Five Nights at Freddy's 4

The Short

Pros

- The (actual) final chapter in the FNAF series

- Story does well tying up just about everything major while leaving a few good questions

- Yet another sequel just different enough to be considered unique

- New "nightmare" designs are horrifying

- Focus on audio cues was a clever move

- Less reliant on "random" jump scares than FNAF 3; jump scares are earned this time around

- Atmosphere is phenomenal, as usual, evoking a childhood "afraid of the dark" primal reaction

Cons

- Gameplay is even more routine

- Seriously, you just do four things over and over again until you either win or die

- Tutorials are now just text boxes rather than the clever "phone guy" calls

- Feels stripped down when compared to previous games

- Between level "minigame" feels out of place

- A bit too difficult (Night 3 onward is insane)

- Audio cues are (in the current version) a bit too quiet to feel fair

- Still running an archaic "engine" (i.e. no "back to main menu" option, ESC hard-quits, etc.)

Here we go again

Editor's Note: Seeing as neither FRAPs nor Steam overlay let me take pictures, the images in this review are from the game's Steam Store page. At least that means no spoilers, hooray! 

The Long

It's no secret I'm a big fan of the Five Nights at Freddy's series. People might argue I'm outside of the target demographic (being on the wrong side of twenty), but I find the somewhat simplistic gameplay mixed with the sort of primal childhood fears of animatronics and messed up toys weirdly captivating. Considering the games are cheap, short, and seem to come out every 3-4 months, they make for fun evening diversions for one or two nights before beating them and moving on (or digging around in fan theories on the internet). Plus, I remember going to Chuckie Cheese as a kid and being terrified of the animatronic band, so this whole series kind of hits a personal note with me.

It was widely speculated that FNAF 3 was the final one, given both the nature of trilogies and the fact that it wrapped up one of the series' big questions (the murders) fairly handily. However, with FNAF 4 the one loose thread (which I won't mention for spoilers) is finally addressed, essentially closing out the franchise. Scott has said this is the final game, though I doubt anybody believes him at this point considering the money he must be making.

FNAF 4 was scheduled for release on Halloween, then was pushed up to the beginning of August (with free DLC for Halloween). Then Scott was like "it's done, so why not review it?" and released it today (7/23) for funsies. I gotta admit, I like this guy's style; he's a maverick. He's like a reverse Valve, missing deadlines by releasing games earlier than expected.

So all this background aside, this is the final chapter. Is it good? Bad? Does it live up to the series' expectations? Has Scott finally run out of ideas? Well...yes and no, to all of the above.

Chillin' in my room, praying a satan nightmare bear won't eat me

In a rather stunning departure from the rest of the series FNAF 4 has no cameras. You are not a guy working at a pizza place or a horror house at night. You aren't in this for the paycheck. Instead, you are an unnamed and unknown child, awake in the middle of the night and convinced monsters are in his closet, in the hallways, and under his bed. Yep, Scott played Among the Sleep and decided he too wanted a creepy child teddy bear game. Your only weapon against these hordes of creepers? A flashlight, and being able to shut the door really well. Why he doesn't just shut all the doors and lock them is beyond me, but then there wouldn't be a game so whatever.

While compelling, it's clear this game was made for fans. Those who have played the other three games will quickly figure out who this child is and how he fits into the overlying mythos, but anybody going in cold will be baffled. Part of the mystery is also what exactly these monsters are. Are they real? Figments of the child's imagination? I don't think people make animatronics with rows of razor-sharp needle teeth. Just saying. Probably against some international code.

Another downside to this is that, without a "phone guy" giving you tutorials in-world, the game starts with a bunch of overlying text boxes to teach you the ropes. Frankly, this is a big kick down in the immersion factor, which is so very important for horror games. Luckily they are only there on the first day (and you can dismiss them easily), but I would hope for a more elegant way to display that kind of information.

