Lord of the Rings Online

Originally posted by Illyrian

Three "why LOTRO sucks" categories stated in this thread are:

1 - LOTRO sucks because it didn't picture Middle Earth as I think it should be presented. (Subjective, your perception is as valid as anybody elses.)

2 - LOTRO sucks because it doesn't have open world PvP. (It is a PvE game.)

3 - LOTRO sucks because it is not groundbreaking and you should play EQ (or something else that is older then LOTRO). (It is a fantasy based MMO's and thus have similarities with others in its category, all cruiser type warships have similarites. Perception of groundbreaking is also subjective.)

 

Since above three categories seem to be the worst you can say about the game it also explains why so many enjoy playing it. I can live with that.

Originally posted by DragonOak

Sorry nitefly but I am busy responding to Bursche atm.  That is gonna take a couple days at least.

And of course I see you carry on the tradition of quoting my quotes of your quotes expecting me to respond by quoting your quotes of my quotes of your quotes.

If I get the opportunity after I answer Bursche to answer your quotes of my quotes of your quotes I will get right on it.

But then again that is the tactic to basically keep one so busy trying to answer quotes of quotes of quotes that the thread is derailed into a mish mash of reading quotes of quotes of quotes that everyone loses interest and then no one can really decide if they want to play the game or not.  And my answer to that is play the 7 day trial and decide for yourself, I for one and glad I did.

Looks like you're working hard for an invitation to the Anti-Troll League we just founded in the Moria thread a couple of days ago :) nice job !

DB

Originally posted by nitefly

 

Originally posted by Illyrian

Three "why LOTRO sucks" categories stated in this thread are:

1 - LOTRO sucks because it didn't picture Middle Earth as I think it should be presented. (Subjective, your perception is as valid as anybody elses.)

2 - LOTRO sucks because it doesn't have open world PvP. (It is a PvE game.)

3 - LOTRO sucks because it is not groundbreaking and you should play EQ (or something else that is older then LOTRO). (It is a fantasy based MMO's and thus have similarities with others in its category, all cruiser type warships have similarites. Perception of groundbreaking is also subjective.)

 

Since above three categories seem to be the worst you can say about the game it also explains why so many enjoy playing it. I can live with that.

1) I think the problem is more that the game doesn't represent the lore that is in the books the game gets its name from. I don't think people have a personal Middle Earth they would want others to follow. Just follow the books and all is fine.

Use the map made by Tolkien for one thing, the world is huge, make the game world huge.

There isn't massive amounts of aggressive beasts everywhere in the books, let the game world reflect this.

There isn't banjo playing healers in the books, don't include them in the game world.

The easy answer is this: It is a game, there has to be changes. Well, then the obvious answer to that is: There has to be income for a company, it is easier to generate that with a well-known IP on top of a randomly selected gameplay elements from other games under new labels. Both may be true, but it doesn't make the game any more akin to the litterary source material.

 

That is your perception and I don't happen to share it after reading and reareading books for about ten years.

And this can go on, and on, and on... I don't plan to discuss it but you fall under number 1 in my opinion.

Originally posted by DonnieBrasco

 

Originally posted by DragonOak

Sorry nitefly but I am busy responding to Bursche atm.  That is gonna take a couple days at least.

And of course I see you carry on the tradition of quoting my quotes of your quotes expecting me to respond by quoting your quotes of my quotes of your quotes.

If I get the opportunity after I answer Bursche to answer your quotes of my quotes of your quotes I will get right on it.

But then again that is the tactic to basically keep one so busy trying to answer quotes of quotes of quotes that the thread is derailed into a mish mash of reading quotes of quotes of quotes that everyone loses interest and then no one can really decide if they want to play the game or not.  And my answer to that is play the 7 day trial and decide for yourself, I for one and glad I did.

 

Looks like you're working hard for an invitation to the Anti-Troll League we just founded in the Moria thread a couple of days ago :) nice job !

DB

If you don't care, don't post.

If you care but there isn't a valid counter-argument available to you, people will gather together with like-minded individuals of similar proposition and continue to convince eachother that they are right. Each to their own.

