Help Paaam :)

1) Before or after playing Lord of the Rings Online, through what other media have you experienced Tolkien's Middle-Earth?

- Books (Answer Section A & C)
- Films (Answer Section B & C)
- Both (Answer Sections A, B & C)

My answer is both, before game that is

SECTION A - BOOKS

2) Tolkien describes Middle-Earth in much detail and has a clear vision of this land, its history, people and differing customs; how successfully do you think this 'world' transfers over to an MMORPG (LOTRO)?

3) Are there any moments of contradiction between Tolkien's Middle-Earth and Turbine's Middle-Earth? If so, do you feel these are these errors, conscious sacrifices for better gameplay, or something else entirely? Any examples?


2 I find Tolkien’s vision was transferred to Lotro successfully. History is well taken to the stories (=quests) in game. The NPC’s act well in many places. Ofcourse Tolkien described certain areas more in detail (Shire for example). In these areas I find it good dev’s to follow his text more to the letter (as they do). Other areas, such as Lone Lands leave more to hands of dev’s, but I have found they have done good job.

3 My contradictions at start of game were very small, as otherwise game would have been unplayable. On later expansions I have been mostly satisfied, but I still find Runekeepers somehow out of place and wish they would have been left out. Also I have personal dislike of goats. They are “ok” in Mines, but outside I find them ridiculous. To be totally honest they could be all removed….

SECTION B - FILMS

4) Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Lord of the Rings Online are based on the same source material but are developed under seperate licenses; as both are visual types of media, what elements do you feel are the same in both?

5) What elements do you feel are noticably different?

4 Again I find areas Tolkien described in detail are well done in both versions, and quite similar because of Tolkien. For example Shire, 21st Hall, Bree.

5 The films are based around the Fellowship, but the game is based on players, this naturally leads to some differences, most notably on fellowship’s personalities. Some quest try to bring the fellowship closer to players, some better, some not so good. And the distances are really long in films, where they need to be “shortened” for game to work.


SECTION C - FOR ALL

6) Do you think Lord of the Rings Online gives you the freedom and interactivity that you need in order to 'feel' a part of Middle-Earth?

7) Do the inconsistencies between the three incarnations (book, lotro, film) of Middle-Earth stop you believing they are all the same 'real' Middle-Earth, or do you allow yourself to gloss over the inconsistencies to believe it is all the same?

6 I do, tough I also accept that always it is not possible due game mechanics. Same thing was when I used to play MERP.

7 I do think them as one world, world of story told bit differently by everyone of them.I thinks this remains same until (hope never) dev’s make something so horrible it shatters the illusion I can create in my head. One such thing would be flying mounts. Runekeeper is close to the line, but if they are around, I try to “freeze” the immersion until they disappear. Questing and immersion don’t always go hand in hand, but then I can either leave the quest or just “forget” I am in ME and just play fantasy game for a moment.

1) Before or after playing Lord of the Rings Online, through what other media have you experienced Tolkien's Middle-Earth?

Book and film (I'm including the animated version of Lord of the Rings in that too.)


SECTION A - BOOKS

2) Tolkien describes Middle-Earth in much detail and has a clear vision of this land, its history, people and differing customs; how successfully do you think this 'world' transfers over to an MMORPG (LOTRO)?
The land and history transfers the world well, the level of detail makes a difference, especially where it's been used in-game, and with careful (ie not too much) placement of well known names from the book.. The people and customs is much harder - the NPCs are fine, but it doesn't take much player-wise to "break the immersion", and there can be a certain discomfort when styles clash. It also means there are likely to be restrictions on how far you can go with a storyline when so much detail is available. It places certain restrictions on things, if you want to keep faithful to the world. Having said that, there's something very satisfying about having the books at one side as a source book for being a smart-ass during in-game moments!

3) Are there any moments of contradiction between Tolkien's Middle-Earth and Turbine's Middle-Earth? If so, do you feel these are these errors, conscious sacrifices for better gameplay, or something else entirely? Any examples?
Not contradictions exactly, extrapolation, tweaks here and there, and some long stretches of imagination. Creatures that haven't been mentioned in the books. Rune-keepers. Mostly it feels like making for more interesting gameplay that caters for both role-player and the raider and those who fall in between.

SECTION B - FILMS

4) Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Lord of the Rings Online are based on the same source material but are developed under separate licenses; as both are visual types of media, what elements do you feel are the same in both?
The elements that feel the same initially are the most obvious visual ones that can be translated from the book. The Shire for example is a perfect example of this, with the pretty gardens and the hobbit-holes. Some of the races, too, the hobbits and the dwarves.

