Shadow of Mordor falls short compared to Batman due to its weaker storytelling and character development.
Shadow of Mordor falls short compared to Batman due to its weaker storytelling and character development.
I've been exploring SoM for around ten hours now, and here are my thoughts. Many critics draw parallels to Arkham titles, which is understandable. However, I find the Arkham games superior in several aspects. They offer a richer narrative, smoother progression, greater diversity, and more engaging combat.
You might wonder what makes combat better? It's often the subtle details. When playing SoM without prompts, similar to Batman, it challenges you more. The enemies are less distinct, making quick reactions essential—especially during intense moments like shielded orcs, swift leaps, or berserker assaults. Even distinguishing between a crossbow-wielding orc and a spear-throwing one is nearly impossible.
The real issue lies in targeting accuracy. In Batman, the system adapts intelligently; it knows which enemy poses the greatest threat and adjusts accordingly. SoM, on the other hand, often groups enemies indiscriminately, firing at those you don’t want to hit—like targeting a shielded orc while ignoring a high-value target. This lack of precision makes control difficult.
Additionally, the rope-jumping scene highlighted another flaw: the game failed to recognize my input direction, leading to unexpected deaths.
Overall, the experience feels more automated and less responsive. While it’s engaging in its own way, it lacks the depth and maturity of Batman. The story is forgettable, the visuals are repetitive, and the variety in gameplay is minimal. Batman offered puzzles, AR mechanics, and a mature tone with memorable characters. SoM excels in combat systems and atmosphere but falls short in storytelling and character development.
Personally, I’d rate it around 7.8—definitely enjoyable, but not quite living up to expectations.
Blasphemy! Seriously though it is a totally different game. Do you want every game that comes out to be EXACTLY like the ones before it that were good, just with a different skin? The game isn't half assed, buggy, poor quality, shit gameplay. It is something that is pretty good considering what has been released recently. You shouldn't let things slack if they're bad, but you're arguing over such tiny things it's not even good criticism.
You can see how they differ by highlighting their unique aspects. Each concept stands apart in meaning and application.
This indicates if I move the analog stick. As mentioned by Firearm2112, these ideas are distinct concepts.
I didn’t fully grasp what you were saying. I was trying to highlight that it doesn’t meet expectations, though some might justify its shortcomings because of its setting. Unlike others, I don’t feel the need to be neutral about Middle Earth. My main concerns lie in how the game functions. Even if it isn’t flawless, I still appreciate it. As I mentioned before, I enjoy games that aren’t exceptional—they’re okay just as they are. But when one is clearly better than another, it’s hard not to make a comparison. It’s similar to saying you love hamburgers, this place has a decent one, but another is truly outstanding. Which would you choose?