This game is living on two things: The IP and Lifetime Founder members. The IP will continue to generate money for Turbine, the Lifetime Founders won't. Where Dungeons & Dragons Online found a niche and therefore a stable core of paying subscribers, Turbine this time around has sort of shot themselves in the foot (in my perspective). Lord of the Rings: Online is a peculiar World of Warcraft Light (Battlegrounds as alternate method of getting loot, simple crafting, simple questing (although in LotRO it is even simpler with a forced string to make confusion as little as possible for new MMOers I think), races that give little initial differences but play identically, classes split between the races, level system with trainers needed for getting new abilities and instead of Talents you have a simple mob grind mechanic which should be comprehensible for anyone, reputation grinds, money grind for mounts, raid instances, endgame focused around raiding/high end crafting) but where everything is simply less.

The amount of quests are fewer, the land mass is about 1/3 (excluding Burning Crusade but including all LotRO updates), the battlegrounds are fewer, the classes are fewer, the races are fewer, the replay value is less (game experience identical from character to character), customization of your character is virtually non-existant (at least in WoW you could make two or more of the same class and make characters that played very differently due to Talents), the amount of crafting disciplines is less, the amount of crafting recipees is less, the amount of models for equipment is less.

It is not a niche game so unlike for instance Dungeons & Dragons Online, City of Heroes and so on, they can't rely on a niche market, they are just World of Warcraft with a different (more demanding) graphics engine and less content. If Blizzard steps up their game it will increase the pressure on especially Lord of the Rings: Online, the pressure is not the other way around. The pressure to World of Warcraft will come from Age of Conan (DirectX10 will again mean that the bar is perhaps too high for some, leaving them in World of Warcraft) and Warhammer: Age of Reckoning.

Lord of the Rings: Online is the new beginner's MMO. And that specific area is in my view not a niche, it is a stepping stone. And when people have stepped up, they rarely step down again.

I know World of Warcraft wasn't the first MMO (and neither was it the first I played, that was EQ) but it is the MMO Lord of the Rings: Online has closely tried to become similar to which is the reason for the comparison.

Originally posted by Illyrian

Originally posted by nitefly

 

1) I think the problem is more that the game doesn't represent the lore that is in the books the game gets its name from. I don't think people have a personal Middle Earth they would want others to follow. Just follow the books and all is fine.

Use the map made by Tolkien for one thing, the world is huge, make the game world huge.

There isn't massive amounts of aggressive beasts everywhere in the books, let the game world reflect this.

There isn't banjo playing healers in the books, don't include them in the game world.

The easy answer is this: It is a game, there has to be changes. Well, then the obvious answer to that is: There has to be income for a company, it is easier to generate that with a well-known IP on top of a randomly selected gameplay elements from other games under new labels. Both may be true, but it doesn't make the game any more akin to the litterary source material.

 

That is your perception and I don't happen to share it after reading and reareading books for about ten years.

 

And this can go on, and on, and on... I don't plan to discuss it but you fall under number 1 in my opinion.

I think you are actually the one that is falling under the 1) heading. You have an idea about Middle Earth that is not based on the books but on something else. "My perception" as you call it of a small land mass compared to the land mass showed in Tolkien's maps and "my perception" of banjo-playing healers compared to the complete absence of such ridiculous nonsense in the books hints more strongly at you disregarding apparent, glaring deviations from the books, ie it has to do with your perception more than mine.

And to be truthful, the discussion doesn't have to go on and on. Look at the maps created by Tolkien of Middle Earth, look at the scale. Read "Fellowship of the Ring", there is according to the hobbits "20 miles from Brandywine bridge to Buckleberry ferry".

Next find any reference to banjo-playing healers. I can't think of any, but you might having a different "perception".

And last find anything that would even hint at the world being so full of aggressive creatures (just outside Bree and all the Hobbit settlements).

Also find a reason why Hobbits, Elves, and Dwarves aren't special races limited to one per account or something similar to at least somewhat live up to the books about these races being reluctant to adventure and are getting more and more scarce.

