We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54

Thread: Lore-breaking

  1. #26
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Of which there are undoubted examples, some of which were mentioned earlier. You give Turbine way too much credit.
    Do tell. I read the entire thread. It has nothing to do with me giving Turbine credit. It has to do with not being an uptight lore snob who thinks they know it all, obviously. It's a game based on books about a fantasy world written by a long-deceased author. If you can find merit in trying to discredit events in a fantasy world based upon a fantasy world, have at it lol. Your loss, not mine.
    [CENTER]
    [SIZE=1][COLOR=White]The [/COLOR][/SIZE][URL="http://thenoldor.guildlaunch.com"][SIZE=3][B]NOLDOR[/B][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1][COLOR=White] of Arkenstone[/COLOR][/SIZE]
    [/CENTER]

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Southpa View Post
    Do tell. I read the entire thread. It has nothing to do with me giving Turbine credit. It has to do with not being an uptight lore snob who thinks they know it all, obviously. It's a game based on books about a fantasy world written by a long-deceased author. If you can find merit in trying to discredit events in a fantasy world based upon a fantasy world, have at it lol. Your loss, not mine.
    The OP asked a question. Obviously the needs of a game are different but when someone actually asks what's been changed then trying to come up with excuses to deny things have been changed is silly.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Cornwall, UK
    Posts
    1,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    The OP asked a question. Obviously the needs of a game are different but when someone actually asks what's been changed then trying to come up with excuses to deny things have been changed is silly.
    This comment pretty much defines most of this forum these days doesn't it?

  4. #29
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    At ease
    Posts
    1,617
    Quote Originally Posted by podgie_bear View Post
    To my mind, Lore breaking is when the game has or does something that Tolkein said couldn't or didn't happen;
    Tolkien never said a word about 18 wheel lorries not being in ME, either. Would the introduction of such be considered lore-breaking or no?

    You can only stretch the credibility of a written story so far. Sure, RK-types were written about without using the word "runekeeper". But there is just some stuff, but just because the professor never mentioned something doesn't mean it should be acceptable in-game. Nameless ones? The term is used, but I never in 40+ years imagined the version Turbine gives us. Popular cultural acceptance seemingly overcomes lore-appropriate acceptability.
    [COLOR="#6666ff"][FONT=Century Gothic]To many people, free will is a license to rebel not against what is unjust or hard in life but against what is best for them and true.[/FONT][/COLOR]

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Memory of Laurelin
    Posts
    1,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Abiyah View Post
    Tolkien never said a word about 18 wheel lorries not being in ME, either. Would the introduction of such be considered lore-breaking or no?
    Were strawmen ever mentioned, either?
    Or anyone visiting a bathroom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abiyah View Post
    You can only stretch the credibility of a written story so far. Sure, RK-types were written about without using the word "runekeeper". But there is just some stuff, but just because the professor never mentioned something doesn't mean it should be acceptable in-game. Nameless ones? The term is used, but I never in 40+ years imagined the version Turbine gives us. Popular cultural acceptance seemingly overcomes lore-appropriate acceptability.
    We've all (hopefully) read the story; however, we've all interpreted the words Tolkien used (or, heavens forbid, coloured by translators) our own ways. Our own experiences, personalities, cultures, perhaps age, all coloured the way we view the world Tolkien painted.

    Frankly, I'd be surprised if even half of the playerbase was happy with all aspects of Turbine's interpretation. Or with Jackson's. Or Bakshi's. Or anyone else's.
    [center]Jestem tym, czym jestem.[/center]

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Abiyah View Post
    Sure, RK-types were written about without using the word "runekeeper"
    ...or making use of runes like that, or the 'writing' business, or needing no weapon other than magic, or not wearing armour, or hurling lightning, fire and frost about with wild abandon. So what does this supposed 'type' consist of?

    But there is just some stuff, but just because the professor never mentioned something doesn't mean it should be acceptable in-game. Nameless ones? The term is used, but I never in 40+ years imagined the version Turbine gives us. Popular cultural acceptance seemingly overcomes lore-appropriate acceptability.
    Those weren't just accepted at face value, there were a lot of comments about them at the time because just like you, a lot of people had imagined something rather different. Personally, I imagined something more Lovecraftian, because I found the language used ('gnawed by nameless things') to be reminiscent of his work.

    As another example of things which defy association with Middle-earth, there's always that Goonies rip-off under the Forsaken Inn (with the real howler being that it's hundreds of miles inland).

  7. #32
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    The OP asked a question. Obviously the needs of a game are different but when someone actually asks what's been changed then trying to come up with excuses to deny things have been changed is silly.
    Right, he did. And where you see me personally making excuses has to be in my belief that much of it, as I believe you even stated, boils down to personal tolerance - mainly based on subjectivity, interpretation and preconceived notions.

    Sure timelines are sketchy - maybe impossible in some cases. But that's necessary.

