LOTR - What it is, What it isnt?

xenoclix · August 2007

Hey guys, i have read so many reviews and such about LOTR as a game. I havnt read any "detailed" reviews about it - i play wow and have played MANY other MMOs and would like to check this game out.

What is this game compared to lets say WoW, or SWG. Is it more solo orientated, or group based? Basically what i am asking is what it is and what it isnt. Or even point me to a detailed review would be great aswell. Cheers guys!

Jackdog · August 2007

www.google.com/search

Here are a few pages

AgtSmith · August 2007

You should be able to get a feel for the game from reading the boards around here - as with most review sites (MMORPG included) you are not going to get a real opinion as most all of the reviewing sites cannot afford to tick off developers.

That being said, lets see if I can post some statements that most would agree with that could help you decide:

- LotRO is a very well made game. Nicely polished and overall a quality production.

- LotRO is NOT a sandbox game, period.

- LotRO is a PvE game for the most part.

- LotRO is a casual MMO, at least it seems to favor casual play. This is not a hardcore Vanguard or EQ game. I will try an odd analogy that is not meant to insult anything - just draw a comparison. LotRO is like the pearl Harbor movie from a few years ago and not Platoon or Hamburger Hill or Saving Private Ryan. Just to give you an understanding of where I think it fits in the general casual/hardcore scale.

- Characters can be customized in LotRO in a number of small ways, but for the most part characters level as the designers laid out.

- Combat is not very innovative, perhaps even a little bland, but those who like it suggest it has a subtle depth to it at higher levels.

- I hesitate to mention WoW as that brings allot of baggage but I cannot imagine someone who doesn't like the WoW type of game model liking LotRO. It isn't that they are the same, or copies or anything - they are just similar mass market type productions.

- Turbine, as usual, seems to have aggressive plans for continually adding new content.

Most people who don't like LotRO know within a couple weeks, often the simply get bored of the linear nature of the game. I would say it is probably worth the $50 for the box although I absolutely don't think it is worth a sub as you can do all it has to offer inside a week or two, beyond that it is just repetition in my opinion (of course others will disagree). In the end, LotRO is not a bad game, it just isn't very interesting or challenging and I was very turned off by the lack of any real ability to make a unique character or to experience the world and story in my own way (basically just a quest, quest, quest game).

Mimzel · August 2007

Yes, I think it's fitting to call the game Linear. I think its VERY linear to be brutally honest. You do quests in area A untill you are done or ready for area B. You continue this all though level 45 when you are actually out of quests and need to start grinding. Up untill level 35ish, the quests themselves dont take overly long. The group quests AFTER 35, however, are very timeconsuming. Fornost, for instance, isnt a place you'd go unless you have close to 6 hours on your hands.

It is a nice game! But unfortunately I dont belive I will be staying for a very long time. It might have staying power, but it doesnt really have the stopping power to keep me in the game. I should perhaps add that I've played EQ2 for several years, and had 6 months in WoW. Lotro feels very different, although it is in the same genre. You can read about the beautiful graphics and music in LOTRO elsewhere, so I'll just say that in addition to that, it also feels different because it doesnt have the finesse that EQ2 (or WoW for that matter) had. It's like a newborn - it doesnt have hair on it's chest yet.

JonMichael · August 2007

The best idea for an overall feel of the game is to read some of the larger MMORPG sites on the internet... or the best bet... get a buddy key from someone and try it yourself. That's really the only way to decide if the game would be for you or not.

Certainly don't go by individual reviews... many of them contain untrue information. AgtSmith, while making some points that I do agree on, has a number of points that I don't agree with. That's why a trial is best.

Good luck!

JonMichael · August 2007

Originally posted by Mimzel

Yes, I think it's fitting to call the game Linear. I think its VERY linear to be brutally honest. You do quests in area A untill you are done or ready for area B. You continue this all though level 45 when you are actually out of quests and need to start grinding. Up untill level 35ish, the quests themselves dont take overly long. The group quests AFTER 35, however, are very timeconsuming. Fornost, for instance, isnt a place you'd go unless you have close to 6 hours on your hands.
It is a nice game! But unfortunately I dont belive I will be staying for a very long time. It might have staying power, but it doesnt really have the stopping power to keep me in the game. I should perhaps add that I've played EQ2 for several years, and had 6 months in WoW. Lotro feels very different, although it is in the same genre. You can read about the beautiful graphics and music in LOTRO elsewhere, so I'll just say that in addition to that, it also feels different because it doesnt have the finesse that EQ2 (or WoW for that matter) had. It's like a newborn - it doesnt have hair on it's chest yet.