5) What elements do you feel are noticeably different?
For me, the ones that are different are the ones that stray away from the book, the elements that are extrapolated.

SECTION C - FOR ALL

6) Do you think Lord of the Rings Online gives you the freedom and interactivity that you need in order to 'feel' a part of Middle-Earth?
Sometimes. I would say it varies with the way I play from day to day and from quest to quest. Sometimes I forget it's supposed to be Middle Earth, it becomes more a meeting place for friends. But sometimes I'm thrown into an instance – usually one with strong references to the book's plotline, or main characters, for example the one at the end of Volume 2 Book 6 - which brings me right back on track to where the game is set. I like that balance. After all, in real life you don't stop and think about where you are all the time!

7) Do the inconsistencies between the three incarnations (book, lotro, film) of Middle-Earth stop you believing they are all the same 'real' Middle-Earth, or do you allow yourself to gloss over the inconsistencies to believe it is all the same?
I'm used to inconsistencies, from the varying incarnations of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, to a wide variety of film interpretations of books, and I find it very easy to see them as both the same, yet separate. There is the Middle Earth I grew up with, the books, where my mind allowed me to picture the characters and places. The descriptions are very detailed in places, so not too hard a task. The film brings a lot of this to life, and tweaks some of the ideas I had about character. The game I see as somewhat different because of the involvement my character has within the story, but at the same time it's still a version of Middle Earth. It's very much like a recipe, or a piece of music, where you have the structure, the framework, but how it's interpreted can be so very different. So I suppose I see the three as interpretations of the same thing.

1) Before or after playing Lord of the Rings Online, through what other media have you experienced Tolkien's Middle-Earth?
Both, books and films.

2) Tolkien describes Middle-Earth in much detail and has a clear vision of this land, its history, people and differing customs; how successfully do you think this 'world' transfers over to an MMORPG (LOTRO)?
Every part suffers a little in the transition from "something that is fascinating to read" to "something that is fun to be part of". The geography is well captured, but massively shrunk down. History is limited by the licensing, but diligently transformed and expanded otherwise.
The probably hardest part to transfer is people and customs, because, in the end, every player needs to be able to experience the entire gameplay. Sure, there will be a line of dialogue here and there indicating an initial distrust between NPCs or toward the player, but after a quest or two everyone is an Elf-friend and heroically adventurous Hobbits do not surprise anyone. This, while inevitable for the sake of a broad and satisfying game-experience, significantly waters down the outstanding and historically remarkable roles and deeds of the novel's protagonists.

3) Are there any moments of contradiction between Tolkien's Middle-Earth and Turbine's Middle-Earth? If so, do you feel these are these errors, conscious sacrifices for better gameplay, or something else entirely? Any examples?
"Contradiction" is a strong word, but deviations are all around. It begins, to put forward a very old and conservative example, at character creation. Not only wasn't my character (nor anyone else's) mentioned in the books, the very things and deeds he is supposed to do and accomplish, go against almost every description of what people at the end of the Third Age were like.
In Turbine's Midle-earth, gameplay comes first. They do a very decent job of keeping things as close to the lore as reasonable, incorporating as much ties to Tolkien's world as possible, but, at the end of the day, they realise they have to give their players something fun to do. A plain simulation of a world, no matter how fascinating, just isn't very good in terms of generating monthly subscription fees.
As for examples, there are surly things that hit the eye every now and again. A very mundane yet ever reoccurring one are distances. And while most of the time you just have that indefinite feeling that things are somewhat too close together, it's not too bad, because, in terms of gaming-time (the time you could have spent doing other things in the game itself), travel is still significant, at least to the degree that you look for swift travel facilities to avoid losing too much time over it. But now and again, there are those unsettling moments, when you happen to be, say, in Rivendell, with another member of your fellowship, say, in Bree, your mini-map displays the distance to them and it reads something in the range of 10km. This is more the scale of a lazy afternoon stroll, rather than a two week enterprise full of hardship and peril. Surely you can squint at and not pay too much attention to it - not something that jumps at you and cannot be avoided. But for a world where travel and distance are as real adversities as any, it doesn't necessarily benefit the atmosphere.
Another example comes from a newly introduced class. While the Rune-keeper was taking all the heavy flak for being a "lore-breaker", the Warden being celebrated as a paragon of lore-compliant gameplay expansion, it was the Warden's class quest (at level 15) that truly made me grimace. In this (instanced) quest, you see, a line of Wardens is assembled to repel a brigand assault on Bree, the player takes one of the positions in the line and has to stand his ground. Innocent, huh? Let me rephrase. A trained and organised military force stands up to protect Bree from robbers. That's the same Bree, which, by the end of the novel, is a lawless and robbery-threatened place, reigned by fear and disorder after the Rangers retreat to the South. That town of Bree suddenly has military (I can't repeat the word often enough to emphasize how drastically out of place it is) of its own to protect itself. Also, it has a certain "300"-feel to it ... not that it's necessarily a bad thing!
The Rune-keeper, to get back to the controversial aspect, doesn't bother me at all. Sure the visual appearance of its powers do stretch the low-key appearance of Tolkien's world a good bit, but that is "how" (something is done), rather than "what" (is done). In this case, the "how" (visually spectacular) is supposed to add more fun and joy, while the "what" boils down to the generic vanquishing bad guys with magic. Turbine has made the attempt to explain those powers with lore-elements. Far fetched, as I'll confess, but good enough for me, when it's fun.
Cue "generic". LotRO, in all honestly, is a very conservative MMO. It has its innovations, sure, but for the most part, it's the well known scheme with DPS- and tank-classes, crowd-control, buffers, debuffers and healers. The gameplay wasn't derived from the lore, in the first place. Instead, it was a given set of components, for which lore-explanations were found. So, why do we have a Rune-keeper now? The game wasn't exactly broken without one. Simple: because there are people who like to play the (generic) mage-class. People, as in "potential customers". At the very end of the bottom-line day, Turbine is a commercial enterprise and LotRO a product that is supposed to generate revenue. That's the reality of our world (neither Tolkien's nor Turbine's).


4) Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Lord of the Rings Online are based on the same source material but are developed under seperate licenses; as both are visual types of media, what elements do you feel are the same in both?
I think Turbine had to work with the premise of trying not to conflict with the subconscious visual expectations of its players generated by the films, while at the same time avoiding to copy it too much to avoid legal issues. The fact that I never happened to consciously make that comparison except for some specific and vaguely remembered cases (mostly when things were different), suggests that they sort of succeeded.
It should be noted, that while both are indeed visually dominated, LotRO is, being a game, interactive, while Jackson's trilogy is, like the novel, narrative. Thus, while LotRO has an excuse for it's lore-bending and lore-stretching tendencies (it is a game!), Jackson does not. And there's plenty he would need an excuse for...

5) What elements do you feel are noticably different?
Obviously, Aragorn doesn't look like Viggo Mortensen, Arwen doesn't look like Liv Tyler and Elrond doesn't look like Agent Smith. And while in the first two cases it's neither a win nor a serious loss, Elrond actually benefits from not looking inexplicably menacing and not making everyone expect the camera to cut into Mordor, where an unsuspecting Orc would suddenly morph into Elrond (with sunglasses) who would then proceed to beat the crap out of Sauron and every one of his minions in bullet-time. Seriously, Hugo Weaving is great, but to cast him as a powerful-yet-defensive Elven Lord, a mere couple of years after The Matrix has shaken the world of everyone who's not living under a rock, was a bad, bad, bad move. "Goodbye, Mister Baggins." - "My name .. is Frodo!"
Bree-town in the film looks a bit too desolate (A Land Untouched By Modern Dentistry all over again), while in the game it looks a bit too tidy (now we have a Town-hall, massive stone buildings and structures and all streets are cleanly paved. And, did I mention it, a military force to protect it from brigands!).
Being interactive (as in, you can run around!), the game offers a much better all-around view of and from locations, their relative positions and, to some extent, sizes. Sometimes this makes for a better reception, like in Rivendell (which appears much clearer and larger in the game), in other cases it unmasks unreasonably small distances. In short, the film always only shows you a specific scene from a specific angle, while the game gives you the possibility to explore. This makes Turbine's world feel larger and much more complete (despite it actually being extremely scaled down).
Also, despite several attempts, Turbine so far has failed to design a Balrog that would look even remotely as awesome as the one in the film. Not that those in the game aren't scary..!


6) Do you think Lord of the Rings Online gives you the freedom and interactivity that you need in order to 'feel' a part of Middle-Earth?
It is exactly the freedom and interactivity that, in the long term, undermines the feeling of being part of Middle-earth. No one in Middle-earth, bar maybe some of the Rangers and Wizards, would have had the chance to do the things I do, to go to the places I go.
Even more importantly and often repeated: it is a game. In this case, the consequence is, that whatever challenge you are presented with, it's surmountable. Every threat can be averted, every foe defeated (or at least driven back). Hours and hours of successful gameplay make us feel invincible or at least superior. In this atmosphere of ongoing success, it is really hard to identify with what things were supposed to look like at the end of the Third Age. The Shadow in the East, the power against which no victory is possible, fear, terror, despair - all concepts that get lost in the daily wins.
It feels that Mordor would be just another high-level zone, Barad-dur just another exciting raid and Sauron a powerful raid-boss. Bring it on, we'll go inside, clear the place, figure out a strat and put him on farm. And although this will probably never happen in the game, this is how it feels. And that's as far from what Tolkien wrote as it gets.