    I don't see anyone in this thread outright denying things have been changed. If they choose to apply subjective reasoning to allow themselves to better accept it, it's no different than you trying to reason Sauron's lack of interest in LotRO's Angmar. For someone to deny acceptance of a person's belief that something is lore-breaking (in their opinion) has nothing to do with defending Turbine in the least. That's like saying all vegetarians don't eat meat because it's cruel to animals. You and I both know there are other reasons...
    [CENTER]
    [SIZE=1][COLOR=White]The [/COLOR][/SIZE][URL="http://thenoldor.guildlaunch.com"][SIZE=3][B]NOLDOR[/B][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1][COLOR=White] of Arkenstone[/COLOR][/SIZE]
    [/CENTER]

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Daeross View Post
    Were strawmen ever mentioned, either?
    That wasn't a strawman argument. The argument that "Tolkien never said that {whatever} didn't exist, so therefore it can" is simply weak, a hasty generalism that lends itself to refutation by such absurdity since it admits no exceptions.

    We've all (hopefully) read the story; however, we've all interpreted the words Tolkien used (or, heavens forbid, coloured by translators) our own ways. Our own experiences, personalities, cultures, perhaps age, all coloured the way we view the world Tolkien painted.
    No, it's quite obvious that the broad 'we' have not. Not everyone reads books, and not everyone who does would plough through a novel the size of LOTR (just over a thousand pages). Not forgetting that some people also seem incapable of any thought on the subject of LOTRO beyond "it's a game" or "it's fantasy" (the latter being something I particularly detest, because it's rooted in the mistaken assumption that all fantasy is the same). You make it sound like everyone brings some substantive understanding to the party whereas the reality is, more than a few don't and will accept pretty much whatever Turbine come up with.

    Frankly, I'd be surprised if even half of the playerbase was happy with all aspects of Turbine's interpretation. Or with Jackson's. Or Bakshi's. Or anyone else's.
    And why does it have to be about 'all aspects' of it, all of a sudden?

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Southpa View Post
    Right, he did. And where you see me personally making excuses has to be in my belief that much of it, as I believe you even stated, boils down to personal tolerance - mainly based on subjectivity, interpretation and preconceived notions.
    That cuts both ways. Some of us know a considerable amount about the subject and so are better placed to spot what's been changed; some don't, but fancy their interpretations to be equally valid anyway. Preconceived notions are if anything more prevalent in those who think an MMO has to have all the usual features, regardless of the setting, and so insist on things that have no basis in Middle-earth and hence no real business being in a game based on LOTR. And again, there is a matter of objectivity here, something you seem to be lacking in. We can tolerate Turbine bringing back Angmar from the grave of s thousand years as something that was needed for the sake of the game but that does not change the essential fact that it's one gigantic lore-break.

    Sure timelines are sketchy - maybe impossible in some cases. But that's necessary.
    Only for the player-characters, not for the NPCs.

    I don't see anyone in this thread outright denying things have been changed. If they choose to apply subjective reasoning to allow themselves to better accept it, it's no different than you trying to reason Sauron's lack of interest in LotRO's Angmar. For someone to deny acceptance of a person's belief that something is lore-breaking (in their opinion) has nothing to do with defending Turbine in the least. That's like saying all vegetarians don't eat meat because it's cruel to animals. You and I both know there are other reasons...
    It's not just a matter of belief. If some really big, significant, plot-altering event didn't happen in the books but does in the game, that's a lore-break. Angmar, Moria, Lorien attacking Dol Guldur early, and the deaths of some of the Grey Company on their way south - those are changes that would have affected the larger plot or dialogue from the book and so they cannot help but be lore-breaks, as they don't fit in with canon. Those aren't things that could have just happened in the background and never been noticed. Sure, you can say they're necessary but that doesn't mean they're not lore-breaks; it's just that there are worse lore-breaks, those which aren't even arguably necessary to begin with.
    Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Nov 24 2012 at 03:14 PM.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    That cuts both ways. Some of us know a considerable amount about the subject and so are better placed to spot what's been changed; some don't, but fancy their interpretations to be equally valid anyway.
    And sometimes one can be far too intimately consumed with a work of fiction that they squeeze themselves into their own little realm with no tolerance nor allowance for divergent views - as if it's non-fiction. Don't get me wrong, I know facts are facts - fictional or otherwise. But I'm educated - I've known people who have spent 30+ years reading Shakespeare and try tell me what I was supposed to get out of it. Heh, don't tell me what I should get out of it - I'll tell you what I got out of it. Such pompousness prevails in the literary world. It's really uninviting and, ultimately, fairly comical.

    So while I don't mean to pointedly discredit any self-procalimed Tolkien "scholar", intolerance sort of comes with the territory, doesn't it - because you're an expert. Because you've read it and read it and read it and read it and your conclusions have become so firmly planted within you that your suppositions couldn't possibly be anything other than borne of Tolkien's own undocumented thought. Heh...