I love you, Freddy. (Spoiler: I don't love him, not at all)

Gameplay has been streamlined down to it's absolute core here. Previous FNAF games did well eliminating things that were less in tune with spooking you out and adjusting gameplay in unique ways. FNAF 2 removed power (save a flashlight) but also doors, FNAF 3 had only one animatronic but a crazy computer system going against you, and so on. FNAF 4's streamlining is a bit more extreme. Cameras, the Night Trap hold-over and staple of the series, are gone. Now, gameplay consists of two things: shining your light and closing doors.

There are four places monsters can get you. Two side doors, leading into hallways, a middle closet (where Foxie will sneak in starting on Night 3) and your bed, where the Freddy plush will turn into Satan if you don't look frequently enough (much like Foxie/Balloon Boy from FNAF and FNAF 2). The closet is pretty simple: shine the light in there, if Foxie is in there (often accompanied by a creepy noise) close the door until he backs off. The side doors are a little more complicated. Moving to them has you stare out into darkness. Should Bonnie (left) or Chica (right) be there and you shine your light on them, they kill you dead. You instead have to listen carefully for sounds, and if you hear movement/breathing/anything, shut the door until the noises stop.

It's pretty creepy, and a really novel concept for the series. FNAF 2 used sound as a sort of "early warning" for those observent (vents made noises, as did Balloon Boy), but for FNAF 4 it's required. Which was probably so that when you are scared, the screams of the attack blow your eardrums out. Seriously, the sounds of them outside are way too quiet, but I'm not cranking my volume just to get jumpscared into space here. That should probably be addressed.

All clear.

As you would imagine from Scott, he does clever things with sound. One hallway has a clock that will chime, throwing you off. The other has outside windows where you might spot things. You can also sometimes see them lurking in the background, moving out of the light as you shine it. It's genuinely creepy and evokes that feeling you had as a child, up late at night and worried for what might be in the dark corners of your room or hallways. Having to physically move (as you, the child, is very small) from area to area only adds to the suspense.

Unfortunately, it's with the gameplay that FNAF 4 falters. See, you really only do those four things, and you just do them over and over again. Check door, check closet, check other door, check bed. You could just make a circle over and over again. Sitting in the middle of the room gives you no indication of what to do next (unlike in previous games, where backing out of the cameras was often essential to survive), so you might as well just shuffle around the whole time. If you have good enough hearing, you can kind of play this game on autopilot. That isn't to say it is easy; the randomness of the jumps make it seem almost unfair in how quickly things can go from "nobody is around" to "Chica's Cupcake murdered you," but at it's core you just check four places, over and over, and that's the whole game.

One might argue the other FNAF games are similar, and that's a bit true, but it did better masking it. FNAF 1 and 2 you had to keep tabs on where creepers were, so you at least had an idea of when they were coming and how close they were. FNAF 3 slipped a bit with the random scares, but I liked having only one Springtrap to keep tabs on (kind of like Alien Isolation). Here, it seems almost completely random. I died at 1 AM on Day 2 by glancing over to the right door (where I'd been checking and had no indication of change), shone the light, and got Chica'd. It felt almost completely random, and without any "overview" like what the cameras provided, the gameplay gets stale fast.

My, what big teeth you have.

The only final thing worth mentioning is the strange "minigame" between nights. Here, a toy Springtrap sits on a chair. Shine your light and you'll stop him from moving, but your goal is to "catch" him when he's standing on the X nearest you. There is no strategy here; it's completely random, and if you say "bollucks to you!" and just turn your light off, he jumpscares you. The reward for catching him is two hours shaved off the next night, which is not only a weird reward, but completely breaks the immersion of the game. How does this work in context of a terrified child hunted by his nightmares? It's a really strange inclusion, and honestly just felt like Scott wanted to stick Springtrap in the game somewhere, so we got this.

