WB hide Shadow of Wars true ending behind a choice, grind for 40 - 50 hours or pay

[leadeater]

11 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

If this was a Japanese game maker, they could get away with it, maybe. Some of the "True End" to games are actually designed to be behind hours & hours of work. Adding the option to the skip to the end would, to the Japanese Dev, seem stupid, but I can see an argument for it.

 

The problem is that Western Developers don't normally do that, so is seems like an insulting cash grab.

With those games they are a bit less grindy though, huge time investment for sure but it's not 'kill thousands of bores every day' kind of crap (South Park ).

 

Personally I do like those true ending stuff with the Jap RPG games, optional bosses, ultimate weapon etc etc but this nobody could possible like, at all. 

[AdmiralMeowmix]

It is not "locked" behind a paywall and "finished the story in 15 hours" so they ignored all the side quests and stuff and just tried to finish the game as fast as possible? of course it's going to end up being a grind. Not to mention the game is all about slaughtering Uruks and capturing forts, if it's a grind to play the best part of the game then oh well.

 

Heck Eurogamer even said that if you NEED to use lootboxes, you're an idiot and playing on the wrong difficulty.

 

Grinding can be fine if you're doing something  FUN for it and I for one think slaughtering thousands of orcs is pretty dang fun.

 

Sure MT's suck, not much we can do about it at this point. They are optional, the "grind" exists because journalists are trying to rush through the game and expect to be able to be a God the whole way through like in the first game. It's already been proven many journalists HATE real challenges or games they can't speedrun in a day.

[Jito463]

10 minutes ago, AdmiralMeowmix said:

and "finished the story in 15 hours" so they ignored all the side quests and stuff and just tried to finish the game as fast as possible? of course it's going to end up being a grind.

You do bring up a valid point.  If a lot of content was ignored just to complete the game, it would certainly seem like a grind to finish through to the "true ending".  That is assuming that's what happened, though.  My playtime in SoM was 24 hours, and that was taking my time in many regards.  I learned long ago that when a developer seemingly wants you to go one way, it's best to head the opposite direction first.

 

While there's probably stuff I've missed, I dare say it wouldn't account for another 30-40 hours worth.  I'll wait to see if this report is confirmed elsewhere.

[AdmiralMeowmix]

11 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You do bring up a valid point.  If a lot of content was ignored just to complete the game, it would certainly seem like a grind to finish through to the "true ending".  That is assuming that's what happened, though.  My playtime in SoM was 24 hours, and that was taking my time in many regards.  I learned long ago that when a developer seemingly wants you to go one way, it's best to head the opposite direction first.

 

While there's probably stuff I've missed, I dare say it wouldn't account for another 30-40 hours worth.  I'll wait to see if this report is confirmed elsewhere.

I've seen reports that people have played a good 40 hours without even finishing the main story. SoW is meant to be "around 4 times as big" (i'd probably says at least twice as long in terms of main story)

 

Reviewers tend to speed run as they want to be the first or at least one of the first to get their reviews out. So far 99% of reviewers LOVE the game, the story is meh but the focus isn't the story in Monolith games the combat is. The new nemisis system is amazing in every way from what I have seen. The first reviewer that started this whole "You're being forced to buy MT's" facade complained there was too much to do in the game and didn't like that it didn't focus on the story.

 

If the reviewer is complaining about the amount of content we get and wants less then something is wrong with the reviewer not the game unless that content is horrid which in this case it isn't according to everyone else. Most early adopters of the game (those lucky son of guns) estimate there's a good 40-50 hours minimum of content in the game and that isn't counting the hours spent messing with the new nemesis system.

[Derangel]

31 minutes ago, AdmiralMeowmix said:

I've seen reports that people have played a good 40 hours without even finishing the main story. SoW is meant to be "around 4 times as big" (i'd probably says at least twice as long in terms of main story)

 

Reviewers tend to speed run as they want to be the first or at least one of the first to get their reviews out. So far 99% of reviewers LOVE the game, the story is meh but the focus isn't the story in Monolith games the combat is. The new nemisis system is amazing in every way from what I have seen. The first reviewer that started this whole "You're being forced to buy MT's" facade complained there was too much to do in the game and didn't like that it didn't focus on the story.

 

If the reviewer is complaining about the amount of content we get and wants less then something is wrong with the reviewer not the game unless that content is horrid which in this case it isn't according to everyone else. Most early adopters of the game (those lucky son of guns) estimate there's a good 40-50 hours minimum of content in the game and that isn't counting the hours spent messing with the new nemesis system.

