“Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in halls of stone, Nine for Mortal Men, doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.”
Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor 2 is riding a caragor out of the
Swamps of Inevitability and into the verdant hills of Leak-dor as we
speak. Monolith Productions, which led work on the first game, has
several employees citing an "unannounced title" on their LinkedIn
profiles, and an accomplished stunt and motion capture performer has
already added the sequel to her resume.
Lauren Mary Kim (who has also worked on Furious 7 and BioShock Infinite) cites "Shadows of Mordor 2" stunts and acting as her most recent motion capture experience, via Nerdleaks.
She lists Blur as the employer for that job, which likely refers to
Blur Studio, the production company behind pretty much every CGI video
game trailer not made in-house at Bli zzard or Square Enix. The first Shadow of Mordor turned (and severed) heads at E3 in 2014 with a CG trailer, and its sequel may do the same. Kim reportedly contacted WCCFtech to
state that the listing was in error, chalking it up to a mistake in the
website's database. While this distances her from the project, it
doesn't change much else - Shadow(s) of Mordor 2 apparently exists
somewhere in the iStunt database, even if it was assigned to the wrong
person. As for Monolith proper, Shadow of Mordor senior designer Jed Bellini lists
himself as lead world designer "working with a team of talented
designers on an unannounced title" since August 2015. And Jobye-Kyle Karmaker says
he has been at work as a senior world artist on an unannounced project
since February 2016, having left his position at Ubisoft Toronto (where
he worked on Far Cry Primal's biomes, among other roles) in January. Here's the most pertinent part of Bellini's profile:
Granted, Bellini and Karmaker may be working on separate
projects. But Shadow of Mordor was a surprise hit when it came out back
in September 2014, so it seems likely that owner/publisher Warner Bros.
Interactive Entertainment would have Monolith focus on delivering a
sequel while the rune-engraved iron is hot. I'd be glad to take another
stab at fighting nemeses and raising armies with all the knowledge
gained from the first game.
The Division takes place in mid-crisis Manhattan, an open world with destructive environments that are free for players to explore. The player's mission is to restore order by investigating the source of a virus. The player character can carry three weapons, and explosives like sticky bombs and smart mines to fight against enemies. Players may take cover behind objects during firefights to avoid taking damage from enemies, and to give them a tactical advantage when attacking. As the game is set in a third-person perspective, the character model is visible.
As players progress, they earn experience points and currency. They can use this currency to buy weapons and gear, and use the points to learn new talents and skills. The player's gear is categorized into five levels: worn, standard, specialized, superior and high-end, each with a specific color code. Gear can be either bought, or found as in-game loot, or crafted from gathered materials. The storyline missions involve objectives that are relevant to their respective wing of the Base of Operations, which serves as the player's home base. At the player's home base there are three wings which are the Medical, Security and Tech wing.
While the story primarily sticks to
tried-and-true survival tropes, the narrative is solidly executed. Key
moments receive full cutscenes, and in between, you constantly hear
radio banter that explains exactly how your next objective contributes
to your broader mission to save New York from vicious opportunists. You
always know exactly what you're doing and why; that alone goes a long
way towards making your actions feel meaningful. You're also never
painted as a superhero. The Division admirably commits to its bleak,
grounded vision of a medically-induced apocalypse, and it works. Some
ideas needed a bit more development--especially an important enemy later
on--but overall, I felt invested and immersed in the world.
This
immersion was further cultivated by the setting itself. The Division's
haunting recreation of midtown Manhattan might be the most impressive
urban world map outside of a Rockstar
game. Its dense, detailed environments feel painstakingly assembled
rather than cut-and-pasted into place. Every neighborhood has its own
distinct style, and no matter where you roam, you're bound to stumble
into a breathtaking structure or a heartbreaking disaster site, even if
you end up hearing a few repeated lines of NPC dialogue along the way.
The variety and authenticity of the world invite exploration just like
the deserts of Red Dead Redemption and the mountains of Skyrim.
My only real complaint: I killed the same guys on the same corner near
my HQ at least half a dozen times during the game's early hours. Had The
Division randomized these encounters or in some way allowed unexpected
interactions to occur, the world might have felt more alive.