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Preconceived notions are if anything more prevalent in those who think an MMO has to have all the usual features, regardless of the setting, and so insist on things that have no basis in Middle-earth and hence no real business being in a game based on LOTR.
    Fair enough. Ask yourself if this is an MMO based on LoTR or is LoTR based on an MMO. Silly, eh? If you think I will defend the existence of Rune-Keepers in my next sentence, you'd be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    And again, there is a matter of objectivity here, something you seem to be lacking in. We can tolerate Turbine bringing back Angmar from the grave of s thousand years as something that was needed for the sake of the game but that does not change the essential fact that it's one gigantic lore-break.
    If you say so. You're the expert. I thought it was nicely-done and by far the most engaging storyline we've had to date aside from the obvious shadowing of the main plot. Still, won't you tell us how you come to this conclusion based on objectivity alone?


    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    It's not just a matter of belief. If some really big, significant, plot-altering event didn't happen in the books but does in the game, that's a lore-break. Angmar, Moria, Lorien attacking Dol Guldur early, and the deaths of some of the Grey Company on their way south - those are changes that would have affected the larger plot or dialogue from the book and so they cannot help but be lore-breaks
    I don't agree. They may not fit in with your preconceived notions, but I don't recall Tolkien really talking about Moria again after the Fellowship passed through in anything other than notes or other writings that were posthumous. Do you know there wasn't a failed attack on Dol Guldur before that which Tolkien actually wrote about? LotRO didn't exactly have a full regiment of elves helping us storm the gates, huh? How much was written about the Grey Company, by name, in the books so that you know which Rangers were and were not ultimately delivered? Stick to the 3 books, please.
    [CENTER]
    [SIZE=1][COLOR=White]The [/COLOR][/SIZE][URL="http://thenoldor.guildlaunch.com"][SIZE=3][B]NOLDOR[/B][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1][COLOR=White] of Arkenstone[/COLOR][/SIZE]
    [/CENTER]

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Southpa View Post
    And sometimes one can be far too intimately consumed with a work of fiction that they squeeze themselves into their own little realm with no tolerance nor allowance for divergent views - as if it's non-fiction. Don't get me wrong, I know facts are facts - fictional or otherwise. But I'm educated - I've known people who have spent 30+ years reading Shakespeare and try tell me what I was supposed to get out of it. Heh, don't tell me what I should get out of it - I'll tell you what I got out of it. Such pompousness prevails in the literary world. It's really uninviting and, ultimately, fairly comical.
    Ah, I see. Great big chip on your shoulder. Allow me to knock it off for you

    So while I don't mean to pointedly discredit any self-procalimed Tolkien "scholar", intolerance sort of comes with the territory, doesn't it - because you're an expert. Because you've read it and read it and read it and read it and your conclusions have become so firmly planted within you that your suppositions couldn't possibly be anything other than borne of Tolkien's own undocumented thought. Heh...
    It simply means that knowing the books pretty well I'm better placed than some to spot where Turbine have changed things, and the significance to the plot of them having done so. The converse is that if people don't know the books well, they'll more readily swallow whatever Turbine come up with; ignorance may be bliss, but don't go trying to make a virtue of it.

    Fair enough. Ask yourself if this is an MMO based on LoTR or is LoTR based on an MMO.
    I think that it's an MMO based overly loosely on LOTR, that in some cases they've gone too far towards the hackneyed conventions of gaming fantasy in their attempts to be crowd-pleasing.

    If you say so. You're the expert. I thought it was nicely-done and by far the most engaging storyline we've had to date aside from the obvious shadowing of the main plot. Still, won't you tell us how you come to this conclusion based on objectivity alone?
    In the books, it didn't happen. In the game it does. That's a very simple, objective statement. Now, I can go on from there to give my subjective opinion on how Sauron wouldn't have bothered because nothing in Eriador was a strategic threat to him once the North-kingdom had been destroyed, but that doesn't change the very simple observation that the game has an evil kingdom being reborn after a thousand years and the book does not. It serves a definite purpose in the game, to be sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it was made up for the game and is hence a substantial break with canon. Whether it was nicely done or not is irrelevant to that point: it's still a lore-break, it can't help but be one. Your subjective value judgements are moot.

    I don't agree. They may not fit in with your preconceived notions, but I don't recall Tolkien really talking about Moria again after the Fellowship passed through in anything other than notes or other writings that were posthumous. Do you know there wasn't a failed attack on Dol Guldur before that which Tolkien actually wrote about? LotRO didn't exactly have a full regiment of elves helping us storm the gates, huh? How much was written about the Grey Company, by name, in the books so that you know which Rangers were and were not ultimately delivered? Stick to the 3 books, please.
    We know that the Dwarves did not reoccupy Moria until some time well into the Fourth Age. We also know that the cool place to be for adventurous Dwarves after the War of the Ring was the Glittering Caves, where Gimli was establishing new halls - rather than Moria, which would be rather odd if it had been reoccupied. So, the game's reoccupation of Moria is a break with canon. (And there are also good plot-based reasons why it's a particularly gormless change to the plot, which I mentioned earlier - the Dwarves wouldn't be so stupid as to try to retake Moria at a time when there were thousands of Easterlings massing for an attack on Erebor).