Games like this all depend on how much you want to explore and how much the game encourages and rewards that exploration. That said, lets not outright dismiss every claim here. WB is one of the worst video game publishers in the industry right now. These are the guys that outright admitted that they didn't want to continuing patching a game in order to sell more DLC. Then there was Arkham Knight's PC version. Let's also not forget that WB has been caught bribing outlets to give games better scores. So, of course they're going to demand that something like a game's true ending is hidden behind a massive grind that they have purposefully designed to sell lootboxes. They're not going to force you to pay for it, the illusion of choice is a much more powerful tool. They can trick you into believing you made the choice to spend money and weren't lured in by their manipulations. Manipulations designed by psychologists that they hire for this specific purpose. They're doing the exact same thing casinos do. No publisher is going to force lootboxes or microtransactions into a game and not encourage the player to buy them. That would be stupid and counterproductive. Lootboxes are a great way to turn people who might consider buying a MT or two into people addicted to the gambling aspect of "maybe the next one will be the item I want". Everything is manipulatively designed for that purpose. This is even more obvious as the game taunts you with lootboxes every time you pause.

[ravenshrike]

19 hours ago, Castdeath97 said:

So Forza 7 got screwed up
Shadow of War got screwed up

And Battlefront got screwed up

 

Is this the worst quarter for games?

GT:Sport is coming out and there will eventually be 4-500 cars for free* with no microtransactions.

*Obviously free means that you don't pay real money for them.

[VicBar]

This is pretty insulting and it makes ending the game pointless.

 

I'm not complaning (and I think noone should) about the grind to get a hidden finale. That's natural and great. It rewards loyal fans and encourages players, but the problem is giving the option to just pay for the end... It makes the entire option of grinding it out old-school style completely meaningless, empty, shallow..

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, VicBar said:

This is pretty insulting and it makes ending the game pointless.

 

I'm not complaning (and I think noone should) about the grind to get a hidden finale. That's natural and great. It rewards loyal fans and encourages players, but the problem is giving the option to just pay for the end... It makes the entire option of grinding it out old-school style completely meaningless, empty, shallow..

It's not like people didn't already pay others to do the grind for them.... That was somewhat common in WoW. So WB is just cutting out the middle man, it will still be the same person who will pay for both. And as others have already pointed out, reviewers will rush through games to get their reviews out, so that 50-hour grind could easily be like 5 hours for someone who was doing all the side quests the entire game.

[Stadiz]

Now I'm hoping for media critics to love the game but to rip a new hole to the  marketing morons behind all this BS.

I'm so glad I did not pre-order this game.

 

Well, I guess I will be going to buy the "Ye old one-pack edition"  later on.

 

[michaelocarroll007]

On 10/8/2017 at 10:47 AM, Master Disaster said:

 

 

I called this year's ago, locking end game content behind a paywall basically forcing players to pay if they want to complete a game. Of course back then I was being facetious and here we are at that exact point right now.

 

Fuck the gaming industry, we need another market crash to clear away these bloodsucking leeches.

Man i say the same thing with all these loot boxes and Shit but people are paying out the ass for this shit. They wouldnt do it if it didnt make them more money. 

SW battlefront 2 also has some pretty bad pay now or grind to get a fair advantage online.

 

I also have the understanding game prices havent increased in Two generations. But Computers to make them have gotten way better to help keep costs down. Also If this is the case then id Much rather Them charge 69.99 and thats it or whatever the price would need to be. But make a good game it really doesnt matter the price $30 pubg is now at 500 million in sales and is half the price of a regular game with insane profits. (Yes some sketchy loot stuff has been done here also) but the reason stands it didnt need to be money wise. 

 

Pre ordering also bothers me like I dont need to buy a game months early when have you ever walked into a store and there sold out? I only buy digital wich makes even less of a reason to do so. 

 

 

As long as its more profitable they will continue to do it. Only way it is if people pay. Honestly though it seems like Younger kids are more the culprit to this. which Is even worse. Canada has a petition to stop this type of kid selected gambing .

[AdmiralMeowmix]

http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/350747-shadow-war-microtransaction-controversy-non-issue

[AresKrieger]

31 minutes ago, AdmiralMeowmix said:

http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/350747-shadow-war-microtransaction-controversy-non-issue

Well I am inclined to believe polygon had a long grind due to their own incompetence as they are the same idiots who could not play doom worth a damn.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, AresKrieger said:

Well I am inclined to believe polygon had a long grind due to their own incompetence as they are the same idiots who could not play doom worth a damn.

Those were the same guys? Wow, they suck.

[Jito463]

On 10/9/2017 at 6:49 PM, AdmiralMeowmix said:

http://www.gamerevolution.com/features/350747-shadow-war-microtransaction-controversy-non-issue

From that source:

 

Quote

Microtransactions aren't ideal, but they're part of gaming now.

Uh...no.

 

[Master Disaster]

On 10/10/2017 at 1:21 AM, AresKrieger said:

Well I am inclined to believe polygon had a long grind due to their own incompetence as they are the same idiots who could not play doom worth a damn.