Graphically, this is easily the best in the series. The designs for the nightmare versions of the animatronics we've all grown to loath are appropriately horrific. The complete pitch black of looking out into the hallways (though realistically the right hallway would have some outside light shining in) evokes a primal childhood fear in me, and even though I keep saying "just turn on the lights and close all the doors, dummy!" I really liked the idea of being a child haunted by nightmares. Powerlessness is a theme of these games, and FNAF 4 nails that better than any other in the series. It's just a damned shame you're stuck in that one room, doing the same four things over and over again.

There's a monster in my closet.

So...is it scary? It's certainly nerve-wracking. I had the same "I can't play more than a few minutes of this at a time" reaction that I had with all the games. I'd say it's the tensest since the first game (were I to rate them in terms of a "Nathan-Has-To-Take-a-Break-o-Meter," it would probably be 4, 1, 2, 3) and again, I really like the child theme. I also like how it ties up story bits with a fairly tragic and actually emotional side-story, presented between levels in the usual "retro graphics" style used in the previous games.

To be frank, however, I'm pretty disappointed. While the previous three games have been scary, I've still considered them fun to play. There was a sort of manic chaos that permeated them and exacerbated the already rising tension I felt at trying to not get murdered by Chuckie Cheese monsters. This time around, you can see the seams a little too much. The text tutorial, weird minigame, and routine gameplay breaks down what would otherwise be the best game in the series, at least tonally. The high bar of entry (you'll have to have played 1-3 to understand 4) and unfair monster movements just make the game feel like a chore, something FNAF 2 almost slipped into but just missed. It's a damned shame.

It's like all my childhood nightmares made flesh. Or...robot, I guess.

As it stands, this is the first FNAF game I'll only recommend if you already like (and have played) the other games in the series. It's a decent enough closing note, and its heart is certainly in the right place, and holy cow mad props to Scott for churning out four totally decent games in under a year. But I think the formula is finally starting to get stale, and it's a good thing he hung up his hat on a still (reasonably) high note. If you love the series, you'll still enjoy this one, but remember it's better to burn out than fade away. Also this game (like the rest of the series) I swear is funner to watch others play rather than play yourself. Which is probably why YouTubers love it to death.

I still wasn't ready for Freddy, but I'm sad to see him go.

Three out of five stars

(but if you haven't played or have no interest in this series, shave a star off).

Finally, an appropriate time to use "2spooky4me"

Hatred

The Short

Pros

- Reasonably fun dual-stick shooter

- Art aesthetic reminds me of early-isometric era PC games, like Fallout

- Black and white color scheme (with explosions being in color) is striking

- Character's one-liner's are so bad, it has to be intentional

- Made me feel edgier than I did playing Doom in secret back when I was a kid

Cons

- Shooting controls are fairly lackluster

- Black and white makes it hard to differentiate objects in the environment

- The same button for executions (aka healing) is the same as swap weapons. Why.

- Very hard, with a minimal continues

- Short, especially for retailing at $20

- Subject matter and its "extreme edginess" will certainly turn off a few people

This guy should probably just go to a metal concert, and let of some steam.

The Long

I don't know whether to praise or condemn Destructive Creations (makers of Hatred), but I will say this: like Scott Cawthon of Five Night's at Freddy's fame, they know the state of the current gaming climate.

Hatred is a game about a mass-murderer. There is no beating around the bush here, no subtext or anything like you might have with Grand Theft Auto (or all the Call of Duty games for that matter): Hatred is about a dude in a trenchcoat wandering around town gunning down everybody he sees. If you are already grimacing, then this probably isn't the game for you. Because apparently it also wasn't the game for a lot of people, especially game journalists.

Due to its obviously controversial subject matter, Hatred got lampooned by a large number of blog style gaming websites. For a while there was nothing but a stream of posts about how repulsive the game was, how it should be banned, and so on. This was only exacerbated when the game not only got an AO rating (which the ESRB usually reserves for hentai games), but Twitch outright banned it, and it was temporarily pulled from Steam Greenlight despite being Greenlight within 24 hours (it was later returned). Like I said, Destructive Creations knew the state of game journalism. Like Scott used YouTubers as free press, these guys kept pushing the "edginess" of their game out there and sat back as the game marketed itself. On it's release (at the rather inflated price of $20) it became the best-selling game on Steam.

