How Shadow of Mordor is a Poor Man's Batman: Arkham Game

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
3,247
0
0
How Shadow of Mordor is a Poor Man's Batman: Arkham Game

Shadow of Mordor takes a lot of cues from Batman: Arkham City and Batman: Arkham Asylum. So what did the Tolkien game do wrong and the Arkham games do right?

Read Full Article
 

sturryz

New member
Nov 17, 2007
504
0
0
Can we stop talking about the how the gameplay systems are like Batman? because it's clear the focus was always on the Nemesis System and everything else was there to fill in the blanks, it's like saying that Minecraft is an awful game because of the combat, even though building is clearly the focus.
 

blackaesir

New member
May 16, 2014
19
0
0
Oh Shamus, I love your game analysis articles. I don't always agree with your final analysis, but I do love the post gameplay discussions about mechanics and complexity and difficulty. It always makes for a fun read.

Having not played Shadow of Mordor yet, I can't comment on it directly, but you are on dead-on with the Arkham games. The their systems were fun to master (and that they encouraged you to do so) was a big reason why I did New Game+.
 

jabrwock

New member
Sep 5, 2007
204
0
0
The game also messes up the strategic aspect of the game by zooming in for over-the-top blood-spurting kill moves. You'll be tracking the movement of a half dozen foes and planning your actions several seconds in advance, but then you kill someone and all of a sudden the game takes away your view of the battlefield so you can watch a decapitation animation you've seen dozens of times already. When the camera pulls back out, the positioning has changed and broken your flow. (This is on top of the fact that the camera is a bit dodgy to begin with, and frequently ends up stuck behind scenery.)
Arkham does this much better. They only do the closeup/slowdown/zoom/killview at the final bad guy in range. So it doesn't break your flow. And is a great "ok, you can relax, fight's over" indicator.
 

Robyrt

New member
Aug 1, 2008
568
0
0
One thing that made the Shadow of Mordor combat feel fresh compared to the Arkham games was the importance of location. In an Arkham game, combat is generally unavoidable and limited to a canned set of enemies for each fight. In SOM, it's easy to get ambushed by additional archers or high-level named foes who happened to hear the battle going on, which makes for a more tense experience even though the combo counter is super lax. On the flip side, it's also possible to run past most enemies, giving it a more Souls-y feel.
 

The Goat Tsar

New member
Mar 17, 2010
224
0
0
Holy shit dude. You must have really hated this game. Today I learned to never piss of Shamus Young...
 

MooseHowl

New member
Dec 20, 2008
61
0
0
The more I hear about Shadow of Mordor, the more it sounds like it was constructed by committee. Frankensteined together out of otherwise healthy parts, to make a game with maximum possible "brand potential" and "consumer appeal", whatever those are supposed to be.

Still a fine game, by industry standards, but like Shamus says, less than the sum of its parts.
 

Kilo24

New member
Aug 20, 2008
463
0
0
Shamus: I think that you've argued that your combat abilities aren't as closely tied to the combo meter as it is in Arkham, not that Shadow of Mordor's combat is an inferior version of Arkham's. Having not played Arkham, I can't comment on how critical it is there - but here it's just one of many combat tools that unlocks special moves, not a score counter.

Personally, I think the game is significantly better for it. I find that slash-slash-slash-counter punctuated by an execution every 2-3 repetitions is a boring thing to keep repeating for every orc in a group of 20, that the autotargeting makes it so that it's a pain to target the special orcs that disrupt the rhythm, and that the large number of options available that circumvent that - shooting a bow, riding in with a caragor, blowing up a nearby fire or other environmental hazard, frightening off orcs and whatever else - to be much more interesting than "can you hit the buttons at the right time?" Improvisation is the skill rewarded here, not hitting button prompts with the right timing - that's especially the case when you add in the Nemesis system changing up vulnerabilities. The biggest issue that I found is that the bow gets very powerful against normal orcs with lots of arrows and focus, but that happens at about the time that fighting normal orcs gets old.

