Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Comparing Expansions: Lotro Mirkwood vs. AoC RotG
Fuerchtegott
Member Posts: 79
Beware: Wall of text!
Edit: There might be some weird typos in the text thanks to the German version of MS Office which tried to change some of the spellings.
The last two expansions of AAA titles to come out that I played or tested have been the Mirkwood Expansion for Lotro and RotG for AoC.
The way these expansions were brought to us by the companies and were received by gamers was what made me want to write this post. All of he following is strictly subjective, are my own opinions and are based on what I observed on forums, game sites and in-game.
Let me start out with what i regard was the general atmosphere prior to the expansions.
Lotro:
Moria was received with some mixed but mostly positive views. The content was extensive, two new classes and legendary item system completed the whole package. It was enough content to justify the word expansion and the price of it. Afterwards Turbine had difficulties to deliver the same amount and the same quality of updates as before. Instead of many new areas tob e explored the groundwork for repeatable (not to say repetitive) game-play mechanics were installed in order to keep the players busy (radiance requirements and focus on raids). Forum opinion slowly shifted towards the negative as players were hoping for new lands to explore and got little.
AoC:
The game had a very rocky start. We all know what Failcom means and until now there are players who won’t touch anything by the company. Over time, however, the new game director Craig Morrison seemed tob e determined to shift player opinion by attending to he most glaring bugs and issues as well as adding quality content, mostly through addition of new areas. Regardless whether players like the core mechanics of the game or not, Funcom expanded their game mostly in the horizontal. Some may say that this was no miracle given the lack of content it had at the beginning. Still, AoC slowly turned towards the positive.
Mirkwood and reactions:
Mirkwood hit and it seemed to me it hit hard. Long-time players were disappointed since they regarded the added „regular“ content to b e too little, the design of Mirkwood serving more towards casual gamers through it dense packing and relatively small size. The introduction of Skirmishes was controversial since they seemed to take place outside the regular world. They emphasized the game character of Lotro and de-emphazied ist world nature. Skirmishes also represented a new version of the „treadmill“-system that was introduced with radiance gating and focus on raiding. As the latest content update is a mere shadow of what content updates used to be prior to Moria the opinion on the lotro forums resembles the diminishing hopes of the Free People as Sauron gains more and more power. People are hoping that Turbine will return to its old glory days of extensive horizontal quality updates.
AoC RotG and reactions:
Overall I would say the reactions to the expansion are quite positive. Time will prove whether expectations were met in the end, however, reading the list of features seems to satisfy players desires: 5 (?) new and huge areas, one new race (skin model), new pets/mounts which come with their own story and game play feature, the alternative advancement system (AAS). The faction system smells of a tread-mill feature as do factions most of the time but it seems to be all right here since there is enough other content. The added content is not horizontal in nature but it adds enough of vertical content to make it enjoyable for some time to come. The AAS also opens up new possibilities to develop your existing characters further. Thanks to it Funcom did not have to implement a pseudo-advancement addition of new levels which would have just changed the numbers on a couple of skills (as Mirkwood did).
I cannot say whether the AAS will really help individualize characters more with unusual combinations or whether there will be a „Best“-build that everyone will follow. It gives the players, however, space to explore their characters more.
Conclusion:
What did Mirkwood wrong, what did RotG right?
I think the main point is the amount of content added resembled in the number and size of new areas. Neither has introduced new classes, RotG but at least tweaked the existing ones with new possibilites. As long as races have no racial game mechanic or feature I regard them mostly as fluff. It’s nice to have but not essential (which is why i laugh about WoWs addition of Goblins, at least give the players something truly new, like Pandauren maybe?). IP-wise Turbine is constrained with the addition of mounts , true, but the pet raising idea of AoC is a really nice touch which will add to the emotional value of your mount/pet.
Mirkwood did not expand the existing lands of Middle-Earth enough to satisfy all those players who like to roleplay, who like to explore. It served for mostly one sort of gamer type, one who likes instant and constant action (I am not judging which type is better if any). Skirmishes were conceived by the former two types as a disruptive element, which on top of that is designed tob e repeatable but loses it replay value quite fast. In the end you only keep on doing skirmishes for some of the items. The soldier system is nice but essentially irrelevant since he will never exist outside of skirmishes. Mirkwood feels as i fit lacks substance and has no permanence to it.
In the end, regardless whether we are hard-core gamers or casuals, we prefer sandbox or theme park, permanence is what distinguishes MMORPGs from other types of MMOGs. Mirkwood lacks permanence mostly whereas RotG doesn’t.
I would be interested what you guys think about this topic and what an expansions needs to satisfy us gamers.
