Middle-earth: Shadow of War - Releasing October 10th

[Silver]

Middle-Earth: Shadow of War will now release October 10th according to Monolith.

Middle-earth: Shadow of War will now launch worldwide on Oct. 10, 2017**.

Middle-earth: Shadow of War expands gameplay in every dimension, including the massive open world, the story, the RPG systems, and personal player stories of the Nemesis System. As with Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor, Monolith is committed to delivering the highest quality experience. In order to do this, we have made the difficult decision to move our launch date to ensure that Middle-earth: Shadow of War will deliver on that promise.

We understand that it might be disappointing to have to wait a little longer for the release and are sorry for the delay, but we are working hard to make an amazing game. We're excited to show more at E3.

- The Middle-earth: Shadow of War Team

**Some territories such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan will have a different release date.

More information.

 

[joxer]

**Some territories such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan will have a different release date.

If that means those countries will never get to see this trash, I'm moving there ASAP.

 

[Silver]

If that means those countries will never get to see this trash, I'm moving there ASAP.

But the Lord of the Rings was made in NZ.

Just kidding...

 

[NewDArt]

I fully admit that I haven't followed this one - as I really didn't like the first game.

What are the significant changes, if any?

 

[joxer]

But the Lord of the Rings was made in NZ.

This is not my life was too. Watch now. Hope noone ruins it with AC clone.
That reminds me, I still didn't watch Hunt for the Wilderpeople… *sigh* So little time for everything.

I fully admit that I haven't followed this one - as I really didn't like the first game.

What are the significant changes, if any?

The first game, apart from being AC clone and praised by critics for I never understood what exactly, was notorious for being the first title in history that asked 6Gb of VRAM if you wanted to put settings on ultra where that ultra IIRC looked no different (sorry, forgot, the game isn't one of those I care much about but I believe I'd remember if ultra looked better on totalbiscuit and others' videos).
We won't know for sure if that idiocy remained till the game gets released, but significant change is that now they recommend 16Gb of RAM unlike 8Gb that was recommended for it's predecessor:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/356190/Middleearth_Shadow_of_War/

 

[vurt]

Haha how the hell did they make it require this much RAM and vRAM on PC.. a console doesnt have nearly those amounts. Hilarious.

I remember a video from the first game where some dude wins a supposedly "hard" fight with pressing just 1 button in the whole fight, doing nothing else really. His character moves around by himself doing cool kills and tricks to no end.

A very tragic development of ""gaming"" i thought, i never really looked back at this game after that..

Its too bad since the setting is really great (imo), and i could probably be forgiving to story and main character if it was a good game (involving and good combat, for starters).

 

[Irian]

While I don't mind criticism of technical details, it somehow lacks real punch when talking about a game. Ok, the hardware requirements were high, good to know, thanks (but ok, the first game worked well on my not new computer back then, so I'm not really fearful). Still not a very impressive criticism of the actual gameplay, plot, etc.

Personally, I like it, had a nice flow and I actually enjoyed the combat. Can't imagine the one-button tactic actually works, but true, combat wasn't too hard overall (but honestly, I don't like frustrating combat games, I prefer games where the flow works somehow). Of course, it's not twue Tolkien, but it's a nice alternative version of middle earth, if taken for itself.

As for changes, seems that the next one has more and bigger of the same. Controlling enemies was a mere detail in the first game, seems it becomes the big thing in the next one with attacking strongholds, bigger battles, etc. Don't know how it will work out, but I'm curious.

 

[vurt]

About the combat;

its shit.. doesnt need to be dark souls quality for me to enjoy something, but man that type of combat is just a total fail to me.. maybe he's exaggerating a bit but i dunno, doesn't look good.

 

[Archangel]

From what I remember the combat was just like Batman Arkham Asylum games, and that combat was praised by many.

 

[vurt]

it doesn't say a lot though, call of duty is a best selling game too. i bet these games are great for young people while for many of us older players in our 40's+have a really hard time understanding what's good or even what's fun with the gameplay if you just spam 1 button and you can win. We probably tend to like games with more involving combat, Dark Souls is in my mind combat almost perfected.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

its shit.. doesnt need to be dark souls quality for me to enjoy something, .

Dark Souls has good combat?

This idgit is misrepresenting game here...with more automated game systems you can button mash against trash mobs on easier difficulties...hell you can do it even with Bayo or DMC... but it's mechanics were more than solid.

Combat systems in Soulsborne game are more "involving" ( though you can cheese enemies with soft lock and strafe and entire ranged combat), but janky as fuck and barely functional in comparison.

 

[NewDArt]

Dark Souls combat is pretty good if you enjoy repetition and a tiny arsenal of options

 

[NewDArt]

Oh, btw, the game didn't require that much vram - that was for the optional PC-centric extra high-res textures.

Game ran pretty well overall, IIRC.

Sadly, it was still boring shit to me.

 

[vurt]

DS has obviously the best and most diverse melee combat of any recent game, care to give examples of better ones? Tons of options with the many various weapons (who all have a very different feel). The combat is not as hectic and way more strategic than here so it would probably not work for a game like this. But that doesn't mean the combat here could be more involving.

 

[NewDArt]

DS has obviously the best and most diverse melee combat of any recent game, care to give examples of better ones? Tons of options with the many various weapons (who all have a very different feel). The combat is not as hectic and way more strategic than here so it would probably not work for a game like this. But that doesn't mean the combat here could be more involving.

I'm afraid it's not obvious to someone who doesn't agree.

I can't give you an example that will change your opinion

I can give you several examples of combat that I, personally, enjoy a lot more.

I tend to prefer stealth and archery - which Dark Souls doesn't really provide. Archery is utter crap in that game - and stealth doesn't really exist AFAIK.