If your answers to any of these are "Game Mechanics" please enlighten me to why that "perception" is better than the one put forth by J.R.R. Tolkien. Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by nitefly

This game is living on two things: The IP and Lifetime Founder members.

See? No point reading further. You are totally sure that you know everything and more, right?

No game will *flourish* on IP and founder members alone: SWG/Matrix Online ring a bell?

I personally wouldn't care about the IP (read the books seen the movies but not a fan by any means): i am not a lifetime founder either. Still, I can enjoy the game for what it's worth: FUN for me.

it might not be fun for you personally and for many many others, but that still does not explain the strange urge that some people have: that is to somehow explain and validate that it is the GAME that is not good enough (for all), instead of accepting that it is their own taste that does not suit this particular game.

Trust me, it is much better to accept if you don't like something, and move on, than pointless fencing about a totally subjective thing, such as a game is "good" or "not".

This game is good for many, and however hard some trolls (yes, trolls) try to validate themselves or convince the world that it is *objectively* not good enough, somehow some "perverts" will still enjoy playing it, even if they don't care about the IP and are not founders. I am one of them, but it's not really important.

DB

Edit: I might not necessarily reflect on you as "troll" above, since your posts are quite civil and may even have some valid discussion points - however, if you keep on posting bland (and invalid) generalizations as the one I quoted above, the rest of your post(s) will be rendered much less valid and valueable instantly. Just an advice...

Originally posted by nitefly

 

Originally posted by Illyrian

Three "why LOTRO sucks" categories stated in this thread are:

1 - LOTRO sucks because it didn't picture Middle Earth as I think it should be presented. (Subjective, your perception is as valid as anybody elses.)

2 - LOTRO sucks because it doesn't have open world PvP. (It is a PvE game.)

3 - LOTRO sucks because it is not groundbreaking and you should play EQ (or something else that is older then LOTRO). (It is a fantasy based MMO's and thus have similarities with others in its category, all cruiser type warships have similarites. Perception of groundbreaking is also subjective.)

 

Since above three categories seem to be the worst you can say about the game it also explains why so many enjoy playing it. I can live with that.

1) I think the problem is more that the game doesn't represent the lore that is in the books the game gets its name from. I don't think people have a personal Middle Earth they would want others to follow. Just follow the books and all is fine.

 

I know the people criticizing how they didn't do "this" or "that" with the license hate being reminded of this, but it's reality... Turbine are strictly under a license which limits what they  can and cannot do in the game. Sooo... for the quoted comment, and the supporting ones you made afterward... it seems to me your issue should be with the Tolkien people for approving Turbine's implementation.

Are you prepared to tell Tolkien Ent. that *they've* let Turbine do it all wrong and that *you* know better how it should have been done?

As for your points against the game... Your personal opinions, granted; to me, they're all  nit-picking.

I'd bet any one of us in here - even those who enjoy the game - could pick at a dozen things off the top of our head that aren't exactly how it happened in the books. And.... so what? It all comes down to one very key thing: LoTRO isn't a book that only has to entertain a single person reading their personal copy of it. It isn't even a single player game where such things can be more reasonably adapted. It's a massively multiplayer game that has to entertain thousands of players simultaneously, at any given time. *Slight* difference there.

Let's take one of your comments for example... You note that there aren't creatures all over the place in the book as there are in the game. You note this as a strike against it. So how, pray tell, do you suggest they translate that more faithfully into a game where any number of people could potentially be hunting in the same area, for the same creature(s), at the same time? Would you cut back on the population so single mobs are no closer than a couple hundred yards apart? Think of the chaos that would result in when any number of people need to hunt those same mobs at the same time.

I think common-sense answers that one - and I'm sure the folks even at Tolkien Ent. recognized it as necessary, given the format of the game.

So, again, I think that you can nit-pick at it all day long and find a hundred things that aren't "by the book". But at the end of the day, those who have the ultimate say over what is close enough to the book to be included have given the green-light. Again, an unfortunate fact for those who want to criticize how Turbine's recreated Middle Earth - but a fact nonetheless.

If it wasn't acceptable to Tolkien Ent... it wouldn't be in the game.