Enemy
AI is consistent to the point of being predictable as well, and all
four enemy factions have identical unit types--every group has a runner,
a sniper, a bomber, and so on. No matter who you're up against, you
know exactly how each easily identifiable enemy is going to come at you,
which can make certain lower-stakes gun fights feel like a chore. Some
of the basic gameplay mechanics are slightly sloppy as well. The core
aiming and shooting are totally serviceable, but you can't crouch, jump,
or go prone--which means the only way to move stealthily is to duck
into cover, then hold A to rush directly to the next object. I also
occasionally had to contend with clumsy cover issues. Come on, Agent,
you can't raise your gun barrel two inches to avoid a poorly placed
railing? Worst of all, various actions--including pulling away from
cover--cause your character to stand straight up, even in the middle of
combat. It's annoying and occasionally lethal.
It's
almost a shame you're forced to break between missions to level your
character; after all, the campaign missions are easily the game's
strongest content. Still, the structural pattern that emerges isn't
unpleasant: beat a story mission, complete three or four side quests,
equip any new gear you've acquired, and head off to the next major
mission. While those three or four side missions definitely feel a bit
like grinding in an MMO, they force you to engage with The Division as a
multifaceted open world game rather than just a shooter. The game is
deliberately paced in every sense of the word. And to be clear, The
Division doesn't just feel artificially long because of its grinding--it
actually is a content-heavy game. The campaign alone takes nearly 30
hours to complete, so when you throw in leveling, loot management,
collectibles, random exploration, and more, it all adds up to a thorough
and substantial experience.
And
then, of course, there's the "end game" content, which basically boils
down to grinding against high level enemies in daily missions in order
to earn new and better loot. Disappointingly, I have not yet found any
weaponry that's functionally distinct like, for example, Destiny's
exotics, which makes this portion of the game feel slightly pointless at
the moment. Still, if you make it to the end game and decide you're
done, you will have enjoyed a complete, compelling shooter for dozens of
hours. The experience is sprawling yet remarkably cohesive.
If you're feeling a little less cooperative, you can also visit the Dark Zone--a
massive, unstructured PvP area in the middle of the city. The Dark Zone
is, if nothing else, a really cool experiment. You'll find both enemy
AI and other human players inside. The AI guard loot, while the other
players...well, who knows. They might help you conquer the AI or they
might backstab you and steal all the gear and weapons you've already
collected. The tension of not knowing how an interaction will play out
is unlike anything else you'll find in a modern shooter, and the
significance of loot back in the main game makes the stakes in the Dark
Zone feel incredibly real. The Division is mostly a genre-abiding open
world, cover-based shooter, but the Dark Zone--and the way it's
seamlessly integrated into the world map with only a moment of extremely
well-concealed loading when you enter--deserves special recognition for
being truly new.
As the Dark Zone proves, The
Division's loot system is integral to the experience. But it's not just
there for show. Rather, your stats--which are heavily dictated by the
gear you equip--mean the difference between slaughter and triumph, so be
prepared to spend plenty of time in menus comparing the numerical
attributes of knee pads, pistol holsters, and tactical backpacks.
There's a mind boggling number of variables that ultimately impact your
chances of survival. While not everyone will have the patience necessary
to fully embrace the intricacies of the loot system, The Division at
least makes life easier by providing plenty of elegant, thoughtful
tools. You can mark old items as junk and simply hit "Sell All" when you
get to a vendor. You can easily compare two items side by side. The
game will even show you how an item will affect your overall stats
before you equip it. It may sound trivial, but this careful attention to
detail makes the loot meta-game nearly painless.
No
matter how hard I worked to level up my character, though, I almost
always felt slightly underpowered. Put simply, The Division is stingy
when it comes to gear and XP. My backpack was never more than a third
full, and I didn't see a "high-end" weapon until I'd essentially beaten
the game. Even at max level, your stats may not be high enough to
activate your weapons' built-in talents, which sort of epitomizes the
game's draconian design. The Division still manages to feel plenty
rewarding as you progress, but a slightly kinder XP system and an extra
level of gear rarity would have gone a long way to alleviate the
frustration and fatigue I experienced.