7) Do the inconsistencies between the three incarnations (book, lotro, film) of Middle-Earth stop you believing they are all the same 'real' Middle-Earth, or do you allow yourself to gloss over the inconsistencies to believe it is all the same?
First of all, it's important to note that Middle-earth isn't 'real', not even in quotation marks. Even the best fiction remains fiction, and it's important to remember that and not get too worked up over it.
That being said, no, not everything can be suspended. The films could. They were so horribly distorted versions of the story and missed almost every single point in the book by such a wide margin, that you could just accept them as something mostly unrelated and allow your mind just to reuse some of the visual images disconnected from the rest.
If you think I'm being too harsh, I will cite just one scene. One scene that, for me, was maybe the most exemplary for Jackson's big misunderstanding of Tolkien (although, given his most recent work record, it more and more appears, that whenever Jackson works with non-original material, approaches it with great respect, but still somehow feels he can do it better. So, maybe he didn't misunderstand LotR, he just thought he could make it better). When the Free People challenge Mordor's force at the Black Gate, Sauron's Mouth comes to meet the Leaders of the West. The nameless monstrosity that once was Man, behaves pretty insolent and condescending until Aragorn stares it down. Yes, he stares it down. Merely with his gaze he manages to communicate his incredible inner power, determination and greatness (to the enemy - and also to the reader!). To such an extent, that the creature, a warlord who knows behind him a force greater than anything anyone else could possibly assemble, is frightened, terrified. Apparently, this was all too subtle and suggestive for Jackson and his audience. So, in the film, Aragorn puts out his sword and beheads the messenger. Honourless and mundane. A transformation pattern repeated throughout 9 (12) hours of film.
Anyway, it's not that easy with the game. The film, you watch a few times and that's it. The game, we play every day. Or, well, often. The terms, the names, the meanings, they all enter your mind and manifest themselves as regularly used and strongly associated. When you then take the book and read it, and come across those very terms, it's not always easy to suspend "that other context" you're used to and completely suspend the disbelief.

[i]QUESTIONNAIRE

1) Before or after playing Lord of the Rings Online, through what other media have you experienced Tolkien's Middle-Earth?

- Books (Answer Section A & C)
- Films (Answer Section B & C)
- Both (Answer Sections A, B & C)

I ll pick - Both!

SECTION A - BOOKS

2) Tolkien describes Middle-Earth in much detail and has a clear vision of this land, its history, people and differing customs; how successfully do you think this 'world' transfers over to an MMORPG (LOTRO)?

Overall touch is good if you choose to pick what you want to see. But if I ask if it feels like the world described at original books, I would say it doesnt feel the right (it is partly Tolkiens and partly my imaginations result in my mind when I read the books). For playground it is good enough.

3) Are there any moments of contradiction between Tolkien's Middle-Earth and Turbine's Middle-Earth? If so, do you feel these are these errors, conscious sacrifices for better gameplay, or something else entirely? Any examples?

The game is built around combat, that is mechanics heavy. I dont think Aragorn planned if he builds Vitality 450 or 500 for his character.

There is without doupt many lore issues, but i have decided not to get stuck on those. Turbibne is the GameMaster and I play or leave (i stay thanks to community, feeling of advancement and the athmosphere).

Lotro does much to please roleplayers. You have great freedom to explain your characters feeling by emotes and such. That is something new to me on positive side.


SECTION B - FILMS

4) Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Lord of the Rings Online are based on the same source material but are developed under seperate licenses; as both are visual types of media, what elements do you feel are the same in both?

The places where movie takes you trough are most of the time easy to spot from game. Moria looks especially same in both medias. For characters Gandalf and hobbits feel the same. Why not dwarfs too.

5) What elements do you feel are noticably different?

Lotro feels to be bit more colourful than the movies. I think the grim feeling is hard to bring to game where you have more control than when watching a movie. I know what my hero can do, but when i watch Frodo to travel I can just hope the best.

Not all characters feel the same. i think Lotros Aragorn doesnt have the feel at all (maybe he is just too passive).

SECTION C - FOR ALL

6) Do you think Lord of the Rings Online gives you the freedom and interactivity that you need in order to 'feel' a part of Middle-Earth?

Yeah, for parts what I demand for game.