If you played EQ2, you know that game is even MORE linear than LOTRO... at least it was shortly after launch (about the same age as LOTRO is now). There was only one or two areas to go to per every 10 levels or so to at the time.

At least with LOTRO, there's different areas for different levels.. and more than just one. Plus there's the epic storyline, which imho.. put EQ2's heritage quests to shame

LOTRO is only linear if you play it linear.

Die_Scream · August 2007

Originally posted by JonMichael

Originally posted by Mimzel

Yes, I think it's fitting to call the game Linear. I think its VERY linear to be brutally honest. You do quests in area A untill you are done or ready for area B. You continue this all though level 45 when you are actually out of quests and need to start grinding. Up untill level 35ish, the quests themselves dont take overly long. The group quests AFTER 35, however, are very timeconsuming. Fornost, for instance, isnt a place you'd go unless you have close to 6 hours on your hands.
It is a nice game! But unfortunately I dont belive I will be staying for a very long time. It might have staying power, but it doesnt really have the stopping power to keep me in the game. I should perhaps add that I've played EQ2 for several years, and had 6 months in WoW. Lotro feels very different, although it is in the same genre. You can read about the beautiful graphics and music in LOTRO elsewhere, so I'll just say that in addition to that, it also feels different because it doesnt have the finesse that EQ2 (or WoW for that matter) had. It's like a newborn - it doesnt have hair on it's chest yet.

If you played EQ2, you know that game is even MORE linear than LOTRO... at least it was shortly after launch (about the same age as LOTRO is now). There was only one or two areas to go to per every 10 levels or so to at the time.

At least with LOTRO, there's different areas for different levels.. and more than just one. Plus there's the epic storyline, which imho.. put EQ2's heritage quests to shame

LOTRO is only linear if you play it linear.

Thats absolutely untrue in my experience, LOTRO is a game on hard rails. You don't even get to pick your skills at level up, you just pick what the game gives you as long as you can afford the silver. There is no real charactor developement at all. You can kill 300 of this mob to go buy a trait which might add a small stat to one of your skills, or alter it in some way. underwhelming to say the least.

Every charactor, every race does the same quest line after the starter areas, after a few toons, you know exactly whats next, cause it doesn't change. The graphics are nice.

Saying this game isn't linear, in fact, extremely linear is outright false from my time in game. That said, if you need something to hold your interest for maybe 3-4 weeks or so, give it a go.

Your comments on EQ2 are also far off base IMO. EQ2 kicks this game butt, at least until Turbine give you something different to do than the same quest grind in the same area over and over again.

AgtSmith · August 2007

I think LotRO is about as linear as an MMO gets even if it isn't linear in the same sense a SP game might be linear. It isn't like an old single player game where you had to do A before you could go on to do B. However, in LotRO you do not create and develop your own character so much as you 'unlock' the character the devs made. Some may disagree with me on that but I think it is more true than not - LotRO is a very 'crafted' world and for the most part you play what they built instead of playing within the world they built.

AgtSmith · August 2007

Originally posted by Die_Scream

That said, if you need something to hold your interest for maybe 3-4 weeks or so, give it a go.

I can agree with this. If you can walk away from a game, even an MMO, after a couple weeks of play and not feel you wasted the $50 you spent then give it a try.

Gameloading · August 2007

Imo, its WoW...and thats just about it. There are some bells and whistles, but the experience is really the same as WoW.

