Middle Earth: Shadow of Lootboxes



  • This post is deleted!


  • It all depends on how it is implemented. Personally I'm more against Early Access (paying to betatest).
    But it it legit makes the game play worse then it could be a game I skip, if not then all you should do is to avoid paying for said microtransactions.



  • There is already a thread for Mordor.



  • There's also the fact that they choose to change Shelob from a giant terrifying spider into a sexy human lady. I doubt I'm going to be buying this, and I kinda liked the first game. #notmyshelob



  • @TokyoSlim said in Middle Earth: Shadow of Lootboxes:

    There's also the fact that they choose to change Shelob from a giant terrifying spider into a sexy human lady. I doubt I'm going to be buying this, and I kinda liked the first game. #notmyshelob

    She's both? It's also not completely unbelieavable that she could have some shapeshifting or illusion ability considering who her mother was.
    The black guy if anything is far more out of place. Are you upset about him too?



  • @suplextrain said in Middle Earth: Shadow of Lootboxes:

    She's both?

    Since exactly now. She's always been a giant spider, she's never been a shape shifter.

    It's also not completely unbelieavable that she could have some shapeshifting or illusion ability considering who her mother was.

    Ungolient was an evil primordial spirit in the shape of a giant spider, and was not known to shape shift as far as I know. Her only physical form was that of a spider, and it's hinted that she may have been the first spider, thus the mother of all spiders.

    This is the equivalent of being like "well in the new game, Samwell Gamgee is a hot chick " imo.

    Edit: which is not saying that you can't make Sam a female, but that I'd disagree if you made him a hot female hobbit in order to pander to some romantic alteration of what Sam's character should be. This is the same issue. And no, for the record, I don't care what color someone's skin is.



  • @TokyoSlim said in Middle Earth: Shadow of Lootboxes:

    Since exactly now. She's always been a giant spider, she's never been a shape shifter.

    From what we know. Besides, both games are fanfiction and have taken several liberties already. I don't see why this one would be anything special.

    Ungolient was an evil primordial spirit in the shape of a giant spider, and was not known to shape shift as far as I know.

    The entire point I wanted to get across is that we don't know the full capabilities Ungoliant possessed.

    and it's hinted that she may have been the first spider, thus the mother of all spiders.

    Was it? Where? As far as I'm aware she wasn't, she merely mated with great spiders to spawn offspring.

    This is the equivalent of being like "well in the new game, Samwell Gamgee is a hot chick " imo.

    Very strange analogy. Sam is a defined character and is a hobbit with established "powers". What Ungoliant actually could do was never specified. Sam is a hobbit while Ungoliant a primal, very big difference. Also we don't know the effects were on Ungoliant from the things she devoured.

    And no, for the record, I don't care what color someone's skin is.

    But you should in this case since it's a far bigger contradiction lore wise. Hence why I brought it up. If this Shelob change upsets you for lore reasons, then so should the black guy. Otherwise you're not upset over it being a "retcon".



  • I'd appreciate you not telling me what I'm allowed to be upset by, or find distasteful. Thanks!

    My position is clear, I explained it. That's all. Their take on Shelob bothers me. And fwiw, you brought up lore, not me. My stance has little to do with lore.



  • @TokyoSlim said in Middle Earth: Shadow of Lootboxes:

    I'd appreciate you not telling me what I'm allowed to be upset by, or find distasteful. Thanks!

    What? I'm saying that being upset by Shelob being "lore breaking" but not the black guy (which is even more lore breaking) is hypocritical.

    And fwiw, you brought up lore, not me. My stance has little to do with lore.

    So you don't like Shelob being able to take the form of a woman? Even if this was lore friendly? Well ok then.

    Look, you can have whatever opinion you want, I just find it very confusing and illogical for people to be so upset by this Shelob thing. The only real arguments being brought up are for lore reasons, but there's tons of other far more lore breaking stuff people don't get upset about which is strange to me, that's all. I can only assume it has something to do with diversity and how females are represented? Hm, well whatever.



  • @suplextrain said in Middle Earth: Shadow of Lootboxes:

    I just find it very confusing and illogical for people to be so upset by this Shelob thing

    That's why I explained it.



  • I DON'T LIKE LOOT BOXES IN THIS GAME

    Sorry, wanted to put this thread back on track ☺ and spiders scare me.