Still, no matter
how frustrated I grew with the game's semi-indestructible enemies or its
repetitive leveling structure, I absolutely could not stop playing. The
world was too engrossing, the loot was too enticing, and the campaign
was too gripping for me to simply walk away. I stopped caring about the
game's flaws after the first few hours and proceeded to lose myself in
obsessive stat optimization and cooperative gun battles. The problems
(and frustration) never disappeared, but I was more than happy to play
through the pain.
Virtual reality. It's
the new buzzword in the gaming world, and it was all the rage at this
year's GDC.Now people are moving to the era of virtualization. This post will guide you on choosing your hardware for this new virtual world at least the gaming world.
We've
been looking at ways to tackle the VR benchmarking dilemma for a while
now, but frankly it's almost impossible to properly benchmark and test
VR performance without the final VR kit. DK1 and DK2 wouldn't suffice,
as they were both lower resolution, and other differences in the
hardware are also likely to create problems. PCGAMER discussed Futuremark's VRMark test suite as another option, and the Basemark folks were also at GDC showing off a preliminary version of their VR Score test,
but at present neither one is publicly available. Which leaves us with
exactly one VR performance test that we can run, cleverly named the
SteamVR Performance Test.
Coming
to any final conclusion about graphics hardware and how well it will
run future VR games and experiences on the basis of one early software
sample isn't possible, so let's get that out of the way right now. The
results could end up correlating really well with future VR games, or
they might be mostly meaningless. We'll have different APIs (LiquidVR,
VR Works, and other SDKs), and comparing and contrasting those will
require additional tools. But even if we have all of that in a benchmark
suite, it still doesn't tell us about the performance of actual VR
games.
Consider for a moment the way the SteamVR test works. It
shows a scene, which is presumably rendered off-screen in a 2160x1200
window. But since a good VR experience that doesn't make you want to
spew is tied to smooth frame rates, we're likely to see a lot of
developers take a scalable quality approach. This is what SteamVR does,
aiming to break 90 fps at the highest quality settings possible. What
that means is rather than seeing one GPU run at 60 fps and a faster GPU
run at 120 fps, we're more likely to see one GPU run at the equivalent
of medium quality and 100 fps while another might run at 100 fps but
with much better quality overall. So how do you even compare cards using
this test? We're going to include three results, as more data
tends to be better than less in instances like these. First we'll have
the image fidelity score that SteamVR generates—this is the overall
average quality of the rendering, which can scale from 1.0 to 11.0.
Along with this figure, SteamVR provides the number of frames rendered,
but we're more interested in frame rates, so we've captured those and
calculated the average fps along with the average of the bottom three
percent of frames—what we call the 97 percentile. If the 97 percentile
is below 90, it means the particular GPU isn't likely to provide a great
VR experience.
PCGAMER Test Setup
Clear as mud? Great! Let's begin, and just for good measure we've tested two different CPUs/systems with our GPU collection, one our usual high-end six-core/twelve-thread Haswell-E processor overclocked to 4.2GHz, and the second a slightly more mainstream quad-core Skylake CPU running at stock 3.9GHz:
Starting with image fidelity, things are pretty much as expected: Faster GPUs manage higher image fidelity.
Both
AMD and Nvidia fare similarly, at least based on price points, so the
R9 Fury and R9 Nano square off against the GTX 980, R9 390 takes on GTX
970, and at the top we have GTX 980 Ti facing off with the R9 Fury X. In
the higher performance and higher price segments, Nvidia generally
takes a slightly lead, but once prices drop to around $300, AMD's
offerings provide better quality. The gap between the GTX 960 and the R9
380X is pretty large, but the GTX 950 vs. R9 380 is really lopsided.
Comparing
the overclocked i7-5930K against the stock i5-6600K, the results remain
largely the same. We did notice a slight variation between runs on the
image fidelity score (+/- 0.1), but it's clear the CPU at least has a
minor impact on performance. Interestingly, that applies whether you're
looking at an entry-level GTX 950 or a high-end R9 Fury X: you'll
generally lose one to three decimals by having a slower CPU. The one
exception is the GTX 950 SLI result, where the Core i5 loses a full
point on image fidelity. These results can't be considered in a vacuum,
however, as we also need to factor in frame rates.