So all that aside...is the game actually, I dunno, any good? Is it a cess-pool of evil and filth and should be banned from society? Or is it really just mediocre and would have probably been ignored if people hadn't made a big stink about it?

Read on to find out (though you can probably guess where my money is).

Jack Thompson must be having an heart attack right about now.

There isn't much in terms of story to Hatred. Much like Postal and it's titular "Postal Guy," "Hatred Guy" is an angry trenchcoat wearing, dreadlocks donning crazy person. After a tutorial that could have been replaced with the game saying "it's a dual stick shooter," you leave your house and just start shooting people. While this is going on, they scream and run and beg for mercy (which you can't give them, as the objective is literally "Kill all the civilians"), and Hatred Guy mouths off some absurdly stupid one-liners. Honestly, I kind of chuckled at the one-liners, which probably makes me an awful person. But him saying things like, "Where's your guardian angel? Oh wait, I killed him." is such an absurd attempt at being EDGY that I can't help but chuckle.

To be honest, I was secretly hoping that this whole game was gonna pull the rug out from under everybody who criticized it and end up being some sort of elaborate critique of game violence. Seriously, I was really hoping for it. Considering how ridiculous the entire thing was, I was waiting for the Spec-Ops: The Line moment where the game became self aware of its atrocities and critiqued me, the player, for continuing to engage in them. Honestly, as some sort of meta-analysis of gaming violence and outrage (especially seeing as this is literally the sort of "school-shooting simulators" Jack Thomson was warning us about back when he attacked Grand Theft Auto 3 in the early 2000s) it really could have done something brilliant.

It doesn't, in case you were wondering. It's just some vain, B-movie attempt at EDGE. 

For some reason, the police aren't really cool with your murdering rampage.

Gameplay itself is dated, as in "the indie scene finally got over dual-stick shooters like three years ago." Essentially, it plays like Alien Shooter or Zombie Shooter (both better dual-stick shooters where you murder tons of stuff in gory violence and for great stress relief, but lacking EDGE) but set to the idea of Postal. You can have three weapons and three grenade types at any given time, and can switch them on the fly. You also find new ones as you run around. Weapons have surprisingly small clips, so you'll have to reload frequently and play somewhat strategically if you're going to survive. Shotguns, in particular, suck really bad because not only do they have next to no range and do trash damage, reloading them takes exceptionally long. You also have very limited ammo, as it is only dropped by the police (and they can be hard to take down), so the game advises you to use handgun ammo on civilians (or just kick them and execute them) and save the heavy artillery for those who can actually fight back.

On that note, civilians are essentially just walking health potions. The only way to gain life is to "execute" fallen enemies, which is done by putting them in a wounded state (either by shooting them or kicking them) and pressing Y. You then get one of several canned charming executions, usually involving the person begging for their lives as you gun them down. It sounds shocking (and it arguably is), but context is important here, because most shooter games also have similar execution animations (complete with begging) as part of their systems. I'm not making a statement one way or another, just tossing out facts.

You also have a plethora of side-missions, which actually end up being part of the main objective for each area. Completing the side missions gives you respawn points (of which there is a very limited number) should you fall in battle. Fall and not have any respawns and you're done, game over, but luckily there's a stage select so you don't have to start the whole game from the beginning.

Executions range from quick and painless to long and tedious.

Hatred looks decent in stills, not as much in execution.

There are lots of problem here, though, and I don't mean just the content matter. Hatred's dual-stick controls feel sloppy all around. Normal aiming puts a reticule only a short distance from you, and the option for a longer-distance zoom (with the left trigger pressed in) makes the camera sloppy and somehow harder to aim (despite giving you a laser sight). I found myself gravitating towards a "spray and pray" style, meaning using the handgun was more of a chore than fun. Keep in mind: I love dual-stick shooters, and consider myself pretty good at them (I got all the achievements in Geometry Wars 2, so there's that). The controls just felt overtly stiff, and the aiming straight up bad. A little auto-aim probably wouldn't have hurt. That or some sort of visual indication when dealing with height/obstacles blocking your vision.