    As for that attack on Dol Guldur, it is simply beyond credibility that something major like that could happen and not be mentioned, given that we're told exactly what happened in the book. The Elves fought defensively to begin with: there were three failed attacks on Lorien before Sauron's fall, and then the Elves went after Dol Guldur and Galadriel used her power to demolish the place. So it's just like Angmar coming back, it didn't happen. Made up for the game, hence a break with canon. (And again, there are also good reasons why the Elves wouldn't have done something so stupid as to try to attack the place head-on before that).

    Regarding the Grey Company, we know that the reason there were only thirty of them was because they were all who could be gathered in haste (as Halbarad said), and not that thirty were all who were left by the time they caught up with Aragorn. That's the break right there. The game might have them messing about on their way across Eriador and getting into all sorts of bother on the way, but that was only to shoehorn in what became a ludicrously bloated role for the player-characters.
    Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Nov 25 2012 at 06:18 AM.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Memory of Laurelin
    Posts
    1,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    That wasn't a strawman argument. The argument that "Tolkien never said that {whatever} didn't exist, so therefore it can" is simply weak, a hasty generalism that lends itself to refutation by such absurdity since it admits no exceptions.
    Strawman argument:
    "Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument--usually something extreme or easy to argue against--that they know their opponent doesn't support."

    However, to please those who hold the view that what wasn't mentioned didn't happen...
    No member of the Free Peoples in Middle-earth ever defecated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    ---"it's fantasy" (the latter being something I particularly detest, because it's rooted in the mistaken assumption that all fantasy is the same)---
    How do you know that's the basis for it? That "all fantasy is the same"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    ---Some of us know a considerable amount about the subject and so are better placed to spot what's been changed---
    Thank you for the compliment!
    [center]Jestem tym, czym jestem.[/center]

  13. #38
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Ah, I see. Great big chip on your shoulder. Allow me to knock it off for you
    No need. There's no chip, but rather a firm intolerance for people who think they have the penultimate interpretation of a literary work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    It simply means that knowing the books pretty well I'm better placed than some to spot where Turbine have changed things, and the significance to the plot of them having done so. The converse is that if people don't know the books well, they'll more readily swallow whatever Turbine come up with; ignorance may be bliss, but don't go trying to make a virtue of it.
    Oh, I'm not. I'm just saying a lot of your statements are indeed based on 2 things: 1. Subjectivity 2. Tolkien didn't specifically write it, therefore it cannot be We're all subjective, sure. But you quite obviously have little tolerance for extrapolations and possibilities. It has nothing to do with you "knowing better" nor your opinions on all matters LotR being somehow more valid because you may have read the books more than someone else. It has everything to do with personal judgment calls and what you've taken away from the literature. Someone else could have read the trilogy twice as much as you and put forth a very elaborate, yet unpopular, line of reasoning to some aspect of the Lore. By your reasoning, this would somehow validate them to the masses even if you strongly disagree because they're more well-read than you are. See how that works?
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    I think that it's an MMO based overly loosely on LOTR, that in some cases they've gone too far towards the hackneyed conventions of gaming fantasy in their attempts to be crowd-pleasing.
    Or rather, Store-pleasing. I don't disagree in any case - with the point, not necessarily on the same specifics.
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    In the books, it didn't happen. In the game it does. That's a very simple, objective statement.
    The rest of that paragraph is your opinion, so I'll leave it out since I asked for objectivity. I don't expect you to come clean, but there are certainly aspects of the game that weren't specifically mentioned in the books that you would be able to deem plausible, no? If not, you are one of those absolutists who would, by your own definition, probably not even pick this game up. So I'm sorry, but your line of "objective" reasoning above does not apply because it's still a personal judgment call that the proof of absence can somehow disprove something. So you can say it didn't happen in the books - that is objective. Saying it breaks the Lore by happening in the game is 100% a personal judgment call.
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    We know that the Dwarves did not reoccupy Moria until some time well into the Fourth Age.
    How do you know? None of them? Did Tolkien write about every dwarf in Middle Earth? Again, proof of absence proves nothing. To extrapolate on this, look at Unfinished Tales and see what was inserted in to the Lore after the fact. Prof Tolkien did not personally have that material published. How do you know he intended it to be put into the Lore? Same with the Simarillion or the Chuildren of Hurin. Same with Lost Tales. There are lots of conflicts between the Lost Tales and the other published works, but you certanly know that. Tolkien therefore breaks his own Lore, doesn't he? I guess if anyone has permission, he does - but it's hardly sacred is it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    We also know that the cool place to be for adventurous Dwarves after the War of the Ring was the Glittering Caves, where Gimli was establishing new halls - rather than Moria, which would be rather odd if it had been reoccupied. So, the game's reoccupation of Moria is a break with canon. (And there are also good plot-based reasons why it's a particularly gormless change to the plot, which I mentioned earlier - the Dwarves wouldn't be so stupid as to try to retake Moria at a time when there were thousands of Easterlings massing for an attack on Erebor).
    Again, your opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    As for that attack on Dol Guldur, it is simply beyond credibility that something major like that could happen and not be mentioned, given that we're told exactly what happened in the book. The Elves fought defensively to begin with: there were three failed attacks on Lorien before Sauron's fall, and then the Elves went after Dol Guldur and Galadriel used her power to demolish the place. So it's just like Angmar coming back, it didn't happen. Made up for the game, hence a break with canon. (And again, there are also good reasons why the Elves wouldn't have done something so stupid as to try to attack the place head-on before that).
    All of this is based 100% on your interpretation and excessive (IMO) penchant for believing the absence of proof proves something. Not to discredit your views, but realize them for what they are, which is not absolute.
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Regarding the Grey Company, we know that the reason there were only thirty of them was because they were all who could be gathered in haste (as Halbarad said), and not that thirty were all who were left by the time they caught up with Aragorn. That's the break right there. The game might have them messing about on their way across Eriador and getting into all sorts of bother on the way, but that was only to shoehorn in what became a ludicrously bloated role for the player-characters.
    Filling in the blanks, I say. Some of it may go a bit far, but again, you can't prove it didn't happen. I know you like to say there is no substance in this opposing belief, but that's, again, based on your personal belief(s). I don't expect you to agree with something you don't believe in. But beliefs are borne of many different components - facts are but one of these possible components.
    [CENTER]
    [SIZE=1][COLOR=White]The [/COLOR][/SIZE][URL="http://thenoldor.guildlaunch.com"][SIZE=3][B]NOLDOR[/B][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1][COLOR=White] of Arkenstone[/COLOR][/SIZE]
    [/CENTER]