When I do enjoy melee combat, I tend to prefer fast dual-wielding combat, which Dark Souls doesn't provide.

I also absolutely despise repetition and redoing content for no reason other than to motivate me to care about a combat system I don't enjoy.

I also really, really enjoy having additional moves and powers to aid combat - both in terms of active skills and passive buffs. While Dark Souls has a decent amount of melee moves - it has very little in the way of unique combat powers.

So, that's another dull aspect of combat for me.

So, one might say Dark Souls just wasn't made for someone like me.

There are many games that cater more to my playstyle, including a bunch of MMOs and the TES and modern Fallout games.

 

[Archangel]

it doesn't say a lot though, call of duty is a best selling game too. i bet these games are great for young people while for many of us older players in our 40's+have a really hard time understanding what's good or even what's fun with the gameplay if you just spam 1 button and you can win. We probably tend to like games with more involving combat, Dark Souls is in my mind combat almost perfected.

Difference between Dark Souls and Batman/Middle earth is that Dark Souls does not have on screen icon to tell you when to dodge and when to block and when to press a button to do a combo but you need to watch enemy animations and learn these yourself.
It is certainly harder but for older people like me not more fun.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

DS has obviously the best and most diverse melee combat of any recent game, care to give examples of better ones? Tons of options with the many various weapons (who all have a very different feel). The combat is not as hectic and way more strategic than here so it would probably not work for a game like this. But that doesn't mean the combat here could be more involving.

That is not complexity, that is system that is wide...combat revolves around circle strafe/roll through/block -> attack between "gaps", rinse/repeat.
While it does have impressive weapon arsenal and metagaming, it is poor and unpolished when it comes to base mechanics...ranging everything: hitboxes, camera, AI, movement, weapon sounds, lock on, controls etc...compared to almost every well known h&s/action game: Bayo, DMC, Gaiden, or more recent : Nioh, For Honor, etc.
When it comes down to it, as an action game it lacks speed, fluidity and precision, with tactics it's ( incredibly rigid and predictable) enemy AI makes it far too predictable and monotonous...that's what essentially kills it ( for me).
It rarely has those moments of emergent gameplay spontaneity, adapt/think quick on your feet...feels more like a game of patience.
Also not a fan of get killed/memorization approach...it is far more satisfying to have open gameplay mechanics( Arkane is king here) and overcome challenges through experimentation and creative thinking than blunt repetition.
It's not bad, but ( like Dogma), consider it lot closer to mediocre than great.

 

[lostforever]

I'm afraid it's not obvious to someone who doesn't agree.

I can't give you an example that will change your opinion

I can give you several examples of combat that I, personally, enjoy a lot more.

I tend to prefer stealth and archery - which Dark Souls doesn't really provide. Archery is utter crap in that game - and stealth doesn't really exist AFAIK.

When I do enjoy melee combat, I tend to prefer fast dual-wielding combat, which Dark Souls doesn't provide.

I also absolutely despise repetition and redoing content for no reason other than to motivate me to care about a combat system I don't enjoy.

I also really, really enjoy having additional moves and powers to aid combat - both in terms of active skills and passive buffs. While Dark Souls has a decent amount of melee moves - it has very little in the way of unique combat powers.

So, that's another dull aspect of combat for me.

So, one might say Dark Souls just wasn't made for someone like me.

There are many games that cater more to my playstyle, including a bunch of MMOs and the TES and modern Fallout games.

I have only played DS3 but I didn't find it repetitive since I sucked at the combat till the end! I tend to find something repetitive only when its becomes "easy" for me and I am not longer engaged with it.

 

[lostforever]

When it comes down to it, as an action game it lacks speed, fluidity and precision, with tactics it's ( incredibly rigid and predictable) enemy AI makes it far too predictable and monotonous…that's what essentially kills it ( for me).

Example of such action games? You mean Neir?

 

[NewDArt]

I have only played DS3 but I didn't find it repetitive since I sucked at the combat till the end! I tend to find something repetitive only when its becomes "easy" for me and I am not longer engaged with it.

I only played Demon's Souls and Dark Souls - so I can't talk about the sequels, except that they certainly look nearly identical to me.

I never found combat particularly hard. The game was just extremely unforgiving of mistakes in terms of making you repeat a lot of content if you messed up.

I mean, if Witcher 3 did that and had no quick save - then Death March would have been much "harder" than Dark Souls in terms of trash mobs because of the ridiculous damage scaling the game employs.

I tend to hate boss battles that break established playstyles - so it's not exactly a surprise that I don't like the Souls games.

Bosses were mini-puzzles that you either had to learn through trial and error - or by looking up strategies online (lame).

For some reason, people find that kind of challenge interesting - where as I tend to prefer a more tactical style of combat where common sense and pure skill (both in terms of character skill and player skill) come into play.

To me, guessing the designer puzzle solution is not a very interesting skill for me to evolve - because so much of it is based on repetition and pure grind. It becomes a game of observation and "luck" - where you will defeat the boss because you figure out the gimmick or the trick, and then you have to execute the solution perfectly (here's where repetition and pattern memorization become the focus of play) - pretty much completely ignoring your previous playstyle or character strategy in most cases.

I feel the same way about, say, RTS games. I hate RTS games that make you play a level in a specific designer-intended way - because that, to me, has nothing to do with actual strategy. That has to do with guessing whatever the designer had in mind and then following that like a Lemming.

I much prefer RTS games that reward sound use of combined arms and resource managment, as well as a sound tactical approach to the actual battles.

In Dark Souls - you can come up with the perfect character strategy and excellent movement timing - and you'll still be killed endlessly, because "oh, this boss will suddenly jump and land on your face with no warning" - or whatever. It reminds me of school - in terms of learning to recite whatever was deemed important, instead of thinking for myself.

How fun….