Things
are generally about what you'd expect, but there's an odd discrepancy
between AMD and Nvidia results. Up until we basically max out the GPUs
with CrossFire R9 Nano, the AMD cards all tend to cluster around 105 fps
averages, with 97 percentile results in the mid-90s—the one exception
being the R9 285, which drops down to 75 fps on its minimums. The Nvidia
cards on the other hand all come closer to 115 fps averages, with 97
percentiles again hovering in the low-to-mid 90s. Once we're running two
high-end GPUs, we finally max out the image fidelity score, though the
single 980 Ti and Titan X at least come close—and they post slightly
higher than "normal" frame rates as well.
Shifting to our slower
"mainstream" test bed, the results are pretty similar—averages around
105 fps for AMD and 115 for Nvidia. In many cases, the slightly lower
image fidelity score allows the frame rates to stay the same, and in a
few instances the average fps is even a bit higher. The big exceptions
are, not surprisingly, the multi-GPU configurations. GTX 950 SLI shows
much worse performance this time, particularly on minimum frame rates.
GTX 980 Ti SLI meanwhile still maxes out image quality, but frame rates
do drop over 15 percent on average—so a more demanding game would likely
have to reduce image quality on a Core i5 processor. And the R9 Nano
CrossFire cards aren't quite able to max out image fidelity, with fps
again nearly 15 percent lower than on the overclocked i7-5930K.
Putting
the above results together to provide an overall ranking—and yes, we
realize there are many ways to skin this particular beast, and you may
or may not agree with our weighting calculation—we end up with these
final charts. Outside of dual-GPU configurations taking a dive on the
Core i5 setup, most of the results are pretty close, and in fact there
are a few instances where our final weighting gives the i5 platform a
win. Don't read too much into that, but it makes sense that overall
we're not hugely CPU limited, at least not with what are admittedly
"fast" and "very fast" CPUs. It might be interesting to see what happens
with a lower performance Core i3 processor, or one of AMD's APUs, but
we'll save that for another day.
Dark Souls III
is a game of valleys and peaks, down through dungeons and up over
castle walls. It's a plummet into places we shouldn't be--an escape from
places we don't belong.
But of course, we
fight our way through the darkness, and find our way out. There are a
few stumbles along the way, but in the end, Dark Souls III is well worth
the riveting climb.
This is the third in a
series of dark fantasy role-playing games known for their brutal
difficulty and unforgiving nature. It gives minimal direction and little
room for error. As with its predecessors, playing Dark Souls III means
accepting two extremes: recurring defeat, and the reward of breaking
through it. This is a game that recognizes the value of perseverance,
tearing you down before it pulls you back up, reinforcing the spots
where it broke you, preparing you for that next valley just down the
road.
The world itself is a disconnected series
of detailed areas--some sprawl outward, while others stack on top of
themselves, folding back and looping around in intricate webs. It's a
testament to the level design that discovering a bonfire checkpoint is
as important as levelling your character or defeating a challenging
boss. In this dangerous world of swamps, prisons, and undead villages,
every milestone is a victory.
Returning
to the Firelink Shrine hub world in order to level up character stats,
weapon quality, and the health-imbuing est-us flask seems tedious at
first, but as time goes by, you'll recruit helpful companions that set
up camp at your base, granting useful items and buffs throughout your play through. Bonfire checkpoints strewn throughout Dark Souls III allow
for easy fast travel, and returning to Firelink becomes a welcome
reprieve from the surrounding world.
This
macabre locale has subtle stories to tell--enemies on the Road of
Sacrifices behave defensively, only attacking once attacked. Giants bow
their heads in exhaustion among the rafters of the Cathedral of the
Deep. A sense of mystery pervades Dark Souls III's gloomy world, and
there's a confidence on display that's often missing from many modern
games--Dark Souls III has secrets, whether you find them or not.