Estrus · August 2007

The weird thing is if you sub now, you get like 2 months for free. Most people will be done with the game by then, so how are they going to make money in a few months time, when other games are out, people that have wanted to try the game have and left, and the only people left are lifetime subbers sucked up resources?

cptnj4 · August 2007

If you played EQ2, you know that game is even MORE linear than LOTRO... at least it was shortly after launch (about the same age as LOTRO is now). There was only one or two areas to go to per every 10 levels or so to at the time.
At least with LOTRO, there's different areas for different levels.. and more than just one. Plus there's the epic storyline, which imho.. put EQ2's heritage quests to shame

LOTRO is the most linear MMO I have played. Are you kidding me? EQ2 is in no way MORE linear than LOTRO. It may have been once upon a time, but since the expansions and adventure packs, EQ has at least 3-4 zones for each tier of levelling. LOTRO has maybe 1 or 2 (including Evendim) for specific levels and really after the beginning zones everyone levels in the same areas. Some zones just overlap in level range, but for the most part you are going to be levelling in one area then moving onto another. LOTRO has what? 7 instances? And they suck. EQ2 has so many I can't even count and has multiple instances for many level ranges.

I was highly anticipating the release of LOTRO, it was the first game I switched to after WoW and played open beta, then bought the game. I played fairly casually and this game bored me to tears. I quit less than 2 months after release. My rating of LOTRO would be a 3.2 on a scale of 10, mostly because the graphics are pretty nice, even though the character models and animations are terrible.

brainchild64 · August 2007

The game is wow as far as the mechanics are concerned so if you didn't like them there you will most likely not like them here. The entire game is quest based which I consider to be great. I never really do anything if its not quest or crafting related. The storyline is very well done and the whole thing really does have a good Lord of the Rings feel. Really if you like Lord of the Rings and WoW then this is your dream game.

In my opinion the best part about this game is the room it has to go. If you go look at a map of middle-Earth, the only spot on the map that is open right now is Eriador. The entire rest of the world is open to updates(yes updates, not just expansions). Its a very casual game and if you play it that way you won't run out of things to do for several years. The devs will just keep adding content. I don't have the lifetime subscription yet but I am definitely thinking about it. I plan to play this game casually for as long as I can, while trying out other games that want to take over my life.

While I'm on that subject, this game doesn't feel as addicting as other MMO's have. I play the game for hours on end then walk away and don't really feel like I have to play. I just play when I have nothing else to do and live my life regularly. This doesn't mean that the game doesn't draw you in or make you not want to play. In fact the entire time that I'm playing I'm very entertained. While I'm in game the quests make it seem like I have a purpose and I'm actually seeing, if not actually contributing, to events in middle-earth. Its just that when I walk away I'm very satisfied and don't immediately feel like I'm missing something by not being there.

I guess all this means that I love the game. It beats out WoW for atmosphere and storyline. The controls which are derivative of WoW(which are derivative of EQ, etc) are more polished than WoW's. The only thing I think the game lacks is content(which is in the works) and PvP(which my never come). But PvP is what WAR and Conan are for so I don't feel that upset.

WSIMike · August 2007

Originally posted by AgtSmith

However, in LotRO you do not create and develop your own character so much as you 'unlock' the character the devs made.

That's actually a very good way of describing it. When I read that, I thought, "You know, that's kinda true"

I think LoTRO is great for what it is - a high-fantasy MMO based on a world that is based on your traditional high-fantasy type races (which, arguably, were largely introduced - or at least popularized - by Tolkien). It uses the Asheron's Call 2 engine, though *highly* modified from the engine's namesake and is, to me, a beautifully crafted world with an impressive attention to detail.

Like Agt said, though, the progress does feel sorta like you're being led through the story, and not so much that you're exploring your through it on your own. You can skip quests or what not, but it is rather linear in that sense. Now, is that good or bad? That depends on you. If you enjoy a more linear experience then it's great. If you prefer something a little more wide-open where you craft your own story, so to speak, then it might not be for you (something like Saga of Ryzom might be more up your alley in that case)

WSIMike · August 2007

Originally posted by JonMichael

Originally posted by Mimzel

Yes, I think it's fitting to call the game Linear. I think its VERY linear to be brutally honest. You do quests in area A untill you are done or ready for area B. You continue this all though level 45 when you are actually out of quests and need to start grinding. Up untill level 35ish, the quests themselves dont take overly long. The group quests AFTER 35, however, are very timeconsuming. Fornost, for instance, isnt a place you'd go unless you have close to 6 hours on your hands.
It is a nice game! But unfortunately I dont belive I will be staying for a very long time. It might have staying power, but it doesnt really have the stopping power to keep me in the game. I should perhaps add that I've played EQ2 for several years, and had 6 months in WoW. Lotro feels very different, although it is in the same genre. You can read about the beautiful graphics and music in LOTRO elsewhere, so I'll just say that in addition to that, it also feels different because it doesnt have the finesse that EQ2 (or WoW for that matter) had. It's like a newborn - it doesnt have hair on it's chest yet.

If you played EQ2, you know that game is even MORE linear than LOTRO... at least it was shortly after launch (about the same age as LOTRO is now). There was only one or two areas to go to per every 10 levels or so to at the time.

At least with LOTRO, there's different areas for different levels.. and more than just one. Plus there's the epic storyline, which imho.. put EQ2's heritage quests to shame

LOTRO is only linear if you play it linear.

Yeah, I have to disagree with that, too. Though it might have been a bit more limited at release, EQ2 has grown into a huge game.

There's a major difference in the design between EQ2 and LoTRO.

LoTRO's design is intended to move you along throughout the journey of the Ring to Mount Doom... It's a very deliberate progression, each part pushing you on to the next.

The world of EQ2 is more of a setting... the "Good" Antonia Bayle of Qeynos versus the "Evil" Lucan D'Lere of Freeport. And now there's Echoes of Faydwer, which seems to exist completely outside that struggle. There are quests and such that require you to enter enemy territory at points in the game, but at no time are you ever led along by a major story arc. You level where you want to level, you do what quests you want to do. When I've played that game, I've often had a hard time deciding what to do with all the options available. In LoTRO, it always seemed obvious what to do next.

Now granted, the game just came out and we only have a part of the whole of Middle Earth as realized in the book. Who knows what plans Turbine has for down the road once more of the areas are present. They might well make it where there's more to do and you can decide to merely exist as a denizen of Middle Earth, blissfully oblivious to the story of the Ring, if you wish. I think that'd be pretty cool, actually. The idea of following the story of the Ring, while cool, seems a bit contrived to me; better suited for a single player game, perhaps.

-shrug- Anyway.. my two cents.

Rodzilla · August 2007

Originally posted by Mimzel

Yes, I think it's fitting to call the game Linear. I think its VERY linear to be brutally honest. You do quests in area A untill you are done or ready for area B. You continue this all though level 45 when you are actually out of quests and need to start grinding. Up untill level 35ish, the quests themselves dont take overly long. The group quests AFTER 35, however, are very timeconsuming. Fornost, for instance, isnt a place you'd go unless you have close to 6 hours on your hands.
It is a nice game! But unfortunately I dont belive I will be staying for a very long time. It might have staying power, but it doesnt really have the stopping power to keep me in the game. I should perhaps add that I've played EQ2 for several years, and had 6 months in WoW. Lotro feels very different, although it is in the same genre. You can read about the beautiful graphics and music in LOTRO elsewhere, so I'll just say that in addition to that, it also feels different because it doesnt have the finesse that EQ2 (or WoW for that matter) had. It's like a newborn - it doesnt have hair on it's chest yet.

I agree

Ephialtes · August 2007

Ok, well, as I haven't played the game, I can't comment on it directly, but judging by the posts of others.... I'm pyschec to check it out!

What it sounds like to me is that this game is being passed over by the majority of people due to lack of content and options for areas to level. Ok, rough stuff, but how many of you guys played classic EQ when it was new? It was linear, just like EQ2 in the beginning, everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that this is a pretty new game and it has plenty of time to catch up to the greats. Neither EQ was what it is today on launch day, not even a year after launch day, nor was WoW, but for some reason this game seems to be expected to have reached the same level of content that the greats have in just months after launch... that is just flat out poppycock!

So, it follows the same story as the books? So, it's linear? (Which by the way I see a lot of people comparing it with games other than GW, what is more linear than GW on the MMO market? How linear can it be if it hasn't been compared to GW yet?) So, the classes aren't fully customizable? In answer to all three, who cares? EQ was extremely limited in it's early days as far as customized classes and linear gameplay, it is still heralded as one of the all time greats in the MMO universe! I ask again, how many of you actually played old school EQ? Let's say you make a Gnome Wizard way back in the day, you start in Akanon (think that's spelled right, it's been years) you go out to the Steamfront Mountains for your lowbie zone and you were lucky to survive a trip anywhere else, remember PoP portals weren't always available, I'm talking about the days when if you couldn't afford to buy a port from a Wizard or Druid, you were taking the boat, end of story. Once you got up to around 10-15 you could probably make it over to the Butcherblock Mountains, so in the first 15 levels you have two zones you can hunt in, if you want to spend literally an hour sitting around you could hope the boat in Butcherblock and get to Freeport, another couple zones for your trouble, but then you are stuck with those couple until you are ready to take another boat ride or risk almost certain peril traveling by foot on Antonica at that level... seems to me that "a couple" zones is all that is offered in LotR and yet that is suddenly a bad thing???

Sounds to me that most of the people that don't get into it for some reason or another are just blowing smoke up everyone elses *** when it comes to the actual lay of the land.

Just my two copper,

ephi

WSIMike · August 2007

Originally posted by Ephialtes

Sounds to me that most of the people that don't get into it for some reason or another are just blowing smoke up everyone elses *** when it comes to the actual lay of the land.
Just my two copper,
ephi

Geeze, man... Not even playing the game yet and you're already taking pot-shots at people with criticisms of it?

Keep in mind, people can only reasonably judge a game for what it is and what it has *now*... not for what it has the potential to be, or might be down the road. To say "I'm playing this game because somewhere down the road it's gonna be awesome!" is optimistic, sure, but it's also a bit presumptuous. Many games come out showing great promise and fall flat on their face. One of Turbine's own, Asheron's Call 2, suffered that fate. It got rave reviews when it first launched, was ahead of its time graphically speaking, had some very unique twists on things and was, to me, a game with alot of promise. Regardless, as of 2 years ago, it was taken offline.

So, people saying that it's somewhat linear is actually an accurate statement as of right now. Like I said in my post, down the road they may well open it up more, like they did EQ2, etc. But current opinions can only be cast on the current game.

So.. maybe try to be a little less dismissive of people's points-of-view.

jahar · August 2007

LOTRO is a WoW mod with titles. period.

Die_Scream · August 2007

Originally posted by Ephialtes

Ok, well, as I haven't played the game, I can't comment on it directly, but judging by the posts of others.... I'm pyschec to check it out!
What it sounds like to me is that this game is being passed over by the majority of people due to lack of content and options for areas to level. Ok, rough stuff, but how many of you guys played classic EQ when it was new? It was linear, just like EQ2 in the beginning, everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that this is a pretty new game and it has plenty of time to catch up to the greats. Neither EQ was what it is today on launch day, not even a year after launch day, nor was WoW, but for some reason this game seems to be expected to have reached the same level of content that the greats have in just months after launch... that is just flat out poppycock!
So, it follows the same story as the books? So, it's linear? (Which by the way I see a lot of people comparing it with games other than GW, what is more linear than GW on the MMO market? How linear can it be if it hasn't been compared to GW yet?) So, the classes aren't fully customizable? In answer to all three, who cares? EQ was extremely limited in it's early days as far as customized classes and linear gameplay, it is still heralded as one of the all time greats in the MMO universe! I ask again, how many of you actually played old school EQ? Let's say you make a Gnome Wizard way back in the day, you start in Akanon (think that's spelled right, it's been years) you go out to the Steamfront Mountains for your lowbie zone and you were lucky to survive a trip anywhere else, remember PoP portals weren't always available, I'm talking about the days when if you couldn't afford to buy a port from a Wizard or Druid, you were taking the boat, end of story. Once you got up to around 10-15 you could probably make it over to the Butcherblock Mountains, so in the first 15 levels you have two zones you can hunt in, if you want to spend literally an hour sitting around you could hope the boat in Butcherblock and get to Freeport, another couple zones for your trouble, but then you are stuck with those couple until you are ready to take another boat ride or risk almost certain peril traveling by foot on Antonica at that level... seems to me that "a couple" zones is all that is offered in LotR and yet that is suddenly a bad thing???
Sounds to me that most of the people that don't get into it for some reason or another are just blowing smoke up everyone elses *** when it comes to the actual lay of the land.
Just my two copper,
ephi

Listen this this guy, lol! Doesn't even play and already is flaming people who do or did.

BTW, we are discussing LOTRO, not EQ from 1999. I like how you say "who cares" that there is no customizable charactors, only one zone to quest grind in per 10 lvls, and thats its linear on rails, lol! Umm, most anyone who plays MMOs.

How about you actually log into the game then give your half-assed opinion?

OldAgeJunkie · August 2007

More boring then World of Warcraft. Lotro = WoW period.

cptnj4 · August 2007

So, it follows the same story as the books? So, it's linear? (Which by the way I see a lot of people comparing it with games other than GW, what is more linear than GW on the MMO market? How linear can it be if it hasn't been compared to GW yet?)

Comparing GW to LOTRO or any other PvE game is like comparing apples to oranges. LOTRO was specifically designed to be a PvE game with PVP as an afterthought (which is evident by the 1 poorly implemented zone in which you can re-roll a monster that unless you are in a raid of 40+ members will be completely dominated by 10 competent normal players). GW is a PVP driven game where the PvE aspect of it is designed to get you to max level quickly (taking maybe a week or two) so that you can explore the multiple zones for PvP and continue to quest and upgrade your skills for the PvP content which is the majority of the fun in this game. The linear progression in GW will amount to maybe 10% of your total time playing a character or less considering I have probably spent 10 or 20 times longer at max level questing to find new skills than I ever did following the PvE progression to level 20.

And BTW, you state you haven't even played the game, so who are you to make any judgements about what comments people have made. Congratulations that you played EQ, welcome to the club!

Mimzel · August 2007

I guess the world isnt fair to new MMO's... You have the estabilished games that have had alot of time to grow and develop, and then you have the new releases having to compete with those. If you are in my boat, you are pretty fed up with the fantasy genre already, although LOTRO is kinda special cause of the lore (and the pretty graphics etc), and you'd rather play another game in that genre that actually has all the finesses that come after being on the market for so many years.

So comparing LOTRO to EQ2 at launch will only prove so much - cause I'm not gonna purchase a car today only because it's better than a previous model that was released 10 years ago... With that said, I AM playing lotro at the moment, but I'm finding it harder and harder to log in. Many reasons may contribute to this, so I wont lay it all down on the game itself.

And I'm really looking forward to PotBS I just hope it's not all hype...

JonMichael · August 2007

Originally posted by cptnj4

If you played EQ2, you know that game is even MORE linear than LOTRO... at least it was shortly after launch (about the same age as LOTRO is now). There was only one or two areas to go to per every 10 levels or so to at the time.
At least with LOTRO, there's different areas for different levels.. and more than just one. Plus there's the epic storyline, which imho.. put EQ2's heritage quests to shame

LOTRO is the most linear MMO I have played. Are you kidding me? EQ2 is in no way MORE linear than LOTRO. It may have been once upon a time, but since the expansions and adventure packs, EQ has at least 3-4 zones for each tier of levelling. LOTRO has maybe 1 or 2 (including Evendim) for specific levels and really after the beginning zones everyone levels in the same areas. Some zones just overlap in level range, but for the most part you are going to be levelling in one area then moving onto another. LOTRO has what? 7 instances? And they suck. EQ2 has so many I can't even count and has multiple instances for many level ranges.

I was highly anticipating the release of LOTRO, it was the first game I switched to after WoW and played open beta, then bought the game. I played fairly casually and this game bored me to tears. I quit less than 2 months after release. My rating of LOTRO would be a 3.2 on a scale of 10, mostly because the graphics are pretty nice, even though the character models and animations are terrible.

You're comparing LOTRO with EQ2 as it is TODAY... almost 3 years old and LOTRO is only 3 months old. BIG time difference there.

Go back to when EQ2 was three months old.. the game was a mess. It's taken Sony 3 years to get the game to be what it is today. The only reason EQ2 has so many instances is that's the only way they can get it to run on computers... run for 30 seconds, zone.... 30 seconds, zone again.... and on and on. Talk about a lack of immersion... all those loading screens!

JonMichael · August 2007

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by JonMichael

Originally posted by Mimzel

Yes, I think it's fitting to call the game Linear. I think its VERY linear to be brutally honest. You do quests in area A untill you are done or ready for area B. You continue this all though level 45 when you are actually out of quests and need to start grinding. Up untill level 35ish, the quests themselves dont take overly long. The group quests AFTER 35, however, are very timeconsuming. Fornost, for instance, isnt a place you'd go unless you have close to 6 hours on your hands.
It is a nice game! But unfortunately I dont belive I will be staying for a very long time. It might have staying power, but it doesnt really have the stopping power to keep me in the game. I should perhaps add that I've played EQ2 for several years, and had 6 months in WoW. Lotro feels very different, although it is in the same genre. You can read about the beautiful graphics and music in LOTRO elsewhere, so I'll just say that in addition to that, it also feels different because it doesnt have the finesse that EQ2 (or WoW for that matter) had. It's like a newborn - it doesnt have hair on it's chest yet.

If you played EQ2, you know that game is even MORE linear than LOTRO... at least it was shortly after launch (about the same age as LOTRO is now). There was only one or two areas to go to per every 10 levels or so to at the time.

At least with LOTRO, there's different areas for different levels.. and more than just one. Plus there's the epic storyline, which imho.. put EQ2's heritage quests to shame

LOTRO is only linear if you play it linear.

Yeah, I have to disagree with that, too. Though it might have been a bit more limited at release, EQ2 has grown into a huge game.

There's a major difference in the design between EQ2 and LoTRO.

LoTRO's design is intended to move you along throughout the journey of the Ring to Mount Doom... It's a very deliberate progression, each part pushing you on to the next.

The world of EQ2 is more of a setting... the "Good" Antonia Bayle of Qeynos versus the "Evil" Lucan D'Lere of Freeport. And now there's Echoes of Faydwer, which seems to exist completely outside that struggle. There are quests and such that require you to enter enemy territory at points in the game, but at no time are you ever led along by a major story arc.

That's one of the problems EQ2 has... there is no theme, but good and evil, and that one runs thin early in the game.

You level where you want to level, you do what quests you want to do. When I've played that game, I've often had a hard time deciding what to do with all the options available. In LoTRO, it always seemed obvious what to do next.

If you played EQ2 release, it was the exact same thing... there were very little options on what to do.

Now granted, the game just came out and we only have a part of the whole of Middle Earth as realized in the book. Who knows what plans Turbine has for down the road once more of the areas are present. They might well make it where there's more to do and you can decide to merely exist as a denizen of Middle Earth, blissfully oblivious to the story of the Ring, if you wish. I think that'd be pretty cool, actually. The idea of following the story of the Ring, while cool, seems a bit contrived to me; better suited for a single player game, perhaps.

-shrug- Anyway.. my two cents.

I played both games at release, and I think LOTRO is in far better shape at the age of 3 months than EQ2 was. As it ages, it will still be a cohesive, fun game with a strong storyline and tons of content rather than a game with just content that never seems to go anywhere.

Ephialtes · August 2007

So let me get this straight. I point out that the words of the nay sayers could have very well been used to describe original EQ and no one argues that point, but it still makes me a tard to say that the game is probably as good as EQ when all of the bad things the nay sayers have to say about LotR were what made EQ good in the end? .... Oye, I'm beginning to think this site is a little overpopulated with l33t 10 year olds that can't read any more of a post after they find a gripe with it.

Let me break it down for you as simply as I can. My point is that everyone has all these bad things to say about LotR and all these bad things just so happen to be, reason for reason, the only bad things people had to say about the "good" games when they were new.

Try to soak that in before you decide to back talk me, I don't have to have played it to make an observation on the words of people who have. All I'm saying is that people are griping about things that EVERY mmo has wrong with them in the beginning and if that is really all you have to say in the way of bad things, what do you really have to say, that the game has great potential?

WoW is great right? Yeah ok, it had the same problems early on I'm sure and it also had to deal with serious gamers calling it cartoony, that tells me that LotR has more potential that WoW, forgive me for being observant enough to not that the only bad things anyone has to say are lack of content issues when the game is only a few months old.

Howdy, Stranger!

LOTR - What it is, What it isnt?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

LOTR - What it is, What it isnt?

Comments