Another big problem is the difficulty. Hatred feels unnecessarily punishing, both in delivering you ammo to continue fighting, to recovering life, to its archaic checkpoint system. I managed to beat the game on Easy only failing once or twice, but on Normal it proved a considerably harder challenge. On the harder difficulties it turns into a game of hide and seek with the cops, praying a weak enemy is close enough for you to execute and get health. It isn't particularly fun, nor stress relief, which is what I envisioned this game being when I first took an interest in it.

The pervasive control problems continue throughout the game. The button for execute (Y on a controller) is the same as "Change Weapon," and since executions are necessary (and hard to see if they're in the right state due to the homogeneous black and white graphics) I often found myself changing weapons instead of executing, or ending an execution with the wrong gun equipped. It can also be hard to see objectives and where to go, though the mini-map does provide a little bit of help in that regard. All in all, what should have been a fun stress-relief orgy of violence is instead a clunky, mildly frustrating mess. At least I get to hear Hatred Guy's stupid quips while "crashing" a party.

Hatred looks decent in stills, not as much in execution.

Graphically, Hatred is as mixed a bag as its gameplay and controls. I actually found the black and white visual aesthetic striking (also giving the game more EDGE), with only certain things (red barrels, explosions, blood, police lights) providing a splash of color on the bleak world. If I were going to actually analyze this game, I'd praise them for having the world appear mundane in the eyes of the protagonist until he's doing something awful (blowing up stuff, killing people, etc. are the only actions that have color in them), but honestly they probably didn't think that far ahead when making the game. But, to be fair, it does do some really cool stuff with shadows, particularly in the mandatory sewer level. Also the explosions (and the destructible environments) look pretty rad. I like the 2000s-era Fallout style of isometric visuals they went with.

The color scheme does have a lot of issues, however, especially in darker areas (which is...like everywhere, but especially the sewers). Since it's all gray, it can be extremely difficult to see enemies in the dark against the also-gray backgrounds. This got me killed several times, where I was being shot at but couldn't quite spot the enemies in the darkness. Yes, I could click in the right stick for a quick scan, but you try clicking the right stick while also aiming with it, moving with the left stick, zooming with the left trigger, and firing with the right. It's bloody controller Twister, and considering how inconstant the aiming is anyway it probably wouldn't have worked out regardless.

Music and sound is...there. The music is generally uninteresting, and the voice work mostly consists of people screaming and Hatred Guy saying stupid stuff. I'll say it's all just mediocre and leave it at that, because I can't think of anything else to say.

Lastly, I'll mention that (since this is a PC only game), Hatred stutters from time to time, even with a souped-up rig like mine. I imagine that's just poor optimization, but those load times? Really?

The roof...the roof...the roof is on FIYAH!

In closing, I'll address the obvious elephant in the room: how I felt about Hatred's content matter. Honestly? I did feel a little like a horrible person the first few minutes I played through it. But the game's so blatant attempt at EDGINESS actually became kind of endearing after a while. Is Hatred's subject matter all sort of screwed up? Yeah, kind of. I mean, video games as an industry often feel built around violence, and the fact that a game like this just cuts any pretense of giving that violence justifiable context and essentially is a school shooting/murder simulator is weirdly...I don't know, honest? Is it damaging the industry by existing and should be condemned? Nah, and honestly the uproar given to it was predictable and probably not justified. But even so, a game is only as good as its actual gameplay and mechanics, and Hatred just falls short on so many levels.

