Just give your opinions. I want to know what the general consensus of these two games is.

comparing lotro to aoc is like comparing pokemon to wow tbh

ok this should get me flamed bad....

AOC - Fail

LOTRO - Sucess

LOL

I dont play any of them atm, but tested them both and i will have to say Lotro.

I'd love to play Lotro if it had a decent PvP system. It gets boring pretty fast when there is no real danger anywhere, just regular, brainless AI mobs. After playing the trial twice, I've never gotten really hooked up. Maybe it's just not my game.

It still wins AoC though.

Oooooooh really post no.2 (Sorry for lack of quote)?

Let me put some ideas up here. Not perhaps in terms of gameplay, but the story behind them.

Both are based on books in fantasy settings.

One is Low Fantasy (Conan)

One is High Fantasy (Lord of the Rings)

So  they the foremost books at their respective polar opposites of the Fantasy Genre.

This translates into the general feel of the games.

AOC has fairly open PVP where people can be evil if they choose.

LOTRO has this feel where no player can be evil. No open PVP, unless you're playing as a specificalluy evil race.

Both have good storylines and good questlines.

So my question is, which do people prefer/ hate less?

And no. They are far more similar than WoW and pokemon. Hyperbolic language isn't answering my question.

had to vote for aoc even though I don't play it anymore.  the reason is that Lotro offers no open world pvp and lame monster-play level 50 stuff.  This is the fatal flaw in lotro for me and the reason I quit it and could never rate it higher than aoc despite aoc's massive flaws. 

Stay far away from AOC and anything Funcom touches. LOTRO decent game fun to play.

LotRo is the most linear P2Pgame I ever played.

In AoC I only made it to lvl 19 when it was released, wasn´t my cup of tea.

Originally posted by Pabswikk

Oooooooh really post no.2 (Sorry for lack of quote)?

Let me put some ideas up here. Not perhaps in terms of gameplay, but the story behind them.

Both are based on books in fantasy settings.

One is Low Fantasy (Conan)

One is High Fantasy (Lord of the Rings)

So  they the foremost books at their respective polar opposites of the Fantasy Genre.

This translates into the general feel of the games.

AOC has fairly open PVP where people can be evil if they choose.

LOTRO has this feel where no player can be evil. No open PVP, unless you're playing as a specificalluy evil race.

Both have good storylines and good questlines.

So my question is, which do people prefer/ hate less?

And no. They are far more similar than WoW and pokemon. Hyperbolic language isn't answering my question.

Lord of the RIngs is low fantasy. AoC is like old world fantasy. WoW is high fantasy (motocycles, spaceships lol)

Compared to LOTRO, AoC has no storyline. I am enjoying LOTRO because it is an open book to me right now. It is what other MMO's arent. becaue it has a central narrative storyline.

Here are some common opinions:

AoC does PvP very well
LOTRO does PvE very well

Do you like backing a company that listens to its playerbase and has a great reputation? Play LOTRO. Funcom may still close up shop next year. Check out their stocks.
 

1. Originally posted by Herodes

LotRo is the most linear P2Pgame I ever played.

In AoC I only made it to lvl 19 when it was released, wasn´t my cup of tea.

 

Not sure what game you were playing, the game has a central story line, but it really no more linear than any other MMO I have played.

LOTRO is win, AoC, while it COULD have been great, suffered from getting rushed out the door.

 LOTRO is best if you like storytelling and PvE.  The PvP system is not very good to say the least, there is forced grouping throughout the game for storyline quests, and the classes are quixotic, especially if you like more traditional fantasy MMO classes.  However, the game is very, very polished, almost no bugs, and runs and looks great.  But really it's strictly PvE.

AoC is the best looking MMORPG ever made, and has a fun, interactive combat system.  It has better PvP by a long shot than LOTRO.  However, it is also still lacking content and functionality in key areas, and overall the endgame in particular is lacking.  It can be fun to play, but you shouldn't expect that the game is finished, and LOTRO is higher quality, but different in approach.

Both of these games substantially underachieved their potential -- which to me underlines the reality that anyone trying to compete head-on with WoW, in terms of marketing a leveling/questing/class-based fantasy game, is going to have a very, very hard time living up to the potential, regardless of the strength of the IP or the polish of the game (LOTRO had both going for it).

i picked LOTRO myself. i enjoy the PvE aspect of the game and if it want to do some PvP, all i have to do is pop over to the ettenmoors and its game on. i guess it all depends on if you want your PvP on top of your PvE(open worlds PvP i guess). I personally prefer to have it seperate. i played AoC from open beta to the end of september and although the graphics were bad ass, the end game content and the content in general were very lacking. To me, there just seems theres more to do in LOTRO than AoC as far as PvP, quests, traits and books.

---

Originally posted by Marll

[*]Originally posted by Herodes

---

LotRo is the most linear P2Pgame I ever played.
In AoC I only made it to lvl 19 when it was released, wasn´t my cup of tea.
 

---

Not sure what game you were playing, the game has a central story line, but it really no more linear than any other MMO I have played.
 
LOTRO is win, AoC, while it COULD have been great, suffered from getting rushed out the door.

---

Lotro obviously tried to copy WoW, and its biggest luck was the career of Vanguard and Dark&Light, who were more hyped in its time than Lotro.

LotRo is a great place for roleplayers though.

Lotro is actually a good game, not my cup of tea but atleast its fun in short bursts.

I ran for the hills two weeks after playing AOC.

I choose Lotro.

LotRO FTW.

I really beleive LotRO would have been a true contender in giving WoW a run for its money if it had a proper PvP system in play.  I mean, the moster stuff is okay for one of those "something different" moments... but just think if it had real PvP, where you lay seige and whatnot.

LotRO was a hugely missed opportunity.  It does just about everything as good if not better than WoW, except there is zero PvP.  Still, I'm sorely bored of the high fantasy swords and sorcery stuff.  I'm really waiting for a good Sci-Fi MMO to come along.... that isn't EVE.

All in all though, I would have to say my choice on the matter would be AoC.  I know it's a suckball of a game, but I choose it simply because I enjoy the lore more.  It's a little more brash and in your face, where LotRO is cutsey and nice.

You need a "None of the Above option" I vote for neither.

AOC as everyone knows was a mess out the door, with many things promised still not in game. I hate the instanced zones. Does not have a open world feel. Combat is decent, although classes are totally unbalanced. At high level there is just too much UI to stuff on your screen.

LOTRO is PVE. It's PVP content is very lacking. LOTRO is very polished, but a bit lifeless. I can't pinpoint my problem with LOTRO. I think it's the cartoony design. Being forced to level by questing I didn't like.

Both games are way too linier. Both games lost my intrest. Overall LOTRO is the better game, but neither are my MMO of choice.

I choose a real sandbox with real PVP where death actually matters. I choose EVE.

Age of Conan.. no elves no dwarves, contrary to beliefs the classes are balanced to specific purposes very well, for GROUP PvP and PvE play...

Anarchy Online was purportedly a mess at release, but it turned out okay. I gave it a shot 3 years later. Has there been any signs of progress with AoC? (I took an initial pass here as well.) Does it still have a big enough player base to fund improvements over time? Or is the basic design just so fubared it will never be any good.