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Southpa View Post
    Likewise with your intolerance. To state the now obvious, you hold that anything not expressly written about in the trilogy qualifies as Lore-breaking.
    No, you've got that entirely wrong. Things that actively clash with the trilogy's continuity are what are lore-breaking, which is different. It's perfectly possible to tell tales that fit into gaps and don't clash with anything, but Turbine invented a lot of stuff that's way too big for that to work.

    It's a wonder you ever played this game, being so rigid in your beliefs. If you take this game as a whole and place it in the context of what qualifies (to you) as Lore-breaking, maybe 5% of the game does not break the Lore. Probably closer to 1%: some of the Epic book and that's probably about it. The rest of the game is largely unwritten about, thus by your definition, Lore-breaking. If that is not your definition, then please stop using it to defend yourself.
    Err, comprehension fail. You seem to be taking lore-breaking as some sort of quality judgement as well. I'm not saying that Angmar is bad, or that it isn't Tolkienesque to a degree - but still, it's lore-breaking because it wasn't there in the books and a whole land full of evil Men and Orcs isn't something that could just fall through the cracks and evade all notice. It'd change the continuity of the plot of FOTR to have all that going on. (And never mind all the other stuff that's going on, like Goblins and evil Dwarves in the Shire, that absolutely did not happen in the books). You're on a hiding to nothing here, Turbine have made wholesale changes and there's no way you can wave it all away. Then there's Trestlebridge, which cannot possibly exist (the description of Bree in FOTR makes it impossible, there were no more settlements of Men that close to Bree). Then there are the brigands in the forests, months before there were any (that sort of stuff only happened once the Rangers were called away). There's that Warg in there, too (again, way too soon, hence lore-breaking). Giant spiders in the Bree-land, that's out too. Oathbreakers popping up all over the shop. And that's just a few bits of stuff from SoA!

    Also, I'm not entirely sure I've even tried to present an argument, much less arguments.
    /facepalm

    Right, that is objective - that the books have no 'new' Angmar. Making the leap to call it Lore-breaking is, bingo: subjective. There is no Lore to break because the Lore doesn't exist. Your righteousness prevents you from seeing such obvious facts at the same time you keep misunderstanding my point. Lore-breaking is not the same as placing material in the world (i.e. - 'new' Angmar) that I personally feel fits just fine.
    No lore? You wish. Lore says Angmar was utterly destroyed and did not rise again. The game breaks with that.

    Nope, I'm asserting (and would be correct in doing so) that your personal judgment as to the Lore-breaking quality of an objective observation is completely and totally subjective. 100%.
    What else can one call a direct clash with the continuity of the books but 'lore-breaking'?

    In your opinion. But it's not addressed in the books, so you can't possibly (objectively) know.
    The re-appearance of a whole evil kingdom (and all the many, many other changes) somehow magically don't affect the continuity at all? That's asinine.