To me, this is fairly synonymous to me playing Doom as a child. My parents outright banned it in the house, and even banned me playing it at friends' houses. I'd have to sneak over to the right friends at the right time in order to play the game, talking about it in hushed tones when we'd meet and hope our parents didn't hear about how we blew demons away in bloody viscera. Both were EDGY at the time, and both caused a lot of uproar, but honestly I don't see anything wrong with something like this existing. If anything, it could prove that games, even mainstream ones, have no limits in the content they'll dare to tread on. I'm just really annoyed they didn't pull the rug out during the final act and do something clever with it.

The game released at $20, which is kind of absurd considering both its length (only a few hours, if that), mediocre controls, and general repetitiveness of the gameplay. If you still have some interest in it, I'd say you could at least sate your curiosity at a lower price tag (say, $5 or less or in a bundle), but honestly there are much better dual-stick indie shooters out there.

Plus then you won't cut yourself on the EDGE!!!!!

Two out of five stars.

Carmageddon, eat your heart out.

Middle Earth: Shadows of Mordor

Middle-Earth: Shadows of Mordor

Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor was reviewed on the PC version of the game

The Short

Pros
- Perfect medley of the Batman: Arkham games and Assassin's Creed
- Graphics are gorgeous, showcasing the potential for next gen
- Lots of stuff to do, with two different locations within Mordor to explore
- While it may blaspheme a few parts of the LOTR mythos, it is clear the writers did their research
- Story is compelling and the voice acting superb
- Nemesis system is a good start to what could be a defining system in future open world games

Cons
- Nemesis system at times feels more like an experiment than a fleshed out mode
- Also the best addition to it (branding/mind controlling Orc leaders) is locked until the last third of the game
- Also also it's completely gone from the 360/PS3 versions, which is pretty rough
- Like Assassin's Creed, quests can get a little repetitive after a while
- Ending is a bit of a letdown
- Attempts to include Gollum in the story feels misguided, especially since there are no other characters from LOTR "canon" in the story

You're here to show orcs a bad time.

The Long

It's pretty well established at this point that people (developers and gamers) love the Batman: Arkham Asylum style combat. A fluid, essentially two button system (for the most part) designed around quick flowing action, easy counters, and looking sweet while doing it, it's surprising how few games have stolen its system for their own games (a 360 Captain America game comes to mind, but it isn't of particular note). Similarly, Ubisoft's brand of open world games (Watch_Dogs, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry 3/4) all seem to be basically the same formula at this point: open worlds with lots of activities to boot your stats, climbing towers to scope out new areas, and so on.

Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor is pretty shameless, should you be familiar with these games. Aping both the Batman combat and "Ubisoft open world games" (we'll just say Assassin's Creed, since it started that mess) wholesale, anyone familiar with either of those game will be instantly at home with Mordor's systems. But as we've seen, a copy of a good idea can still be a good idea (there's a reason League of Legends is so popular, after all), so does Shadow of Mordor deliver on its blatantly stolen ideas?

You've got a ghost friend, which is like Bill Cosby's "Ghost Dad" only actually good. 

Shadow of Mordor apparently didn't start out as a Lord of the Rings game, and due to either licencing issues or lack of faith in the game it doesn't even bare the film/book's titles. Which is a shame, considering how much better this game is than any other Lord of the Rings game that's ever come out. Mordor's grim story feels more in line with a George R. R. Martin A Game of Thrones style story than the somewhat sterilized Lord of the Rings franchise. You play as Talion, a ranger (much like Strider/Aragorn) stationed in Mordor with his wife and kids. Why someone would take their family to Mordor is freaking beyond me, but as you can imagine it doesn't end well. They're murdered, Talion is murdered, everybody is sad.

Until a magical ghost elf wraith brings him back to life. Apparently stuck between life and death as well, Talion and his new ghost buddy journey to avenge the death of Talion's family, find out what's up with Ghost Dad, and finally be released from this limbo so Talion can be with his family in the West or wherever dead people go in Lord of the Rings.