My personal dislike of that system is strong enough that hearing that the Arkham games are more reliant on the combo meter makes me significantly less interested in playing them. On my first playthrough of Shadows of Mordor, I felt like the combat got slow and boring a number of times largely because of it relying on building up the combo meter to be effective. I never felt that during the second playthrough - a little because I got better at the combo meter stuff, but mostly because I figured out how to be effective without needing to rely on it. From my experience with Shadows of Mordor and what I know of the Arkham series, I'd rate the former's combat better by far.

I do share your disdain of the execution slo-mo moves and the quick-time events, however.
 

sageoftruth

New member
Jan 29, 2010
3,417
0
0
One thing I'd like to add is the fact that Batman fights with his fists, while Talion fights with a sword. Surprisingly, I found hitting enemies with fists to be far more satisfying. I think it was the impact sound effects Rocksteady used in that game. Far more gratifying than the light "shwiiing" from landing a sword blow. I also loved how the Arkham games had a unique impact sound effect for when Batman delivered a final blow to an enemy. In Shadow of Morodor, I often killed orcs with normal blows without realizing it. Those things definitely matter. It's a big part of what makes One Finger Death Punch so fun to play.
 

sageoftruth

New member
Jan 29, 2010
3,417
0
0
The Goat Tsar said:
Holy shit dude. You must have really hated this game. Today I learned to never piss of Shamus Young...
No kidding. Odd coming from Shamus. Normally, he's pretty calm and forgiving when it comes to games, but once this came out it felt like he suddenly started gravitating towards Jimquisition territory and has latched onto it like Jim latches onto big game publishers.
 

Darmy647

New member
Sep 28, 2012
225
0
0
Your complaints make sense until we bring up the variable factor of "different strokes for different people". You noted how stupid it was to completely jump around into the mechanics of fighting, stealth, range, etc. Then you come back around again and complain that it was not satisfying not rewarding to have a hit streak not fail against shielded enemies. A lot of players, if they hit said shield, sometimes get punished by the game, jabbed by spears the shield carriers are holding. The 2 weapon holding beserkers will grab a player who is mashing attack and headbutt their face, resetting the combo streak meter. The points ARE well thought out but they come back again when actually re-analysed. This is sounding less like a really well thought out article and more like bias when its re-read and compared with the points more thoroughly.

I don't dislike the New batman games at all. I also do not dislike Shadow of Mordor. But at this point, since we've both acknowledged how its hardcore borrowed from other games, can we not just look over it at this point? None of us are lawyers nor are we gaining any profit for constantly pointing it, nor do i think if we DO continue to do it, there's going to be an upcomming patch that will change it. Its just a thing. Its still enjoyable. And hey, we got the new batman game comming out like next year, so a small little appetizer never hurt anybody.
 

Grampy_bone

New member
Mar 12, 2008
797
0
0
Normally I find Shamus' columns insightful but this seems like one of the most nitpicky articles I've read in a long time. If I were to venture a guess I'd say Shamus had difficulty with the game and became determined to hate it (based on his tweets--he was grumbling about the lack of difficulty settings.) That's valid, though I don't agree with the comparison about how the game mechanics are designed around "empowering" and how Batman's aren't (they totally are). The vast majority of games are about empowering the player in some way--consider Mario is about a dude who gets huge and stomps on bad guys, but few people would call it an "escapist power fantasy" and ***** and moan about it.

All these complaints about "male power fantasies" its like people want every videogame main character to be some kind of weak, asthmatic, scoliosis survivor whose only ability is to blow a rape whistle for help or something.

I also don't understand the complaints that Tolkien's work isn't about heroic superheroes--in a story where there are literal supermen who live past 100 and are stronger and tougher than normal people (Dunedain, Talion is one of them) and who take on armies of orcs single-handedly, along with an elf and a dwarf who have an "orc-slaying contest" to see who can get the highest score (yes that part is actually in the books).

The whole point of the piece seems to be that the game has very little tutorial, which is true. A lot has been written lately about how modern games excessively hand-hold and spoon-feed the player so I can understand why they would want to streamline the tutorial. I like it when a game just hands me the tools and dumps me into the game and lets me figure it out on my own, as long as a resource exists for reference when necessary (in game manuals and player guides are great). But SOM failed by not giving enough info for Shamus and that's valid.

