sauron's forces, to the point he actively tries to murder his other son.

War in Middle Earth is a BAD thing. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise. If there is one point hammered home in LOTR, it's that not only does War inflict massive damage on both the body and the soul, but that romantic notions of the glory of war lead to delusions of the sort Boromir had. While Tolkien may have spoken poetically of glittering spears, he also made sure that the main characters were forced to experience the grim horror of warfare, whether that meant suffering PSTD, having to go toe to toe against
and getting a broken arm from
the Witch King, being almost crushed to death after killing a troll, having friends die on you suddenly, seeing your compatriots turn on you, burying your own son killed in combat. being driven mad with grief, and other general unpleasantries. If your main point is to argue that the "war/violence is bad" message in LOTR isn't there, then suffice to say I will happily keep bringing up examples which prove it so. A couple of literary shout outs to epic prose do not change what is fundamentally a story about the tragedy of war and violence.

So I will continue to judge this game on the fact that it appears to be pushing a more gratuitous portrayal of violence than anything Tolkien ever wrote, and if it turns out after the game is released that I am wrong, then so be it.
 
TitusGroan said:
Every main point that could be considered a romantic portrayal of war in the novels has something elsewhere to counterbalance it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. So you've allowed Tolkien an opportunity to provide a full context and subtly rather than condemning it out of hand based on a few shallow snippets. I just think it would be nice if you'd extend this game the same exact courtesy. If you thought my previous post was glib and reductive, you should know that's exactly how you've been treating this game.
 
From its initial reveal, the game just screams "generic" and "focus group" to me. I know the term generic especially is hated around these parts, but that's just the first thing that comes to mind. It just takes elements from other games and make it into a "new" game. It doesn't look anything like a LotR game, it looks to be extremely simplistic in everything it attempts, it's just a mass-marketed game. Which is to be expected of course, but I see nothing of interest to me. I'm sure it'll do decent numbers though and sure enough they'll whip out yearly sequels if it is indeed succesful. It's just seems the type of game that desperately wants a piece of that CoD, AC pie instead of wanting to be exceptional in any way. Again, this is just my uneducated view on the game, but I just have very little interest in it. I might give it a go though, I do like me some LotR.
 
#TeamTitusGroan (great posts!)

It would be interesting to play a game where a hero (aka the player) becomes a villain in LotR. Though I don't think they could ever pull it off, since there is this incessant need to make the player-character as appealing as possible - which means that the leader to these LotR offshoots always end up being faux-Aragorn.
 
This game looks good but its going to get smothered by everything else releasing in its window.

Steam sale game? Steam sale game.
 
E92 M3 said:
If this took place in Westeros I'd be a lot more excited. I don't like Lord of Rings lore :(
Click to expand...

There are no heroes -or even successes - in that universe, so it would be really difficult to make an interesting game out of the setting without betraying its core.
 
I think the reason (at least for me) is that LotR games always are hyped, and then they end up sucking. This one sounds really gimmicky because one of the first things I heard about it is "An M-rated Lord of the Rings game".

This game does look better, but I dunno.
 
eXistor said:
From its initial reveal, the game just screams "generic" and "focus group" to me. I know the term generic especially is hated around these parts, but that's just the first thing that comes to mind. It just takes elements from other games and make it into a "new" game. It doesn't look anything like a LotR game, it looks to be extremely simplistic in everything it attempts, it's just a mass-marketed game. Which is to be expected of course, but I see nothing of interest to me. I'm sure it'll do decent numbers though and sure enough they'll whip out yearly sequels if it is indeed succesful. It's just seems the type of game that desperately wants a piece of that CoD, AC pie instead of wanting to be exceptional in any way. Again, this is just my uneducated view on the game, but I just have very little interest in it. I might give it a go though, I do like me some LotR.
Click to expand...

yep, I thought the same.

It pretty much combines and relies on all these awful elements that niggle gaming since the last gen. like generic (ubi-)open worlds, this unnecessary wallhack/enemy highlighting, boring free-flow awesome-button combat, a wannabe badass protagonist, QTEs if I recall this one trailer correctly, and so on. the only interesting thing about this game could be that Nemesis system but at the moment I can't believe that it will have such a huge impact on the game.
 