It's
also impressive how Dark Souls III strikes a balance between
exploration and guidance. There's usually more than one path you can
take through the world at any time--to new bosses, secret dungeons, or
new areas entirely--but never too many that it feels overwhelming. The
level design encourages wandering without losing focus.
Obstacles
come in a variety of grotesque forms along the way: hulking giants and
feral dogs; ancient knights and suicidal monks. Each enemy is a unique
threat, and in groups, they grow more dynamic and punishing, demanding a
flexible approach to combat. Dark Souls III is also clever in the way
it plays on your false sense of comfort: many deaths come when you
underestimate an enemy you've killed dozens of times before. The danger
is always lurking. In the long run, survival requires patience.
This
is true throughout--there's a certain cadence to the combat, a certain
pattern to each enemy, that's only discernible when you take time to
observe it. Some enemies are weak near their sword arm--others are
vulnerable from behind. Instinct may tell you to dodge every time a
knight retracts its spear, but wasting stamina could lead to a quick
death, forcing a restart at the most recent bonfire. Dark Souls III
doesn't just teach you new skills--it forces you to forget ones you've
already learned.
The combat fluctuates between
measured duels and frantic fights, but it almost always manages to keep
things fair: you may be outnumbered and underpowered, but defeat is
usually your fault. Sometimes, however, Dark Souls III breaks that rule.
The camera often struggles to adjust in tight spaces, and the lock-on
mechanic can be capricious, especially against Dark Souls III's more
mobile, aggressive enemies. In boss fights that require precision, an
imprecise camera becomes all the more of a hindrance.
But
what impressive monstrosities these bosses can be. In fact, several
display more creativity than any others in developer From Software's RPG
lineup. These creatures play on your expectations and force you to
adapt. One boss fight pits you against a crowd of pyromancers that
inches toward you, hinting at its weakness with subtle visual cues.
Intuition tells you to keep your distance, but it soon becomes clear
you'll need to enter the fray. It rips you out of your comfort zone at a
harrowing pace.
Despite the nuance and novelty
of most bosses, however, some stick to familiar ground. Deja vu kicks
in during several fights, when the monsters display move sets similar to
those that came before them, diminishing the creativity displayed
elsewhere. I brought down Pontiff Sullyvahn, the Consumed King, and even
Aldrich--a boss the game purports to be one of my major targets--with
tactics I had used hours earlier. These enemies feel recycled. They feel
repetitive. The skin may be different, but the beast remains the same.
One
glaring design misstep involves a boss requiring a specific item to
bring him down--that is, if you don't want to spend half an hour
whittling away at his health. There is an earlier, obscure side quest
that removes the need to use that item. But many players might not
stumble upon it. Dark Souls is at its best when it rewards your growth,
and tests your character's hard-earned experience. This boss fight
doesn't--it has a very specific solution, despite the path you've taken
to get there. This enemy, and the repetitive bosses, fly in the face of
the progress you've made. They repeat patterns you've already mastered.
So
too does the overall level design of the late-game hours. Whereas most
of Dark Souls III makes uses of labyrinthine corridors and trap-laden
outdoor settings, these areas lose their design appeal as the game comes
to a close. I expected Dark Souls III to carry me through imaginative
fights and engaging treks as my character reached the apex of her
skills, but instead I felt disappointed. I had come all this way with
her, and aside from two fantastic end-game bosses and a handful of
inventive secret areas in its waning hours, Dark Souls III seemed not to
erupt, but rather, fade slowly into the fog.
But
by and large, your growth is respected. It's that thread--that near
constant sense of progress--that leads to Dark Souls III's greatest
moments. We create our travelers. We make them stronger, faster, more
resilient, turning them into fighters as we too learn the intricacies of
this foreboding world. We can't slay the final boss until we conquer
every enemy before it, so by the end of Dark Souls III, we've truly
mastered something. That's a special feeling.
There are several possible endings to
Dark Souls III, and although most are anticlimactic, they drive home the
loneliness of the paths we took. The old lords have abandoned their
posts, and in the hunt to usurp them, we descend into those dark
valleys, and climb those imposing peaks. This is the essence of Dark
Souls III: periods of doubt, followed by great reward. The journey may
be rocky, but there's a throne waiting at the end.
