LOTR

[stevenhorbury622]

i was wondering if this game is worth playing, being a big LOTR fan this game looks really good but from the reviews i'm not sure, what's your opinion on this game, how faithful is it to the series and is it free to play pay to win

[listless]

I'm not particularly interested in playing off topic patty cake with jackson fans. Not even sure how this came up. I refer you to the original post.

Keyphrases: "big LOTRO fan... how faithful is it to the series..."

[Harvain]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย This_is_Citrus:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย rainyday:

Jackson's films are to Tolkien's books
as Morgoth's orcs are to elves

We get it, you're a hater and a "purist." Be thankful the movies exist, because this game wouldn't exist without them, and much like the Witcher games are for the Witcher franchise, they are the entire reason for their surge in popularity.

Actually this is false. LOTRO's License although not for an MMORPG for that name at the time happened in 1998. The filming for the LOTR Movies started in 1999.

The work for a LOTR MMORPG was happening on it's own and we nearly had a different form of a LOTR MMORPG in 2004. It's only due to the Team that took over from the original 1998 License Holders also gave up their License to Turbine who then went on to make The Lord of the Rings Online in April 2007.

[stevenhorbury622]

people please can we not fight about the films, i only asked about the game and i already got my answer, i will be playing it soon

[This_is_Citrus]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Harvain:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย This_is_Citrus:

We get it, you're a hater and a "purist." Be thankful the movies exist, because this game wouldn't exist without them, and much like the Witcher games are for the Witcher franchise, they are the entire reason for their surge in popularity.

Actually this is false. LOTRO's License although not for an MMORPG for that name at the time happened in 1998. The filming for the LOTR Movies started in 1999.

The work for a LOTR MMORPG was happening on it's own and we nearly had a different form of a LOTR MMORPG in 2004. It's only due to the Team that took over from the original 1998 License Holders also gave up their License to Turbine who then went on to make The Lord of the Rings Online in April 2007.

Actually this is false. While the LOTR game license existed at the time, it was merely an idea and only became what it is today because of the commercial success of the movie franchise. As well as the continued success of the game is owed to the movies popularizing the lore.

And while the filming may have started in 1999, the films were on paper and in the works for years before hand, with that 1998 LOTRO license most likely having been in part due to the deal to make the movies.

Not to mention the sheer number of game licenses that exist but never get released. Trying to state that this MMO which released years after the movies did not owe any success to them is just plain ignorant.

This whole argument is dumb, the movies popularized the series and got people engaged in the story and wanting to read the books anyways. Like the movies or not, it's a win/win for LOTR fans.

[The Emperor Of Milfgaard]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย CallMeLS:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย rainyday:

I haven't played through all of the content, but so far what I've seen has been pretty respectful of Tolkien's work - WAY more respectful than P. Jackson's corruption was. While jackson and amazon took the morgoth approach to middle earth - focused on twisting everything to their liking, Standing Stones has been more like the Wardens of Westmarch.

Jackson brought me and most other LOTR fans into LOTR, the films are very respectful to the source material. Just because not every location and character and such were introduced doesnt make it unfaithful. There would be at least 20 movies if that were the case. Calling it "corruption" is insulting and objectively wrong. Not everyone is a nitpick or reader who needs everything to be exactly the same translated from book to movie. In case you didnt know movie adaptations of books almost never work, why? because books are not film they dont do the same things and 99% of books if exactly put into film would be horrid.

I have read the books prior to watching the movies back in the day. The only big things they left out was Tom, and Saruman surviving and enslaving the shire and being cast down by the hobbits that returned to the shire after defeating Sauron. Small hint: Grima kills Saruman also in the books but in the shire, in a very similar fashion as shown in the movies. And that is literally it. Everything else would be nitpicks like:" Brees atmosphere was different to that displayed in the movies" So what?! These people are mad. Funny enough I get the feeling they won't say a peep about the new "Tolkien adaptation" stuff that is coming which makes these people very suspicious.

[listless]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย The Emperor Of Milfgaard:

I have read the books prior to watching the movies back in the day. The only big things they left out was Tom, and Saruman surviving and enslaving the shire and being cast down by the hobbits that returned to the shire after defeating Sauron...

Last thing I'll say on the subject since op asked us to drop it, but the omissions you mentioned were understandable and very minor compared to Jackson's character assassination of Aragorn, Arwen, Elrond, Meriadoc, Sam, and Faramir, and those are just the ones that come readily to mind. There's also issues like elves at Helm's Deep, the weird Frodo/Gollum/Sam triangle, and a host of more minor details like Bilbo's vanishing and Theoden's age that are easier to just ignore because they're just not that important.

I do understand that some people grew up with Jackson's movies and may or may not have dabbled with the books after, but what they seem to disregard is that a good many who grew up with Tolkien's books instead were dismayed by what Jackson did. The reaction of Christopher Tolkien and the rest of the Tolkien family to Jackson's films represents pretty well how some of us feel. And sure, maybe that's often the case with book to film adaptations. People who love the books are easily disappointed. The only adaptation of a book that I can think of that fairly represented or even improved on the original was Phantom of the Opera because I think that book was pretty terrible. But I'd totally understand an admirer of the book's outrage over Lloyd Webber's adaptation.

[The Emperor Of Milfgaard]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย rainyday:

I do understand that some people grew up with Jackson's movies and may or may not have dabbled with the books after, but what they seem to disregard is that a good many who grew up with Tolkien's books instead were dismayed by what Jackson did.

I literally read the books before the movies. The small changes found inside the movies can not justify your outrage. At all. Just take a look at the stuff that came after it and is still yet to come. How about you focus on those ABOMINATIONS? But no you focus on one of the best book adaptations that has EVER BEEN MADE.

Like I could totally understand your outrage at the Hobbit. Cause it was bad. But you don't talk about that? What about shadow of mordor? All things you are not talking about but instead talk about something that is a lot more faithful to the source material. Why not talk about the upcoming rings of power? You are not. Which really surprises me you know. It makes me think you have an agenda.

[Allwynd]

It's based on the books rather than on the movies and a lot of the game just became free for everyone to access at no cost. I think the game is faithful to the source material and for what amount of content it offers for free, it's worth trying for every fan. By the time you exhaust all free content, it can take you a whole 12 months if you take your time and try to read and experience everything and also by that time you can amass a lot of LP (LOTRO Points) that you can use in the in-game store to purchase further content.