On the way you'll meet a handful of interesting characters, human and dwarf (well, one dwarf, but he's awesome so it makes up for a lot), though you'll spend most of your time hanging around with orcs. There's also a rather in-depth backstory to your wraith buddy, one that got a lot of hardcore LOTR fans up in arms because "muh canon," but all things considered I felt his story was actually a solid connection to the overall world (the game takes place in the break between The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring).

The only thing that felt really out of place was the inclusion of Gollum. Yes, his connection with the wraith ends up making a good deal of sense, but the story felt stronger as an isolated incident within the universe, and attempting to connect it to the "greater whole" felt a bit pandering. Still, the voice acting is superb (particularly from the wraith, who provides copious amounts of lore dumps everytime you do just about anything interesting, which I loved) and the story dark and interesting, and as a whole it drives the gameplay very well.

But let's not fool ourselves: this is what you are here for. 

Gameplay is split between three key parts: exploration, power manipulation, and combat. And two of these three is completely aped from other games, so we'll cover them first.

Exploration is Assassin's Creed 2. Do I need to say more? Well, probably. If you've touched a game by Ubisoft in the last half decade you've seen this system before: a wide expanse with lots of stuff to traverse and climb over, towers you have to climb to unlock fast travel and view available events in areas of the map, lots of dynamic events to participate in either to give you more experience, upgrade your weapons, or garner more skills. You can even do an Assassin's Creed style dive off the watchtowers. It's that. Which isn't a bad thing.

This is a proven system (so much that, and I'll keep hammering this in, Ubisoft uses it on every single game they make) and it works. Mordor trims the fat in a lot of areas, and ties most events well into the Nemesis system (which I'll cover momentarily). There's a good amount of combat missions, archery missions, stealth missions, and rescue mission. Then there's the "weaken the warchief" missions, which are more optional than the rest as they focus primarily on manipulating Nemesis warchiefs. They're all fun (though some stealth missions are frustrating in their rules) and I never got bored of them, and right when you're getting tired of them you finish and the game ends. So kudos on that, no "walk around following a guy" quests like in Assassin's Creed.

That's losing your head. 

Combat is Batman: Arkham City. You have a standard attack that can be timed to double combo strikes, a counter (which is easily indicated by lines over enemies heads), a "stun into flurry" move for harder enemies, and the ability to vault over enemies (which Batman stole from Prince of Persia). You also can kill enemies when they're down should you be uninterrupted for a period of time, and a high enough combo meter will allow for finishers executed by pressing two buttons at once.

Literally. The. Same.

However, Mordor does have two major improvements. Because the enemies are more plentiful (and weaker), the game has no qualms making you a super-badass very quickly. Combos are harder to break and quickly scale to giving you finishers faster. Finishers are quick and can be stacked (including a combo that will literally murder every orc in range). Orcs can be Marked so they'll fight on your side, including being marked during combat, which is kind of hilarious. On top of that, Tallion's stealth and traversal is a perfect blend of Batman and Creed, with him being both limber enough to remain hidden and stealth kill easily, as well as combat-ready well enough that failing at stealth isn't the end of the world.

Point being, I liked it better than Batman's combat, even though it was an obvious ripoff. Maybe because it was easier, maybe because it felt like it flowed better, who knows. All I know is: your move, Batman: Arkham Knight.

Then there's these jerks. 

Then you have the unique twist on the formula: the Nemesis system. Essentially, Mordor is populated by a bunch of warchiefs (like 30 or so) that are all in a hierarchy. Each warchief has certain strengths and weaknesses. For example, one might be weak to stealth finishers (the best kind of weakness!) but is always surrounded by a horde of followers and is immune to archer fire. One might have a fear of dogs (causing him to flee in terror and leave himself exposed) but his hits cause you to bleed. The worst kind are the ones that are immune to everything (yes, they exist) and you have to find their exact weakness in order to exploit them. Crazy stuff.