Comments
Couple of points about ROTGS, the faction grind is there, but not really horrific. The bad part is the tokens (currency), needed to buy the faction armor and weapons, though details are sketchy still, it could potentially take months to get a single set of armor and there are four sets per class to get.
Here's the thing about expansions.
.
I'll buy WoW's expansions cause I know I'll get a good value for my money.
.
But I don't buy expansions for other games.
.
So now I can't play LotRO or AoC. Why? Cause I have to buy an expansion to get the end game and these games aren't that fun. I won't spend more money on them.
.
So expansions sometimes keep people from subbing.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
Well, the AOC expansion did not impact the original end game really. You might have players in the original end game piece come through with new faction armor or perhaps some of the AA abilities but that would not prohibit you from staying the course with the original game and world. not sure about LoTRO though.
Nice post OP, it seemed to be filled with fair comparisons without to much conjecture.
I've yet to try ROTGS, I plan to pick it up tomorrow. I do feel it was an excellent idea to incorporate an AA system over more level advancement. Why other games didn't do this before is questionable to say the least. I'm sure we all know why it's questionable so I won't get into that.
On paper the expansion sounds great, I will not conclude it being great until playing it of course. What I also like is that the features of this expansion have been somewhat designed into the vanilla game as well. Namely with the AA, but to a lesser extent Khitai itself. It's also nice that lower level players get to experience a taste of it as well, from 20-40. IMO who ever planned all that really put a lot of thought into it.
They ensured the game itself has plenty to do within it as well as none of it being pointless. It's not often I can say other studios should be looking into what Funcom did, it's actually nice to be able to say that for a change.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
From what ive read,if you buy the boxed AoC expansion it also includes the original game as well as the 30 days free.
So you don't buy expansions for games you don't enjoy?
Fair enough, thats why I've never purchased a WoW expansion, because I don't enjoy playing WoW.
I don't get your rationale here. Are you suggesting no one else should have expansions besides WoW? Why would you play the other games anyways regardless whether the expansion came out or not if you don't find them fun anyways?
1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.
2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.
3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.
I'm not really understanding this.
Anyway, the AoC expansion didn't raise the level cap so you don't have to buy the expansion to get to the "end game". It just gives you more options is all.
You seem to be missing the point that SoM costed $20 versus MoM being a full priced.
SoM is considered a mini expansion and they used it to correct a number of things. (on being getting rad gear back in line of equality as the Moria Rad gear was 'too much')
So yeah, it doesn't feel like an expansion... because it's not. Thusly comparing it to a full, game changing expansion like RotGS would result in your very reaction to anyone who is ignorant to what exactly SoM is and meant to do.
People can hate on the skirmish system all they want but it doesn't change the fact that Turbin threw a nice bone to the casual/non endgamers and that's a big deal to anyone with an open mind and isn't completely self-centered.
For the endgamers, there's plenty of nice new shiny items to obtain in Mirkwood which are aquired very similarly to previous versions.
Ultimately... haters gonna hate. If the ~Rohan~ expansion is lacking and the same quality of SoM then you can slap me upside the head and call me a fool.
@ Malickie
thanks for the compliments
. I agree with what you, i was also skeptical about the expansion since we all know how the hype machine works these days. Fortunately i got into the Semi-Open Beta a few days before launch and could test it.
Although i tried to tone it down, it is probably obvious that i was disappointed with the Mirkwood expansion. I still enjoy Lotro very much, but for all the elements that had been introduced before Mirkwood. It is a good thing that skirmishes are available to mid-level players already, but overall I felt that Turbine rushed the expansion in order to keep up with a "one expansion per year" policy.
@ uquipu
I don't understand your argumentation. If you say you don't like the games and that is why you won't buy the expansion, i guess that is just fair. But to say you would want to play the games but you cannot because you won't be able to join in endgame content without buying the expansions I have to wonder why you would want play in the first place until endgame?
Vanguard: SoH was the best rated game on MMORPG.com when it was released. Since then, no matter how hard it was patched, the rating has dropped.
You're too early with your comparison. You'd have to wait at least a month to see how long the content added to AoC will keep the playerbase happy.
I like the game enough to play it, but not enough to buy the expansion. Now when I play, I can level a toon up to 50, but max level is 60 or 70, etc. So I don't play these games at all any more.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
OP, your post was nice, but ultimately I have to agree with alpheus here.