Finally, on the way the Arkham games handle the combo meter and how SOM is a lot more forgiving, well the Arkham games can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned. Punishing you with the loss of the combo when you hit a wrong button because the game hasn't prompted you yet is total bullshit, and one of the reasons I hate that game's combat (this coming from a DMC/Bayonetta fan). SOM has a more sensible combo system and it isn't designed around using unnecessary moves that you don't even need (cape stun-batarang-vault) against one or two guys just to get the "variety" bonus. It's so dumb.

sageoftruth said:
One thing I'd like to add is the fact that Batman fights with his fists, while Talion fights with a sword. Surprisingly, I found hitting enemies with fists to be far more satisfying. I think it was the impact sound effects Rocksteady used in that game. Far more gratifying than the light "shwiiing" from landing a sword blow. I also loved how the Arkham games had a unique impact sound effect for when Batman delivered a final blow to an enemy. In Shadow of Morodor, I often killed orcs with normal blows without realizing it. Those things definitely matter. It's a big part of what makes One Finger Death Punch so fun to play.
This is a really good point; Talion's sword swings just feel weak and wimpy. I think this is partially because translating brawling mechanics into swordfighting mechanics doesn't really work. Basically if Talion was connecting with solid, brutal sword hits on every strike like Batman does it would make it hard to believe that the orcs are such bruisers. They take like a dozen+ hits to take down without using a special finisher which is the point of the combat system; to make you rely on finishers and specials over pure button mashing, because Talion's basic strikes are so weak it takes forever to kill regular orcs with them. It works from a mechanical sense but it doesn't look quite right when you're playing it. This is a pretty valid complaint about the game so I'm surprised Shamus doesn't make it. Basically the only way to fix it would be to change the combat to be more like Assassin's Creed where sword hits are much more lethal.
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
I normally like your articles very much because they tend to be well thought out.
This one is less so.
You bash the combat system for being different than the Arkham games, without really looking or understanding the combat system.
The combo-meter in Shadow of Morder is not there for score, like in the Arkham games, that's why it's not as punishing.
The main purpose of the combo-meter is the charge-up for stronger attacks. The ability to one-hit kill, combat brand or push back all enemies are unlocked by building up the combo-meter.
Additionally it works in conjunction with the runes-mechanic allowing for special runes effects as long as you stay in a certain range of combo-meter.
This all worked in Shadow of Mordor to create a fun combat experience, which is similar to the Akham games, but still a lot different.
You use the weaker foes to build up the combo, use the special weapon charge to brand an enemy, use those elfshots you got to put out a few archers that were harrassing you, then get back into the fray.
The Arkham games are a lot about very methodical combat against a certain number of enemies. The amount of enemies in SOM however is a lot bigger. The mechanics are not working to make you score-hunt a perfect combat encounter, but to make you fight to survive large battles with large amounts of enemies.
Additionally i don't get your complaint about the game supposedly throwing abilities at the player.
The game teaches you three things in the beginning.
Very basic combat, aka press button x to hit enemy, press it in conjunction with button z to kill a downed enemy, press buttony y to grap an enemy.
Very basic ranged combat, aim with that button, shoot with that other button.
Very basic sneak, hold that button to sneak and press that button to kill an enemy.
That's it. Three buttons during the basic combat and two during ranged and sneak combat. That's not difficult. The more complex parts of the combat get introduced over the course of the game.
You unlock the instand-kills, when you level up. You learn how to stun enemies, Enemies with shields appear, berserkers appear. You learn shadow strike and so on and so on.
The game does a very good job of spacing out the aquisition of new abilities. Way better than Arkham City btw. while you are still forcing that comparison.
Do yourself a favor Shamus and stop talking about SoM. You don't like the game, we get it, it's fine. But it's not an interesting topic to read about. It's the equivalent of those threads that always pop up after a successfull game that can be summarised as "Well, that game you liked. I didn't!". That might be the case and you might have some valid points there but it's not enough to make a new thread when there's tons allready talking about the game out there and it's not enough to write two consecutive columns about the topic.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Interesting that Yahtzee has praised this game (usually he just rants at how shit a game is) and Shamus doesn't like it. I can understand the tone argument, but the game itself (combat included) only partly reminded me of Arkham. The similarities ended with the amount of enemies, the map structure and the enemy types. I get the whole perfect combo system for Batman, he's supposed to be an untouched badass against the mid-low level goons and screwing up means you're just not Batman enough. That makes sense.
This game isn't always about surviving. Its realizing you're in a truly hostile territory and sheer numbers can and probably will eventually overwhelm you but you always have the option of changing the fight and running away or at least taking up a different tactical position. If you're trying to play it at all like Batman, you're doing it wrong.
Batman doesn't get beaten by goons, Talion on the other hand is vulnerable despite his apparent immortality. It makes you approach each fight somewhat tactically, rather than just entering a room/area and taking out a group of goons. Orcs keep coming back, sometimes during your fight, Batman's enemies are static and don't regenerate until you leave that area of the map for a bit. You hardly see more goons show up during a fight unless its scripted.
Different game, different circumstances. Yeah its similar in button presses and such, but its not the same.
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
I still like Shadow of Mordor a ton more than Batman: Arkham Origins.