Except both Polygon and Gamespot said the exact same thing and they guy who wrote that article admits he knew about the grind going into the game and therefore actively went about upgrading his army while playing solely for the purposes of beating act 4. Both Polygon and Gamespot point out that up to act 4 you're never told about upgrading your army and there is not even any point in doing so until act 4 meaning players going into the game blind will very likely hit the exact same grind wall and Polygon and Gamespot did.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Except both Polygon and Gamespot said the exact same thing and they guy who wrote that article admits he knew about the grind going into the game and therefore actively went about upgrading his army while playing solely for the purposes of beating act 4. Both Polygon and Gamespot point out that up to act 4 you're never told about upgrading your army and there is not even any point in doing so until act 4 meaning players going into the game blind will very likely hit the exact same grind wall and Polygon and Gamespot did.

Was the option there just not pointed out, or was it not available until act 4?

[Master Disaster]

3 hours ago, tjcater said:

Was the option there just not pointed out, or was it not available until act 4?

AFAIK the option to build your army is available from the start however the game doesn't tell you about the end game or how important it is to have legand orcs in your army ever meaning any blind player will reach act 4 with no knowledge of what's coming. Again AFAIK your orc army serves no real purpose until Act 4 meaning for 3/4 of the game your kinda sold on not needing to upgrade it then all of a sudden it's important that your army is SUPER strong.

 

It's worth mentioning that Polygon & GameSpot's story has been "verified" by a lot of other players too. I use "" because it's merely anecdotal at this point but when the majority of players are crying wolf and only one isn't I tend to believe the majority.

[chilicheeseburger]

So that means you'll just have to build up your army from the beginning to avoid endless grinding later on?

[Master Disaster]

Just now, chilicheeseburger said:

So that means you'll just have to build up your army from the beginning to avoid endless grinding later on?

If I understand it correctly then yes.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

AFAIK the option to build your army is available from the start however the game doesn't tell you about the end game or how important it is to have legand orcs in your army ever meaning any blind player will reach act 4 with no knowledge of what's coming.

If games have gotten to the point were we need to be spoon feed the importance of building up an army in a game that has doing this as its core theme (At least that's what the advertisements have suggested), I'm worried about the future more than before. Also kinda spoilery if we need to know an end game objective at the very beginning.

[Master Disaster]

53 minutes ago, tjcater said:

If games have gotten to the point were we need to be spoon feed the importance of building up an army in a game that has doing this as its core theme (At least that's what the advertisements have suggested), I'm worried about the future more than before. Also kinda spoilery if we need to know an end game objective at the very beginning.

Or the alternative view is it's a deliberate act of trickery in order to force players into spending money on loot boxes.

 

See if it was just about building an army then fine, dumb players bla bla bla however it's not just about building an army. In order to defeat act 4 an army of legendary orcs is REQUIRED, now legendary orcs do appear on the battlefield and can be obtained legitimately but they're pretty rare to find and only ever appear as part of a bigger group making capturing them extremely difficult. It's basically RNG whether they die before you can capture them. The only guaranteed way of obtaining legendary orcs is by buying loot boxes.

 

A deliberatey obscured game mechanic requiring a full army of the hardest items to acquire that is only even relevant for the final quarter of the game and takes around 40 hours to get legitimately (by the smallest estimate) or pay us money, skip the 40 hour grind and get your ending in 4 hours instead.

 

And your defending this BS? People who defend this behaviour make me worried about the future.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

And your defending this BS? People who defend this behaviour make me worried about the future.

I'm not defending their methods but if we need to be told to build a better army then I find it sad.

[Master Disaster]

5 minutes ago, tjcater said:

I'm not defending their methods but if we need to be told to build a better army then I find it sad.

I see your point but the problem is the full army of required legendary orcs. You can spend the entire game building your army to the best of your ability and reach act 4 while still being hugely underpowered for what's required to beat the game. Basically everything in your army that's not legendary is totally worthless to you and will likely die in a few fights leaving you with the choice of go grinding until you find a legendary (it's RNG to find one then RNG if it dies before you get to it) or pay to get one immediately.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I see your point but the problem is the full army of required legendary orcs. You can spend the entire game building your army to the best of your ability and reach act 4 while still being hugely underpowered for what's required to beat the game. Basically everything in your army that's not legendary is totally worthless to you and will likely die in a few fights leaving you with the choice of go grinding until you find a legendary (it's RNG to find one then RNG if it dies before you get to it) or pay to get one immediately.

Hmm, that makes a lot more sense. Not being able to properly beat an act of the game without a practically maxed out army is ridiculous. I was initially under a false impression that you could make a member legendary through upgrading/leveling. Yep, not much I could do to defend any mechanic if it was this bad to start

[Master Disaster]

10 minutes ago, tjcater said:

Hmm, that makes a lot more sense. Not being able to properly beat an act of the game without a practically maxed out army is ridiculous. I was initially under a false impression that you could make a member legendary through upgrading/leveling. Yep, not much I could do to defend any mechanic if it was this bad to start

I can't say that isn't true to be honest, I've never played the game (don't want to spread misinformation).