    You do know who Mordirith is supposed to be, don't you? I'm sure you see that as Lore-breaking. I see it as using a Lore basis rather nicely to further the story.
    Lore-breaking doesn't mean it's a bad story, it just means it's incompatible in some way with the 'real' one.

    You can't take something from the literature that isn't in the literature, duh. Basically, by your own admission, you shouldn't talk about things that don't appear in the literature because you can't prove them either way. You can say it's not in the book and you can say you don't think it's plausible - but that's about where it ends. You act like you're the last word on what constitutes Lore-breaking, but you simply aren't. In order for something to break the Lore, it needs to either:
    a.)completely change something that happened in the trilogy
    or
    b.) make something that happened in the trilogy impossible. A direct contradiction.
    It doesn't need to be a complete change. Any change to established continuity, however small, is lore-breaking. That's what 'lore' is, all the stuff the books have to say, including all the things we know did not happen (like there being Goblins, evil Dwarves and brigands in the Shire).

    There are some examples of that in the game, sure, I'm not denying that. I never did and never will. But to say that things that didn't exist in the books break the Lore is not correct. There's nothing to break, see? You can opine that they don't belong. That's it.
    They break the lore when their existence would inevitably cause knock-on effects. You can't throw a whole evil kingdom into the mix and not have consequences. If its existence supposedly makes no difference, then it doesn't need to be dealt with as it can't be any threat. If it is a great big threat (as it's certainly made out to be) and does need dealing with, it changes the continuity and therefore it's lore-breaking. Adding a whole evil land isn't like inventing anything small like three Trolls in a cave somewhere the Fellowship didn't go.

    You could have made it easier on him (and the rest of us) and just said (in your opinion) no more than 1% of the game strictly abides by the Lore. The rest is either conjecture loosely-based on Lore or a blatant vehicle for the traditional MMO game experience.
    As if I'd try to put a percentage on it. But yes, in large part it's a blatant vehicle for a traditional MMO experience, dressed up in Middle-earth clothing. Part of what is blatant about it is the continuity changes.

    Yet a single 'hero' can march through Carn Dum right now and solo it. Where is the knock-off effect of that? I can single-handedly obliterate every mob on the landscape from Bree to Rohan without even stopping for lunch. Yet you still play this game? 99.9% of LotRO fits into your idea of Lore-breaking. The Free Peoples didn't need the Fellowship, they just needed me.
    And now you're trying to bring the game mechanics into it?

    I could reduce your argument to an absurd level and invalidate the very existence of this game, were I to subscribe to your views. You don't know what is and what is not "ludicrous" because the scale of the game is not the scale of the books. It's a non-starter. The great and mighty Fellowship ran away from the Watcher. 2 or 3 of my friends and I could punk him in about 5 minutes right now.
    That has a lot to say about the game mechanics but nothing to do with the point I've been making. I'm talking content, not game mechanics.

    This is your opinion. The fact that his non-canon works filled in tons of gaps also breaks Lore then, by your account. Big time. Huh...interesting. You are an absolutist as well as a purist and this game is not for you by any stretch of the imagination. You are completely intolerant and I find it funny that you'd even waste your time here.
    What is it about pointing out that the game plays fast and loose with the lore all the time that makes me 'intolerant'? And intolerant of what, exactly? I'm not making value judgements here, I am simply saying that a lot of the game is 'lore-breaking' - not that that makes it bad per se (certainly not in every case, although it can be bad as well), just that it's not what some people seem to think it is.

    I'd never try to. That statement makes it pretty obvious that you aren't understanding what I've been saying.
    Everything you've said has been off-topic from the start - you deciding to be tolerant of the changes doesn't stop them being changes. The OP asked what's been changed, not whether you think it matters.
    Last edited by Radhruin_EU; Nov 25 2012 at 08:07 PM.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,647
    The OP asked what breaks the Lore, not what's been changed. You may view these as one and the same, I don't.
    Rather than prancing around on your high horse, you could have simply said that the vast majority of what happens in the game is not in the books. Case closed. Done. I wouldn't disagree, either. It's when you start making judgment calls as if they are absolutes that you overstep your bounds - I don't care how much you've read the books or how well you think you know Middle earth or how well you think you know WWJRRTD.

    If you bothered to read my very first post in this thread, you'll see I just said it's largely in the eye of the beholder. I mentioned several things that I thought stretched the Lore immensely. I chose not to ride your rail of pompousness and absolute know-it-allism, though. I wasn't trying to further any personal agenda, therefore I was not arguing anything - I was calling BS on your BS.
    [CENTER]
    [SIZE=1][COLOR=White]The [/COLOR][/SIZE][URL="http://thenoldor.guildlaunch.com"][SIZE=3][B]NOLDOR[/B][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1][COLOR=White] of Arkenstone[/COLOR][/SIZE]
    [/CENTER]

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Southpa View Post
    The OP asked what breaks the Lore, not what's been changed.
    If it's a direct change to something in the books (as opposed to an addition that could neatly fit into a gap without any direct changes) then it's lore-breaking. That's what people commonly understand the term 'lore' to mean: stuff the books say.