Put if we go to my private feeling about the magnificent books... it doenst to be honest.

7) Do the inconsistencies between the three incarnations (book, lotro, film) of Middle-Earth stop you believing they are all the same 'real' Middle-Earth, or do you allow yourself to gloss over the inconsistencies to believe it is all the same?

They are not the same. I dont try to meld em in to one. 1 original representation and 2 editions based on the first one. They are three "products" under one icon.

[i]QUESTIONNAIRE

1) Before or after playing Lord of the Rings Online, through what other media have you experienced Tolkien's Middle-Earth?

- Both

SECTION A - BOOKS

2) Tolkien describes Middle-Earth in much detail and has a clear vision of this land, its history, people and differing customs; how successfully do you think this 'world' transfers over to an MMORPG (LOTRO)?

In my opinion, this has worked well. It is done through many references, both obvious and subtle. For instance: smoking of named pipe-weeds and it’s crafting is obvious, they are mentioned in LotR books and films. Naming certain items (‘faded Sindarin passages’) is subtle, not everyone will recognize Sindarin as an Elven language.

Also, the different people have a different ‘feel’ to them. The Shire is very hobbity, likewise the Elven and Dwarven communities have their own themed environment (buildings, welcome texts, location, objectives in quests). These races can be seen as a type of ‘caricature’ and as such maybe easier to make distinct. The race of Men is most notably unique in the Forochel area. The Lossoth are definitely different from the Bree-landers, who are more a standard form of medieval-Europe type. And that from only a few references in the appendices! It must be said, that LOTRO is so far only concerned with a small part of Middle-Earth and I’m curious to see how Turbine will proceed with different areas and lands (Gondor, Rohan: Arrr!)

Part of the success is of course in the player’s own expectations and willingness to accept what is presented. For myself: when I walk through the Old Forest (especially at lower levels), it really feels like a gloomy place, fraught with danger. Sadly, this was not the experience I had in Moria. Overall, though, the different places have very distinct emotions attached and I find myself wandering through Middle-Earth not to gain levels, but because I like to be there.

3) Are there any moments of contradiction between Tolkien's Middle-Earth and Turbine's Middle-Earth? If so, do you feel these are these errors, conscious sacrifices for better game play, or something else entirely? Any examples?

Five Wizards were sent to Middle-Earth, other than that magic-use by individuals is limited. The Loremaster class does have a ‘wizardy’ feel to it, even though it is pointed out repeatedly that they are just using forces of nature for their effects. A loremaster can be modelled after Radagast or Gandalf, depending on the traits slotted. This deviates most, I think, from Tolkiens intentions. It is, however, done with the spirit of Middle-Earth in mind. It definitely serves a large portion of players who are not interested in all-out combat, but want something more subtle. As such it counts as ‘conscious sacrifice’. The same could be said about Rune-keepers.

This must be put in perspective though: many abilities of Hobbits, Elves and Dwarves are not magical, but natural skills honed to such perfection, that Men can't tell the difference.

I feel that a lot of effort has gone to preserving the feel of Tolkiens Middle-Earth in the game. You can see it in a lot of the areas and quests, often through names and events mentioned. I think a pure error in this respect will be rare indeed.


SECTION B - FILMS

4) Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Lord of the Rings Online are based on the same source material but are developed under separate licenses; as both are visual types of media, what elements do you feel are the same in both?

Wide, natural vista’s and a sense of adventure and camaraderie are present in both. Attention to atmosphere and detail is high. They each remain true to the spirit of the books.

5) What elements do you feel are noticeably different?
The looks: see under 7) a).

SECTION C - FOR ALL

6) Do you think Lord of the Rings Online gives you the freedom and interactivity that you need in order to 'feel' a part of Middle-Earth?

Definitely.

7) Do the inconsistencies between the three incarnations (book, lotro, film) of Middle-Earth stop you believing they are all the same 'real' Middle-Earth, or do you allow yourself to gloss over the inconsistencies to believe it is all the same?

I can only find two things that could be considered inconsistencies:

a) They both translate differently the descriptions of Tolkien. Visually, LOTRO is different from the film, just as two film-makers would have a different visual style when filming the same story. This does not detract from the experience, but at first can take some time to adjust to. Compare this to the many drawings / paintings that were created: each has its own style, but they are all Middle-Earth.

b) The main storyline differs from the books/lotro vs. the films. Some parts of the book are left out of the film, including the geographical areas where they take place. In LOTRO many areas are detailed beyond the writings of Tolkien, and are sometimes based only on short descriptions. This does not undermine belief in Middle-Earth, since that is largely identical throughout the different incarnations and stands apart, as a world, from the stories told within it.