    This could end up being not a huge deal, like it doesn't impact the game, but overall I'm not a fan of a single player game that costs 60$ asking for more money. I deal with it in MP games cause I see that as a way they pay for server costs and what not, and usually they're cosmetic stuff.

    This just feels icky to me. The BF liked the first game enough, so he might still pick this up, but I think he'll likely be put off by this.



  • Tolkien already rolled over in his grave at the ridiculous dialogue and story of the first game so what's a loot box or two?


  • Banned

    What did you honestly expect from Warner Brothers?

    First it was shit ports.
    Now it's mobile phone garbage hiding behind a $60? $80? $100? Price tag!



  • Still buying it.

    It's a singleplayer game, everything in the boxes can be obtained in game. Worried about how it affects progression? DON'T BUY THEM! Problem solved.

    It's the same with all the "Pay for convenience" options in JRPGs, like Atelier games or Tales Of, they let you pay for faster leveling, faster crafting etc. But again, it's simple. You don't buy them.

    Long as they aren't charging for things that otherwise inhibit gameplay like Dead Space 3 did, who cares? There's no multiplayer, it affects nothing unless you let it, just like cheat codes.

    EDIT- Upon further digging there's apparently a faux-multiplayer mode like MGS5 had (Which also had microtransactions) but it's not required for completing the game and entirely optional, it appears to be purely for accruing more lootboxes.

    So again, not important.



  • alt text

    alt text

    alt text

    What did you honestly expect from Warner Brothers? /s



  • @Haru17 said in Middle Earth: Shadow of Lootboxes:

    alt text

    alt text

    alt text

    What did you honestly expect from Warner Brothers? /s

    Just about everything has some version of it now, hell wasn't a main mode in recent Fifa titles based purely around card packs?

    Writing off a game for it's mere existence is gonna narrow your playable list considerably, all that matters is HOW they're represented. Purely cosmetic or convenience doesn't deter me in the slightest, people need to chill out.

    If people want to be angry, be angry at the fanbase that made lootboxes so huge, blizzard scrapped any sense of progression in favor of lootboxes in Overwatch, and look how well it did. Now everything want's a piece of that same skinner box conditioning.

    Granted there's always been a version of micro-transactions in most games for many years prior to overwatch, but it's popularity proliferated the massive surge of it in the form of these boxes.

    Again, the boxes in shadow of war grant AFAIK gear and orcs, what's the main purpose in the game? Killing/dominating orcs and earning loot.

    You lose nothing by the existence of the boxes, unless you care that heavily that someone beat the game before you cause they spent money.



  • I agree with @ZyloWolfBane, it doesn't bother me as long as I can easily ignore it.

    I recall the same sort of debate when Dead Space 3 and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided came out, both series I adore and games I was extremely looking forward to. I played these games never even realizing that there were any micro-transactions, and I never felt like my gameplay experience was hampered by not paying extra.

    As long as that's the case, I have no reason to complain.

    The day the difficulty or progression is clearly impacted by the inclusion of pay-to-win elements, I'll be hard out.

    We'll see if Shadow of War is the one that breaks the camel's back.



  • My understanding from the trailers is that Shelob is speaking to Talion in his mind, and that is the form she takes in his mind. Other beings in Middleearth change appearance depending on how they are viewed, so I wouldn't call that such a far shot.

    Regarding microtransactions, meh. I'm not going to be playing this right away, so I'll wait to see how hard they gouge the customer before losing my top.



  • Personally I'm not too concerned about it. In case microtransactions become a nuance, I expect Monolith to address the issue within a couple of months, which suits me well considering I'm more likely to buy the game when it's under $30. Also, if I buy the game for cheap, I don't mind paying for a couple of microtransactions, those are a concern when you pay full price for a game but for those who pay a budget it's kinda fair considering what they paid.



  • @LordBaztion Especially if you buy the game second hand, it's somewhat nice to be able to still pay the actual devs some money. BUT only if the microtransactions are done right. That said, I would still prefer that there weren't any microtransactions. DLC, sure, again, if it's not shit like Horse Armor, but more like stuff like Shivering Isles. Also DLC should always be ADDED content, not content cut away from the game (Looking at you, Asura's Wrath)