    You're the only person I've ever come across here who refuses point-blank to accept that it's a lore-break to bring back Angmar a thousand years after its utter and supposedly permanent destruction. Now in my opinion, it's not been done doing it in a bad way (unlike, say, crass and needless changes like letting player-characters bake their own lembas, to name but one small example) and that's because it's something the game needed; it was therefore a readily understandable one. Now, most folk are perfectly happy with that sort of explanation (since it's not having a go at the game, just pointing out that they changed something) so it's quite evident you're just being objectionable for the sake of it. (I say objectionable because you will keep on trying to make this personal).

    And no, changes like that are not just 'in the eye of the beholder'. It's black-and-white: it didn't happen in the books, it does in the game, so it's lore-breaking (albeit in a positive way, as I see it). Only you seem to feel the need to pretend that such a straightforward observation about such a large and obvious change is somehow subjective. In the books, the only 'Shadows of Angmar' would have been those cast by its thousand year old ruins, which were doubtless very creepy but no actual threat to anyone or anything. Having the place returning as a direct threat to the whole of Eriador can't help but be a lore-break.

    Damn straight, a great deal of what's in the game isn't in the books but that isn't what makes something lore-breaking. It only breaks lore if it clashes with something in the books. So having the player-characters prancing through Moria isn't lore-breaking it itself, but having the Dwarves reclaiming the place then and there is because we know it doesn't happen then. Having the player-characters snooping around Dol Guldur isn't lore-breaking in itself, but having the place also being attacked by the Galadhrim is. Even having the players accompanying the Grey Company isn't lore-breaking (as such), either (although it's pushing the boundaries really hard), but having some of the Rangers being killed off before even they catch up with Aragorn is. That's the difference between how you're trying to portray what I'm saying, and what I'm actually saying. Nobody here is really a 'purist' or an 'absolutist'.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    713
    Looking for some clarification, but I was in Annuminas the other day and I noticed flagstones featuring a leafless white tree predominated. Was the symbol of a united Dunedain Kingdom in use when Annuminas was designed?, and were they separated with the death of Elendil, was the Capital constructed by this stage, or still on the drawing table?, and is the leafless white tree on the tiles just leafless stylistically or is it a dead tree as I didnt think the white tree in Gondor died untill the great plague in 1636. While Arnor was to be the capital of Isildur who famously stole the sappling of Nimloth, so I can see the connection of the white tree with Arnor in that regard, but since he never returned to the north if it was built after Gladden fields a more North Kingdom appropriate symbol might have been chosen to predominate.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000001019a8/01007/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    "Of course I am the only elf in the village"

  18. #43
    Elendil built Annuminas, or at least began it. There was over a century between the fall of Numenore and his death. Perhaps the tree image is meant to be that of Nimloth, which was cut down by Ar-Pharazon and burnt by Sauron in his dark temple ? The seedling of Nimloth was planted in Minas Ithil. This one was burned when Minas Ithil was captured but a seedling was saved and planted in Minas Anor. This is the one that died in the great plague.
    [FONT=Trebuchet MS]"You can't fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into an Enemy" - J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter # 81


    [/FONT]

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Memory of Laurelin
    Posts
    1,229
    This the tree you mentioned, Morthaur?




    It's pretty stylized, imo; whether in bloom or not, it's still a symbol of the White Tree, far as I've understood it.
    Since it's accompanied by a stylized star, I've taken them to stand for the sons of Elendil. Especially since Isildur took it as a symbol of his house.

    Another, differently stylized tree, can be seen upon the King's Road in Enedwaith.
    In fact, the stylized tree seems to crop up surprisingly much... There's the Cloudmantle, the crafted cloak, Minas Ithil emblem... and carved, quite extremely stylized, into the crown-helmets of the figureheads at Amon Hen.
    [center]Jestem tym, czym jestem.[/center]

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    713
    Daeross, thankyou for taking the time and effort to post the picture of the tyle I was talking about, While musing over issues of designs for the 3 cities of Elendil, Isildur and Anarion, I thought Stars, Moons and Suns would very appropriate for each name given the translation of the founding Lord, so Im glad you pointed out the star design.

    In another post someone mentioned that Isildurs curse of the oathbreakers was bestowed (and im paraphrasing) as an inate power of being king of Gondor, what I'd like to know is were Isildur and Anarion co kings of Gondor, or was Isildur being the senior brother considered King, or was the concept of King of Gondor something that arrived with Valandil and Meneldil, and were Isildur and Anarion just "princes of city states" while the High Kingdom was still in existence (who governed Pelegar at this time Minas Ithil or Minas Anor or was it governed by Elendil from Arnor?).