Brad Grenz said:
Oh, I see. So you've allowed Tolkien an opportunity to provide a full context and subtly rather than condemning it out of hand based on a few shallow snippets. I just think it would be nice if you'd extend this game the same exact courtesy. If you thought my previous post was glib and reductive, you should know that's exactly how you've been treating this game.
Click to expand...

Allowed Tolkien the opportunity? He wrote the friggin' books. It's his friggin' setting. He gave the story the themes it had. How could I allow Tolkien the opportunity to do that which he already did? I recognize the themes and tone that Tolkien imbued his novels with, and am simply asking that other writers using the Middle Earth setting try and follow these themes and tone. A game which actively rewards you for brutalizing orcs in over the top ways is not following those themes, unless the developers pull some major Spec Ops subversion half way through. Rewarding players with new kill abilities and magic teleportation stabby moves is not, I fear, going to make a story that addresses the tragic nature of war.

The wise speak only of what they know, Brad Genz son of Brad Genz Sr. A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a pedantic NeoGAF user till the lightning falls.
 
LurkerPrime said:
There are no heroes -or even successes - in that universe, so it would be really difficult to make an interesting game out of the setting without betraying its core.
Click to expand...

It could just be based on a certain character, and the player decides who is bad or good. It's a dark universe, but perfect for a dark game. I always see Lord of the Rings as too kiddy, and it's harder for me to take the storyline seriously. Maybe I am just a fan of darker stories and fantasies. Maybe that's why I have such a strong affinity toward games like Witcher and stories like A Song of Ice and Fire.
 
E92 M3 said:
It could just be based on a certain character, and the player decides who is bad or good. It's a dark universe, but perfect for a dark game. I always see Lord of the Rings as too kiddy, and it's harder for me to take the storyline seriously. Maybe I am just a fan of darker stories and fantasies. Maybe that's why I have such a strong affinity toward games like Witcher and stories like A Song of Ice and Fire.
Click to expand...
It's difficult for me to sympathise with your views after this post:

TitusGroan said:
I don't know what about my posts has got you so wound up, but I'll end this now with the following points:

As much as Tolkien liked to describe the pageantry of armies in romantic terms, his depiction of war is pure tragedy. Your point about war being how every conflict in Middle Earth is solved is a logical fallacy. The conflict is the problem in question. The forces of the West don't use war as a solution to their problems. It is something that is forced upon them by Melkor/Sauron, and they can only respond in like kind or die. You don't get to use people being forced into self-defence as an example of the glorification of war. When Sauron and Melkor are forcing war on the free peoples, of course they have to resort to fighting to survive. The point is that war is a disease inflicted on Middle Earth by the forces of evil, not some noble pursuit of the heroes.

Every main point that could be considered a romantic portrayal of war in the novels has something elsewhere to counterbalance it. Gimli engages in a bit of killcounting at Helm's Deep. That means Dwarves enjoy a bit of war, right, and Tolkien was endorsing a Dwarven viewpoint that sees conflict as fun and thrilling, yes? Except that the same Dwarves fought a war against the Misty Mountain orcs which absolutely decimated their population, and ended up achieving nothing at all. Moria was kept from them. Thror was still dead. That war absolutely broke the Dwarven race, with half their warriors killed in what was ultimately a futile endeavour. That really is romantic.

Then there are the Easterlings and Haradrim, who we see fighting at the Pelennor fields and in other conflicts... and one of whose soldiers Sam ends up pitying, as he wonders whether the soldiers really wanted to go to war at all, or whether they'd rather not just go home. There's Boromir, who is the most stereotypically 'heroic' of the main characters in fellowship, who has lead campaigns and dreams of leading the armies of Gondor in war against Sauron...
and who by the end of the novel has been utterly corrupted by his dreams of war and glory, to the point he tries to murder Frodo. His romantic view of warfare leads to the breaking of the Fellowship.
There's Frodo himself who starts the novel off as a jolly everyman, and ends it
being psychologically broken by the war's toll, and unable to reintegrate with society.
Again, real friggin' romantic there. If we go to the earlier book of The Hobbit
Bilbo is knocked out literally at the start of the battle, and wakes up to find that three of his friends are suddenly now dead.
The Scouring Of The Shire that you mention is a textbook example of the negative consequences of war on a peaceful community
as soldiers and key players left over after the war are left to wreak havoc on those who can't defend themselves, just as in many post-war communities.
There's Denethor, who is not just grieving for his son lost in war, but
has actually been driven mad by the loss of his son and his fear of Sauron's forces, to the point he actively tries to murder his other son.

War in Middle Earth is a BAD thing. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise. If there is one point hammered home in LOTR, it's that not only does War inflict massive damage on both the body and the soul, but that romantic notions of the glory of war lead to delusions of the sort Boromir had. While Tolkien may have spoken poetically of glittering spears, he also made sure that the main characters were forced to experience the grim horror of warfare, whether that meant suffering PSTD, having to go toe to toe against
and getting a broken arm from
the Witch King, being almost crushed to death after killing a troll, having friends die on you suddenly, seeing your compatriots turn on you, burying your own son killed in combat. being driven mad with grief, and other general unpleasantries. If your main point is to argue that the "war/violence is bad" message in LOTR isn't there, then suffice to say I will happily keep bringing up examples which prove it so. A couple of literary shout outs to epic prose do not change what is fundamentally a story about the tragedy of war and violence.

So I will continue to judge this game on the fact that it appears to be pushing a more gratuitous portrayal of violence than anything Tolkien ever wrote, and if it turns out after the game is released that I am wrong, then so be it.
Click to expand...
 
DaleinCalgary said:
It screams Peter Molyneux hype.
Click to expand...

Why are people still agreeing with this? It's a stupid statement. Molyeux promised stuff about his games that he didn't and couldn't deliver on. We've seen everything they're promising in action multiple times, literally over 6 hours of footage viewable online. The Nemesis system is very very real, , the strongholds are more diverse in enemy movement and layout then anything I've ever seen in AC, and it actually has a fully viable stealth system. The only thing we really don't know is how the story, and side missions will shape up. The story might make this a lower game, but to call any of what they're promising 'Molyneux hype' is blatantly false. Nothing they're hyping hasn't already been shown in action.
 
Net_Wrecker said:
But it's AC x LOTR as co-written and directed by Christian Cantamessa, the lead designer and co-writer of Red Dead Redemption. Plus the combat looks way more empowering than any AC title, and the nemesis syetem is a great twist on these open world action/adventure titles. Have a little faith and hope for the best.
Click to expand...
I'm still expecting the "Nemesis system" to feel just like an elaborate, glorified level scaling.
 
TitusGroan said:
I disagree on this point entirely. The themes and ideas behind what he wrote in The Hobbit and LOTR (what you define as how he wrote) are the most important parts of the story. There are a million books out there with orcs and wizards and dark powers. Almost none of them have the same power, appeal or success as LOTR. Why? Because while very many writers have copied wholesale what Tolkien wrote (the wizards and orcs), they ignored the ideas and themes that made his stories so powerful in the first place. They copied the 'what' but not the 'how'.

The themes Tolkien covers in LOTR, regarding corruption, war, power et all, aren't just unimportant bits of background decoration, they are absolutely key parts of the story. Not just in the characters or the events, but in the actual way the narrative plays out. This is a setting where every evil thing in Middle Earth has its origins in the works of Melkor, where violence as the root of all evil isn't just a pretty saying, but an actual historic fact. The reason that orcs, trolls, wargs, wraiths and other fell things even exist in Middle Earth is because Melkor turned against the Valar and decided to start a millenia-spanning war. Every part of Middle Earth's history is defined by the fact that war is almost literally hell, as it is the creation of the supreme agent of Evil within the setting. The reason the Tolkien Estate (and Christopher Tolkien in particular) have been upset over the films is because how how they missed that point, and instead focused on making the warring seem as cool as possible. This game looks to be going even worse in that regard, making primal violence the main appeal of the game, rather than one of its main horrors.

While writers are certainly at liberty to do what they want with the story (although in this case the story is legally obliged to be sat between The Hobbit and LOTR with no mention of the Silmarillion), they also have an obligation to make sure it is fitting and in keeping with the series it is drawing on. The LOTR series is one where the themes of the story are absolutely an integral part of the whole, and the 'how' is just as important as the 'what'. Jettisoning that to make a game which glorifies a magic ranger slaughtering orcs in a 'super epic' way just misses the point completely. It's like making a sequel to Saving Private Ryan and ending up with Captain America.

That's not saying anything on the game's mechanics or gameplay, just that it looks to have gained absolutely nothing by being set in Middle Earth, as opposed to an original fantasy setting that would allow for this sort of revelry in violence.
Click to expand...

TitusGroan said:
Allowed Tolkien the opportunity? He wrote the friggin' books. It's his friggin' setting. He gave the story the themes it had. How could I allow Tolkien the opportunity to do that which he already did? I recognize the themes and tone that Tolkien imbued his novels with, and am simply asking that other writers using the Middle Earth setting try and follow these themes and tone. A game which actively rewards you for brutalizing orcs in over the top ways is not following those themes, unless the developers pull some major Spec Ops subversion half way through. Rewarding players with new kill abilities and magic teleportation stabby moves is not, I fear, going to make a story that addresses the tragic nature of war.

The wise speak only of what they know, Brad Genz son of Brad Genz Sr. A witless worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a pedantic NeoGAF user till the lightning falls.
Click to expand...


I don't agree. This isn't a direct sequel to the LOTR. I agree that the themes and ideas that "war is hell" etc. are important to the story of the LOTR. However this is a separate story, merely set in the same world. Like I said, Middle Earth isn't defined by the themes set up in the LOTR, it's fantasy universe. One of the deepest and richest fantasy universes ever created. Middle Earth is the lore, the world, not the themes of the LOTR.

This game is called "Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor". Not "The Lord of the Rings: Shadow of Mordor" It doesn't have to comply with the same themes.


As for why this game benefits from being set in Middle Earth. As I said before, Middle Earth is one of the richest fantasy universes ever created. There is so much lore they can draw from to help create their story. I mean they've managed to incorporate Celibrimbor, a character many will not know yet who is still a very important character in the lore. For those familiar with the lore this is awesome, for those who only have a basic grasp Middle earth is still a fantastic setting for a fantasy story.
 
Has there been any mention of city type locations where you gather quests or is it all just straight ahead mission progression?

I want it to be good because of the lore and nemesis, but, I'm not educated enough to decide if I want it or not
 
H3xum said:
Has there been any mention of city type locations where you gather quests or is it all just straight ahead mission progression?

I want it to be good because of the lore and nemesis, but, I'm not educated enough to decide if I want it or not
Click to expand...
They only showed the free form Nemesis system which is the middle part of the game that is generating dynamic mission by having these various generated Orc chiefs.

They have said the game takes place behind enemy lines which I take to mean that you shouldn't expect a city location where you speak to its inhabitants to get side quests.
 
jem0208 said:
I don't agree. This isn't a direct sequel to the LOTR. I agree that the themes and ideas that "war is hell" etc. are important to the story of the LOTR. However this is a separate story, merely set in the same world. Like I said, Middle Earth isn't defined by the themes set up in the LOTR, it's fantasy universe. One of the deepest and richest fantasy universes ever created. Middle Earth is the lore, the world, not the themes of the LOTR.

This game is called "Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor". Not "The Lord of the Rings: Shadow of Mordor" It doesn't have to comply with the same themes.


As for why this game benefits from being set in Middle Earth. As I said before, Middle Earth is one of the richest fantasy universes ever created. There is so much lore they can draw from to help create their story. I mean they've managed to incorporate Celibrimbor, a character many will not know yet who is still a very important character in the lore. For those familiar with the lore this is awesome, for those who only have a basic grasp Middle earth is still a fantastic setting for a fantasy story.
Click to expand...

Hang on... on the one hand, you're arguing that this game is separate from LOTR. And yet it is clearly about the events prior to The War of The Ring, with Sauron mustering his forces, and is therefore clearly connected to LOTR. They even shoe-horned in a Smeagol cameo into the trailer to reinforce the point. How can the game be separate from LOTR/be a standalone Middle Earth game when everything about it's iconography comes from LOTR? That's like making a Star Wars film about some plucky rebel trying to sabotage the Death Star before it's built, then saying the film has nothing to do with A New Hope. The story is clearly based around Sauron's resurgence. Therefore, it is connected to LOTR, not a standalone story.

Secondly, your argument about the lore kind of doesn't apply here. While the Middle Earth setting has lore plenty, Warner Bros are legally not allowed to use any of it. Their rights to the franchise begin and end with the LOTR and Hobbit books. Anything that happens in The Silmarillion is off limits to them, and that's where the majority of the lore is. The only background details and lore they can add to this game are things directly referenced in the books (hence how we're getting Celebrimbor). but the majority of the Middle Earth history and legendarium is off-limits to Monolith. Even if they wanted to, they could not reference larger events in Middle Earth's history, which rather limits the scope of this game somewhat. That they've taken what little lore they have access to and already twisted it to suit their purposes (magic teleportation attacks) makes me believe that the Tolkien Estate might have a point in keeping the rights to the Silmarillion and History of Middle Earth books locked away.

If you're waiting for this game expecting loads of shout-outs to the earlier Ages of Middle Earth, you're going to be disappointed.
 
benny_a said:
They only showed the free form Nemesis system which is the middle part of the game that is generating dynamic mission by having these various generated Orc chiefs.

They have said the game takes place behind enemy lines which I take to mean that you shouldn't expect a city location where you speak to its inhabitants to get side quests.
Click to expand...

That's really unfortunate, (to me) bummer.
 
After the hot mess Watch Dogs is on the PC no way am I going to be fooled 2x and pre-order this. I'll let someone else test this for me.
 
This game will be better than any AC to date just because its pushing what we can do in an open world whilw games like AC is pushing coop and MP and that kind of shit, this nemesis system is a proof of that.
 
More gifs to counter all the negetive hype:
EnemiesRememberYou-overlay1.gif

02_LetMordorWork_ENG_FR_DE.gif

UrukHierarchyMoveAndShake2-overlay1.gif

TalionFriendlyUruks-large.gif

have at you!

edit:whoops!
 
Ape Gone Insane said:
Yup, I have a feeling this game will be getting mid 7s in reviews.
Click to expand...

The horror, a game getting a "decent" score in reviews! Because anything below 8.5 is utter garbage and review scores indicate the quality of a game, right?

Game looks very enjoyable. Given that we've seen so much footage of it, the only thing that could be its downfall is if it's very repetitive and shallow. But it still looks fun, and it tries some unique things that are truly next gen, more so than other games that are getting a lot more hype here.

Mid 7 is a perfectly fine score for me anyway. A lot of games that get 9/10 scores from today's gaming press are extremely unimaginative and boring to me anyway.
 
Tolkien anti-war message is such an ass pull. He doesn't glorify the battles, but then again he hardly describes them at all. Its been years since I read it but doesn't the hobbit basically end with

"It was a long battle and many died. Bilbo humorously was knocked out at the start and missed the whole thing. Silly hobbit.

I read Tolkien and I get messages about good and evil, friendship and journeys. I don't feel anything about the morality of war - if anything other than it being a necessity.

Hell, any of the main characters who don't get to fight feel deep shame and regret. Gimli and Legolas turn war into a game.
 
TucoBenedictoPacifico said:
I'm still expecting the "Nemesis system" to feel just like an elaborate, glorified level scaling.
Click to expand...

What else would it be? I'm not sure I understand this comment. The appeal of the Nemesis system is that it creates an emergent narrative where you're fighting unique personalities that develop through your encounters with them. I don't think it intends to revolutionize gameplay progression, but rather provide compelling immersion in the otherwise generally lifeless open-world genre.
 
Remachinate said:
What else would it be? I'm not sure I understand this comment. The appeal of the Nemesis system is that it creates an emergent narrative where you're fighting unique personalities that develop through your encounters with them. I don't think it intends to revolutionize gameplay progression, but rather provide compelling immersion in the otherwise generally lifeless open-world genre.
Click to expand...

They're saying it will be more gameplay relevant than simple level-scaling. It promises an emergent narrative far and beyond traditional brawlers/action adventure games, and it seems unlikely that it can meet it. You'll be able to target specific leaders and undermine the forces of Sauron in specific ways - all while building up your own army of loyalists.

The way I currently imagine it, just think of Skyrim's Radiant Quest system on a smaller scale, and as the sole focus of a game. The patterns of the system will emerge hard and fast, leaving players perplexed by what the big deal was to begin with.

Skyrim's quest system was bolstered by the huge and open design of the world, which lead to happenstance occurences that make the Radiant quests seem better than they are. For instance, in Skyrim I once found an escaped slave (in rags) on top of a mountain during a blizzard. She spoke to me, but before she could finish what she said a bear ran up from behind her and killed her in a single attack. It was awesomely memorable... not expressly intended, but still allowed.

Without any other emergent systems in play, I can't help but figure the nemesis system will be boring and predictable.
 
LurkerPrime said:
They're saying it will be more gameplay relevant than simple level-scaling. It promises an emergent narrative far and beyond traditional brawlers/action adventure games, and it seems unlikely that it can meet it. You'll be able to target specific leaders and undermine the forces of Sauron in specific ways - all while building up your own army of loyalists.

The way I currently imagine it, just think of Skyrim's Radiant Quest system on a smaller scale, and as the sole focus of a game. The patterns of the system will emerge hard and fast, leaving players perplexed by what the big deal was to begin with.

Skyrim's quest system was bolstered by the huge and open design of the world, which lead to happenstance occurences that make the Radiant quests seem better than they are. For instance, in Skyrim I once found an escaped slave (in rags) on top of a mountain during a blizzard. She spoke to me, but before she could finish what she said a bear ran up from behind her and killed her in a single attack. It was awesomely memorable... not expressly intended, but still allowed.

Without any other emergent systems in play, I can't help but figure the nemesis system will be boring and predictable.
Click to expand...


Smaller scale?

Skyrim's radiant quest system basically did nothing. The nemesis system actually sounds like it will have an effect on the gameplay.
 
jem0208 said:
Pretty appealing to me. Anything which makes your actions have a greater effect on the world is welcome in my games. Biggest issue with the Elder Scrolls is how little you can change the world.
Click to expand...
Well, I would generally agree, except I really don't count enemies scaling in level and generating random bounty missions as "changing the world" in a meaningful way.
If anything, it makes me fear that properly designed content is going to take a backseat compared to this "procedural" stuff.
 
TucoBenedictoPacifico said:
I watched their video explanation. I know what we are talking about here, I'm not guessing.
I'm just not sold on the idea.
Click to expand...
Well then you know it's much more complex then random bounty missions and enemy scaling.

Fair enough if your not sold on the system but there's no point portraying it as something it isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wizards of the Coast tries to position itself as a Monolith in gaming as they hire former Shadow of Mordor/Black Panther devs
19
186
Inspector Q replied
  • Poll
More Xbox Layoffs to come?
Poll  2 3
111
2K
Dr. Wilkinson replied
Incredibly Faithful Shadow Of The Colossus Texture Remaster
38
307
nial replied
AC Shadows Title Update 1.1.1 - Release Notes (map unfog, level cap increase, change ToD and more)
2
68
844
Arachnid replied
Coming to Game Pass: Gears of War: Reloaded, Dragon Age: The Veilguard, Void/Breaker, and More
2
60
489
Tobimacoss replied
Top Bottom