Here's the thing; Shadow of Mordor's selling point wasn't the combat; it was the Nemesis system, which it excelled at.

It's like saying every platformer to ever come out is a "poor man's Mario", when many platformers aim to do different things, even if none of them do platforming as solidly or as amazingly as Mario does. Or if every fighter after Street Fighter II was "a poor man's Street Fighter", even if I know that Mortal Kombat isn't as smooth or deep, but I prefer Mortal Kombat's rich lore, fatalities, and dark aesthetics and dark humor compared, even if it follows the basic template of Street Fighter's genre-defining series.
 

deathbydeath

New member
Jun 28, 2010
1,363
0
0
sageoftruth said:
The Goat Tsar said:
Holy shit dude. You must have really hated this game. Today I learned to never piss of Shamus Young...
No kidding. Odd coming from Shamus. Normally, he's pretty calm and forgiving when it comes to games, but once this came out it felt like he suddenly started gravitating towards Jimquisition territory and has latched onto it like Jim latches onto big game publishers.
Have you seen the Fallout/Mass Effect 3 LPs he's been on? Those tirades make this look like unabashed praise.

Also, not sure if this is a typo or not:
I don't need the game to kill the player for making mistakes, I just want it to recognize when you don't.
Should it be "do"?
 

The_Darkness

New member
Nov 8, 2010
546
0
0
MC1980 said:
Still a better game than Arkham Origins, man that game fucking sucked. Way to put a stain on an otherwise great series.
Allow me to disagree entirely - Arkham Origins is my favourite Arkham game. I might make a thread on why someday... (Though I did only play it once most of the bugs had been patched out.)

OT: Specifically on the topic of execution moves - Arkham zooms out when you do a takedown and gives you full control of the camera. This gives you the opportunity to do a quick survey of the battlefield while Bats is immune from being hit. I generally found that far more useful than being able to insta-takedown an individual.

Shadow of Mordor - I wonder. The Nemesis System somewhat relies on Talion dying from time-to-time. It lets you build up a back-and-forth with the orcs that kill you. This feels like a flaw - since the perfect player will miss out on content. The Nemesis System - up to a point - relies on you screwing up the combat.

The combat doesn't encourage you to be perfect, while the Nemesis System doesn't want you to be perfect. Both of these things are flaws, but they sort of work well together.