    Since Isildur scarpers to the North after the capture of Minas Ithil leaving Anarion to hold Osgiliath it seems to reinforce this nagging feeling that Isildur wasnt a "king of Gondor" untill after the death of Elendil so the curse of the oathbreakers was more about being the heir of Elendil than being "king of Gondor" (which didnt always mean the same thing).
    Last edited by Morthaur; Dec 02 2012 at 10:42 PM.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000001019a8/01007/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    "Of course I am the only elf in the village"

  21. #46
    Responding to the whole "if it's not in the books, or it contradicts something in the books it's a lorebreak" point of view. What's important to remember, is that, within the lore, the only real source we have, certainly the only source Turbine has is supposed to be a translation of, or at least heavily based on, the Red Book of Westmarch. And that is nothing more or less than Bilbo's diary of his journey to Erebor, augmented by Frodo and Sam's accounts of their and their immediate friends parts in the War of the Ring and the immediate aftermath, then supplemented by various appendices and indexes by hobbit-scholars nobody even knows how long after the fact.

    If Bilbo, Frodo or Sam didn't personally witness it, and nobody told them about it, and the Westmarch scholars weren't able to winkle it out generations later - it's not in the book. The thing is honestly a very brief travelogue. With some fighting. They go pretty much in a straight line from the Shire to Rivendell. Rivendell to Moria, Moria to Lorien. Straight down the river to Rauros where they split up. Most of them get to see the sights of Rohan and a very small slice of Gondor, Frodo and Sam get the short end of the stick and explore the Emyn Muil and Dead Marshes before picking up the trail in Ithilien, across into Mordor. We don't even get any details about their trip back through some territory that otherwise goes unmentioned. When they swing up through the Gap of Rohan pretty much all that gets said about the landscape until they get back to Rivendell is that there's a road and any inhabitants of the area hid their faces and didn't bother them. This leaves roughly 90% of Middle-Earth completely unexplored by "the lore" even if you throw in Bilbo's trip, literally straight west to east, to Erebor. It's like Bilbo says to Frodo in Rivendell, I don't want to try and quote him exactly from memory, the sentiment being that Gandalf brought him home from Erebor by much too straight a road. If some of these previous posters had only read The Hobbit, and seen the map there which doesn't even show all of Mirkwood, as I recall, imagine all the lorebreaks the Lord of the Rings would contain.

    Anyway, to wrap this up, it's worth noting and remembering that all the lore we have in-game is derived from one book, written by a grand total of 3 people. And not the best-informed people either. I'm guessing this thing would have looked a lot different and been a lot longer if, say, Aragorn had written it.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0820700000004c7c0/signature.png]Golodthir[/charsig]

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Himring
    Posts
    713
    Whilst killing spiders in Mirkwood, I was very disapointed for them not to be muttering inanities a la goblins, please remedy this and make them talking spiders!.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/042080000001019a8/01007/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    "Of course I am the only elf in the village"

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Shire
    Posts
    31

    Cool A noob's opinion

    I'm level 34 and so far, the only things I've seen that "break" the lore are:

    1. Time constraints. I know we talked about this earlier, but if you go by the average number of in-game days per real-world day, we've spent about 18 years in Middle-Earth, and the Fellowship just reached Rohan. However, this is an MMORPG and we can't develop a whole game and just kill it off in a few months because that's the actual time frame of the books.

    2. Respawning. Not player respawning, but monster respawning. I know the idea of the "Reflecting Pool" is to imagine the instance as if you were remembering it, but a Balrog dying and then respawning seconds later just to be killed again is indeed "Lore breaking". Again, this is an MMORPG and we have to let it go.

    3. Abundance of "The Dead". This is a problem unlike the previous two because it can be "fixed" while still keeping this game as an MMORPG. In the book canon, the undead take years to create, and are formed with sorcery by a Dark Lord and his servants. The only undead to appear in the books are the Barrow-Wights and Nazgúl. The ones that appear in this game are basically Barrow-Wights, but their abundance causes a problem with the lore. If The Dead were relegated to the Barrow-Downs, and replaced in other areas with more lore-friendly monsters (Orcs, Goblins), the lore would not be broken.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0c214010000161959/signature.png]Krathgash[/charsig]

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    109
    Well, Angmar should be a frozen wasteland because it, like Forochel, was in the 'influence' of Utumno and when it was broken, the evil influence and cold of Utumno remained.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Fainecarth View Post
    Well, Angmar should be a frozen wasteland because it, like Forochel, was in the 'influence' of Utumno and when it was broken, the evil influence and cold of Utumno remained.
    I don't think so, since Angmar wasn't in Forodwaith (not quite, anyway). It wouldn't have been very nice up there, to be sure but it wasn't said to be an 'Arctic' sort of place like Forochel. There couldn't have been any large number of Men round there, otherwise.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload