Just goes to show that people do not want new games, but polished versions of the same game. LOTRO is a very well planned out and well made game.. just has nothing new.
The rankings here are losing a lot of their value because of the high level of dishonest ratings. When you read the negative comments with the rating section, some have enough of a clue that I can buy that they gave the game a good effort and just didn't like it, but most of them are just a regurgitation of stuff that is dishonest or outright untrue.
It happens with every game I am sure, but the lack of integrity on the part of so many people is discouraging.
I'm not sure what good stuff the OP is on, but man it must be nice. Let's not forget that the rabid fanbois also ranked Vanguard pretty high, as well.
Vangaurd looked like a whack a mole it rose and fell so fast LOL. It went up to number one the day it was released and then fell off the chart by the end of the week
If we look for a good game, it has several key features.
It looks good when you first look at it. Even if you just check screenshots and videos
It looks promising when you evaluate it based on "features list", and explanation of key concepts
When you try it it will be easy to use and fun enough to make you happy with the game
With its option it should offer a chance to play the game with your friends, even if their interests are a bit different
With all of it, it is good to attract enough people to be a real MMORPG and you should be able to see the community
And it is fun even on the long run with new challenges
So far, even if Turbine wouldn't have a history with games that were vey promising at first glance and a huge dissappointment soon after, I wouldn't think this game has a bright future.
The quest based advancement in D&D online without grinding looked good - but when 90% of the quests were dungeons and you had a lot of monsters, and dungeons in the city and had reasons to question why people would live in a such monster infested place? And how a place where most people can't go home because of monsters and have to wait fo adventurers works? And why it was all instances with a few town sections with multiple copies (like Guildwars, which had no subscribtion fee mostly for this reason), and the game got very boring and annoying because of it, then it shown one thing. So their advancement idea, the decision to make one of the first real cities (size, population, complexity, and some city based adventures) in normal fantasy MMORPG genre was promising. But what we got? A city based dungeon crawl game, with little roleplaying or MMO potential, and very very boring quests that quickly ruined the mood. We speak about alicenced product, and the many years of D&D and AD&D would havemore promises.
It is so far the only game, where they point to traditional roleplaying games as their background, and yet you have to kill same named NPCs over and over at multiple difficulty level to get favor. Have you seen such things in traditional D&D?
So when Turbine releases a game, it is natural to see it promising, maybe very good for 7 or 14 days, or maybe enough for 30 days, but what comes after that? A good name, and using the name of a wel designed world, that had many options isn't enough for long term success.
PvMP, sounds nice. But when we spoke with friends about it: They are PVP fans, I like PVE more, they would need monster side to develop in PVP, I couldn't stand that. If we want to stay as a team, some of us won't have much fun. Either they have to deal with a side designed with PVE fans in mind, or I won't see enough PVE advancement, etc. And since monsters start at higher level the smaller PVP battles at lower level, etc. won't cheer them up on PVE side.
So an idea that sounds brilliant but raises several questions, and can be a reason against the game? A strong world with rich history behind a game where the developer team already shown (with D&D online) how little you can see from the huge background you got with D&D, so another reason to ask: will it be enough for a month or two?
As you can see, it makes the game look weak in several areas.
When we speak about graphic: there is a question about balancing detail, and ability to render many models. And you can make some pretty images if your engine uses a lot of nice textures (Take up a lot of disk space) but when your flags are 2d, etc. the graphics will be boring after a while. Again, it is something we seen from Turbine before, and Lotro shows signs of it.
About comparision to WoW. Blizzard knew, even without good community management, good content or good PVP, they can sell a game with hype and a few good shots. If the game is easy at first, but gives you more and more goals slowly (like Diablo 2) many will be addicted, and all you need is to provide new goals (new instances, new items, etc) and some will stay for it, some won't like it, but when they try it because of friends, they will stay for friends made in the huge player community. (If they join a good servers, some are very very weak) And this simple concept worked well.
Most games get about 50 rates, reviews, etc. before we see the first experienced players, before we can judge it fairly based on experience, not based on promises, questions, etc. this game has hundreds. It is because the hype. The question is: can the game keep most of the players? Can it attract new players to MMORPG market? Can it be fun on the long run? We have to see.
Hate to break it to ya but WoW didn't invent MMORPGs.
But it sets the standard.
Somehow I doubt that. Why? WoW, as you can see a commercially succesful game, but it is built on simple principles. And while many people bought it, and some portion of this people still play it, many players who tried several games wouldn't rank it as a realy good game. There are several key points where WoW is weak, very very weak....
I'm by no means a fanboy of LOTR, but I found the game to be pretty fun. I havent bought it though, not my style of game, but it was entertaining reguardless.. I can believe it has a good rating for now.
(felt more like a balder's gate style story walkthrough which isn't what I like to play)
Comments
Just goes to show that people do not want new games, but polished versions of the same game. LOTRO is a very well planned out and well made game.. just has nothing new.
The rankings here are losing a lot of their value because of the high level of dishonest ratings. When you read the negative comments with the rating section, some have enough of a clue that I can buy that they gave the game a good effort and just didn't like it, but most of them are just a regurgitation of stuff that is dishonest or outright untrue.
It happens with every game I am sure, but the lack of integrity on the part of so many people is discouraging.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
I'm not sure what good stuff the OP is on, but man it must be nice. Let's not forget that the rabid fanbois also ranked Vanguard pretty high, as well.
Vangaurd looked like a whack a mole it rose and fell so fast LOL. It went up to number one the day it was released and then fell off the chart by the end of the week
I miss DAoC
If we look for a good game, it has several key features.
So far, even if Turbine wouldn't have a history with games that were vey promising at first glance and a huge dissappointment soon after, I wouldn't think this game has a bright future.
The quest based advancement in D&D online without grinding looked good - but when 90% of the quests were dungeons and you had a lot of monsters, and dungeons in the city and had reasons to question why people would live in a such monster infested place? And how a place where most people can't go home because of monsters and have to wait fo adventurers works? And why it was all instances with a few town sections with multiple copies (like Guildwars, which had no subscribtion fee mostly for this reason), and the game got very boring and annoying because of it, then it shown one thing. So their advancement idea, the decision to make one of the first real cities (size, population, complexity, and some city based adventures) in normal fantasy MMORPG genre was promising. But what we got? A city based dungeon crawl game, with little roleplaying or MMO potential, and very very boring quests that quickly ruined the mood. We speak about alicenced product, and the many years of D&D and AD&D would havemore promises.
It is so far the only game, where they point to traditional roleplaying games as their background, and yet you have to kill same named NPCs over and over at multiple difficulty level to get favor. Have you seen such things in traditional D&D?
So when Turbine releases a game, it is natural to see it promising, maybe very good for 7 or 14 days, or maybe enough for 30 days, but what comes after that? A good name, and using the name of a wel designed world, that had many options isn't enough for long term success.
PvMP, sounds nice. But when we spoke with friends about it: They are PVP fans, I like PVE more, they would need monster side to develop in PVP, I couldn't stand that. If we want to stay as a team, some of us won't have much fun. Either they have to deal with a side designed with PVE fans in mind, or I won't see enough PVE advancement, etc. And since monsters start at higher level the smaller PVP battles at lower level, etc. won't cheer them up on PVE side.
So an idea that sounds brilliant but raises several questions, and can be a reason against the game? A strong world with rich history behind a game where the developer team already shown (with D&D online) how little you can see from the huge background you got with D&D, so another reason to ask: will it be enough for a month or two?
As you can see, it makes the game look weak in several areas.
When we speak about graphic: there is a question about balancing detail, and ability to render many models. And you can make some pretty images if your engine uses a lot of nice textures (Take up a lot of disk space) but when your flags are 2d, etc. the graphics will be boring after a while. Again, it is something we seen from Turbine before, and Lotro shows signs of it.
About comparision to WoW. Blizzard knew, even without good community management, good content or good PVP, they can sell a game with hype and a few good shots. If the game is easy at first, but gives you more and more goals slowly (like Diablo 2) many will be addicted, and all you need is to provide new goals (new instances, new items, etc) and some will stay for it, some won't like it, but when they try it because of friends, they will stay for friends made in the huge player community. (If they join a good servers, some are very very weak) And this simple concept worked well.
Most games get about 50 rates, reviews, etc. before we see the first experienced players, before we can judge it fairly based on experience, not based on promises, questions, etc. this game has hundreds. It is because the hype. The question is: can the game keep most of the players? Can it attract new players to MMORPG market? Can it be fun on the long run? We have to see.
Check my home page for gaming related articles
But it sets the standard.
Somehow I doubt that. Why? WoW, as you can see a commercially succesful game, but it is built on simple principles. And while many people bought it, and some portion of this people still play it, many players who tried several games wouldn't rank it as a realy good game. There are several key points where WoW is weak, very very weak....
Check my home page for gaming related articles
I'm by no means a fanboy of LOTR, but I found the game to be pretty fun. I havent bought it though, not my style of game, but it was entertaining reguardless.. I can believe it has a good rating for now.
(felt more like a balder's gate style story walkthrough which isn't what I like to play)