And... Yikes, Shamus, this is the second time that you've put out an article criticizing Shadow of Mordor immediately after Yahtzee puts out one praising it...
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
Eh, I actually kind of like the fact that hitting shields didn't disrupt the combo. That's what Beserkers are for. I actually feel cheated more often than not be the system. Archers and enemies who use throwing spears aren't well accounted for. You can slow time and shoot them, but that's not much consolation if they break your streak. Beserkers are annoying since the game's targetting can be off, and you'll take a swing at the wrong guy, and they're hard to identify amidst crowds. Spear attacks that have to be dodged are terrible, because it seems there's always too much of a delay in changing animation and you end up taking a hit from an annoying spammy cue, if you don't take them out first. I don't usually go into fights with beserkers or shielded enemies in mobs, because it's far less stress to shoot them. Often dying in the game is more frustrating than anything else, because it means after a couple of hours play, you take a dodgy hit, get bitten by a caragor, and then some Orc puts a throwing spear through you.

Oddly enough, that's one of my biggest disappointments with the Nemesis system. Most of the combat and gameplay breeze by and don't take much effort, whether you're using stealth (Made ridiculously easy with arrows and branding), abusing archery, or just bludgeoning in, until eventually you die in a frustrating way, and a new Captain is created, usually from some cheap-shotting spearman. They're not particularly memorable deaths. Most of the Captains end up invulnerable to stealth or arrows, so it's always combat finishers, even the ones who can block can't face that. Since it's combat finishers, good luck getting those interesting injuries and stories, since a bunch of them will be decapitations. It doesn't feel like the approach matters, you can even screw up stealth, disappear for a moment, then stealth kill a captain with the weakness while he searches. Even when it's a Warchief with bodyguards and other Captains in the area, they're not much of a problem. So long as they don't have the blocking ability, it's easy, and blockers just get saved for finishers built off the others. Then you end up killing the Warchief because he runs, and because it's so easy to do, then everyone else runs, and you're back to square one. It doesn't feel like making a proper plan, or taking the time to take into account enemies weaknesses, really makes a difference. I need intel to know that this one is afraid of Caragors or that he's vulnerable to bees, but now that I've gotten close to him, I can't get that, or mark him with a death threat. And I'm hardly going to leave him. Getting intel turns into an annoying farming exercise where you have to interrogate an orc for every new captain, and they go fast. And it's hard to get the chance to interrogate more than one orc to a group, so that makes that even longer.

The most fun I had with it was a bit of metagame where I set a new orc of mine up as a bodyguard to a Warchief, and then had one of my Warchiefs instigate a riot against him, just so I could have a big fight. But it was a complete mess, the enemy Warchief fled early, and the other bodyguards were butchered. I ended up chasing down the Warchief and stabbing him, hardly the epic finish.

It is disappointing the game doesn't reward successful combat against groups. I think the controls and difficulty are a bit floaty too, they need to be pinned down, and there could be more interesting difficulty options (Playing without health upgrades works for a while, but leaves you vulnerable to Caragor strikes and spears). The combat style is about perfection and flow, but that doesn't work the way it does in say, Arkham.
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
sturryz said:
Can we stop talking about the how the gameplay systems are like Batman? because it's clear the focus was always on the Nemesis System and everything else was there to fill in the blanks, it's like saying that Minecraft is an awful game because of the combat, even though building is clearly the focus.
Considering you'll be spending a lot more of your time interacting with the combat than the nemesis system, no, no we can't. When youre "filler" is 90% of the game, it's fairly important as a topic.

Hell, if you rarely or never die, the nemesis system doesn't even really have an impact on the game. I have to go out of my way to get killed if I want to shake things up. Otherwise it's just spamming "skip time" at a tower until all the orcs I've slaughtered get replenished. Not exactly thrilling gameplay there.

Regarding the article: I don't mind the combo system in SoM having more leeway than Arkham's did. It has perhaps a little TOO much (you can spend something like 5 seconds doing nothing before the counter resets; that's a bit long), but considering how dodgy targeting can be in a MASS of orcs I'm fine with not losing my combo just because I ended up attacking the guy with the shield instead of the unshielded guy an inch to his left that I'd meant to hit. That feels fair to me given it's pretty much impossible to make precision melee attacks in those situations, and they're not rare situations to be in.

I agree about the camera zoom-ins and positioning problems they create (as well as just being an annoying break in pacing after a while), and oh my god the quicktime events. The Graug-taming tutorial mission killed me more than orcs did on my entire first playthrough because of those damn QTEs. >:|