Killing these warchiefs not only grants you power (and runes to modify your weapons, another system that is interesting but borrowed from other games. There's also an xp and ability tree system too. There, I mentioned it in the review, I don't really have to elaborate a skill tree, do I?), but also shifts the power structure. Orcs that were once week, lowly Captains upgrade to Chieftans, and gain new abilities while they're at it. Killing an orc directly above another one can cause a shift in the ranks, for good or ill. Die to one of them and (in probably my favorite twist in the game) they'll not only get promoted, but remember you when you come back to fight them again. It's this manipulation of power that is essential, and is Mordor's only real thing it can call it's own.

While it's a very cool idea, two things about it irk me. The first is that branding (basically mind controlling an orc or chieftan to serve you) doesn't come in until way into the second half of the game. Manipulating the struggle to push orcs you control into leadership is the funnest part of the game, and it's hidden away on the tail end, which was a mistake. The second is the system, while clever, feels a bit bare-bones. Sure there's lots of clever gimmicks, but you can't really do a ton with it, aside from shift the power around a bit. I'd like to see the system fleshed out in future games (or a sequel, or maybe Ubisoft could steal it for their bajillion open world games...I'll stop now), as right now it feels almost like a tech demo. This isn't bad, not by a long shot, but it should be better, and really isn't as mind blowing as some other reviewers have made it out to be.

It's lonely at the top. 

Graphically, Mordor looks phenomenal. While the area of Mordor canonically doesn't offer much in terms of variety of scenery, the do well in breaking up the dirty, mine-style vistas of the first area with a greener, fleshed out version in the second zone. Orcs, particularly warchiefs, are incredibly detailed, and mixed up so that no two look exactly the same (though you'll notice similarities). Combat is visceral and fun to engage in, and there are lots of clever tricks (like having the wraith appear during certain combat combos and archery segments) that keep the entire thing visually stimulating. It's not quite "next-gen," but it's getting there. Also they put a billion orcs on the screen at once and the framerate doesn't hitch (at least not on a GTX 970 equipped PC), so there's that.

Music is also phenomenal, going above the simple "background music" and providing a sullen, yet interesting environment. In a smart move they completely avoid the Howard Shore film soundtracks and opt to make their game entirely unique, again...good idea. It does sound a bit Game of Throney from time to time, but I'm sure not complaining about that.

Gettin Game of Thrones sounding up in here. 

Middle-Earth: Shadows of Mordor is greater than the sum of its parts. Broken down, you're looking at essentially a copycat, the first M-Rated Lord of the Rings game and Nemesis system being it's biggest draws. But it does the things it copies so damn well (and better than the games it emulate, if we're being honest) that the setting and Nemesis system is just icing on the cake. It could do better, maybe experimenting with the systems it's borrowing with a little, and the game does start to get a little tired as you near it's finale (and the ending sucks, both as a boss and as a story finisher), but for an open-world combat game with stealth elements where you manipulate orc power struggles...it sets the bar. Not that there's a whole lot of games competing for that particular space. 

It's familiar, but that's ok. Shadows of Mordor proves that copycat games can exceed their source material given enough heart and work. It's a standout title, and a must-buy for both Lord of the Rings fans and fans of any of the types of games it rips off. 

Four out of five stars. 

Final Comment on Versions: The PC version is by far the best for this game, but the next-gen versions (Xbox One and PS4) are just as good. With the PC, as long as you have a decent card (I first ran it on a GTX 570, which is about 4 years old) it'll look better than most next-gen systems, though you do have to have a hefty dedicated GPU. The Xbox 360 and PS3 versions, however, have no Nemesis system at all, it's completely gone. I don't know how the game works because of that (given some plot points tie into the system directly), but honestly the game is still fun without it. If you have the choice, get the PC version, then the next-gen version. If you have no other option, the PS3/Xbox 360 version works, but you'll miss out on a lot of what makes the game unique. 
Final note: Apparently the Xbox One version runs at 720p and 30 fps, while the PS4 runs at 1080p and 60 fps. So obviously, if you have both consoles, get the PS4 version. 

Best. Tutorial. Ever.