Mines of Moria=Rise of the Godslayer. I don't think Mirkwood was a 'real' expansion. Mirkwood was sort of like the Eregion upgrade. Turbine seems to be making time right now. Hopefully, Rohan will be on the same scale as Moria was ( and come out in the Fall to compete with Cataclysm the same way Moria competed with Lich King?). If you're set on comparing Mirkwood to Khitai then I'd say Khitai wins but it's really apples/oranges.
Well... you ATTEMPTED to be objective, though I think you blew your cover with: "What did SoM get wrong, what did RotG get right?"
Let me start off by saying I don't get what you're talking about regarding what people wanted in terms of LotRO. They may have complained about not having more sprawling landmasses before the release, but once released, Skirmishes were VERY positively received and have been ever since, with the exception of many of the rewards. Aside from a few bellyachers here, SoM was viewed as largely positive.
Now, certainly people want more big areas(they want more EVERYTHING), sure. In particular, they want Rohan. So do I.
Couple other things.
As earler mentioned, SoM was $20 bucks to RotG's $30. What's more, it was given for FREE to people that had the Quarterly sub(29.99) and up. AoC had a similar promotion for 6 month and up subscribers, but you actually had to BUY 6 more months at that moment to get RotG for free. LotRO, you just had to have the 3+ month sub when the xpac came out.
If you want to TRULY compare apples to apples, you have to compare RotG to Mines of Moria. That is, 2 new classes, zones totalling about 35% of the size of the already existing -much bigger than AoC- world, Legendary Items, improved crafting, Ettenmoor enhancements, etc, etc... all at the same price of RotG.
Something tells me that comparison wouldn't go well for AoC.
I've got no isse with AoC. Matter of fact, I'll probably eventually get the xpac and check it out. But I couldn't let such a biased comparison slide.
Agreed...
I was not crazy about SoM, but I LOVED the Skirmishes (so did most of My Guildies)...We just began to wish we had our Soldiers all the time...
But you're 100% right...SoM was not meant to be a major expansion...If you had a multi-month Sub it was Free, and the Bonus Package was $20...Not bad if you ask me...Totally worth it...
So ok, mirkwood wasn't the best package, maybe a lot of reasons behind that. But what would be the point for lotro to add more mass when it's already huge?
AoC had gaping holes of content so they added a few zones and maybe you dont have to grind every half level.
Lotro has multiple paths to level at most ranges with 100s of quests to spare up until the cap. Every time i leveled in lotro i deleted a ton of quests / skipped regions and still had loads to do.
Thats why RotGS might seem more satisfying, there was more that desperately needed to be added in AoC than lotro.
And although i havent played the AoC xpac im betting Lotro still is alot more packed in leveling content from 1 to cap.
So you cant really compare the two games based on just the latest xpac since they are at such a different state/phase from eachother.
I also agree.
I also agree wit Robsolf's assessment that if one is to compare actual expansion then compare AoC's latest with Mines of Moria.
This is not to diss at all on RotG but if one has to make a comparison then that would be the one to make.
I would say that the only comparison that ever needs to be made is whether or not a new expansion actually expands the game and in some ways makes it better.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
What they said :P
MMO Strategy Guides
Fair point, except that people expect more from a game that seems to be as financially successful as LOTRO. SoM came along at a time when the game should be on its 3rd full expansion, at least. Sating the dire need for multiple expansions with a "mini expansion" is pretty lame. To be expected, if the game isn't making enough profit, but LOTRO was relatively popular. It's strange that Turbine isn't putting more money into keeping it going and expanding.
With AOC, people know its been struggling more, and I think that leads to lower expectations. It's impressive that they're still expanding the game at all. If it had been a bigger hit to begin with, RotGS might seem to be coming along a year or two later than it should have.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Ill just comment on LoTRO since I havent played AoC..
The first bit of Moria is great fun.. exploring , legendary weapons , interesting quests , good structure and IT WAS MORIA! Then it all went down hill as you ran into mobs spawning on top of mobs with no reason behind it which made exploring a tedious task. You realize legendary weapons are crap and were went about all wrong. Quests became stale with much of the same as previous quests. Structure went out the window the deeper you got into Moria even though the dwarves got down there through the mess somehow. And finally the newness and wow factor faded and left nothing but a tedious zone.
Mirkwood.. How Turbine got away with calling that thing an expansion I will never know. That was the main problem with it. After that and smaller , slower content updates people started assuming if LoTRO was losing even more players.
I think the main difference is that AoC's playerbase has been steadily increasing even before the expansion, where-as Vanguard never regained lost subs.
AoC won the most improved game of the year award last year, and on top of that its got this fairly beefy(and well received) expansion adding a ton of content.
If the game had released in this state 2 years ago, it would have several million subs without breaking a sweat.