In the early 2000s, Peter Jackson accomplished the impossible and successfully adapted Tolkien's books into cinematic form. Split into three volumes and published over the course of a year, Frodo's journey to Mordor feels timeless. Inaugurated with a short fantasy novel called The Hobbit, J.R.R Tolkien created literary gold with 1954's The Lord of the Rings. Its a nice gimmick to be true but it's not the outstanding feature that they advertise.It would not be an exaggeration to say that people have been entranced by the world of Middle-earth since the mid-1930s. Does it really matter to you which ork is your nemesis? Does it make a difference if he has a scar in his face or a burning mark? I don't think so. If you try to see behind that mechanic you will notice that its completly ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Also they are making quite a fuss about theire nemesis mechanic. Combat was the same over and over again and after some time you could just go for the Warchiefs since you were unbeatable anyways.
After around 2 hours the game begin to bore me. Combat was fun and you had to think how you get to that Big Warchief and what Minions of him you kill or dominate first. Thats the most unbiased opinion I can give you, here is my personal opinion about Shadow over Mordor:Īt first I really liked it. Additionaly it will be much more challenging while in SoM you are soon to reach a point where you are practically god. Lords of the Fallen similar to Dark Souls as it tries to create a form of "realistic" combat where you can feel the weight of weapons. Shadow over Mordor has an arcadish type of gameplay, pretty close to the Assasins Creed Series. Secondly they are pretty different in gameplay. Story wise we can't say much about Lords of the Fallen but I can tell you that I found the storry in Shadows over Mordor pretty weak - especially the ending. First of all: neither of this 2 games are really rpgs, they have character development and items and thats all.
0 kommentar(er)
