Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LOTR - The Third Age Takes Tolkien Toward RPG?

Posted by simoniker on from the silly-marillion dept.

Thanks to 1UP for its article discussing the announcement of Electronic Arts' Lord Of The Rings: The Third Age, "a new console RPG based on Peter Jackson's movie trilogy [and J.R.R. Tolkien's books]", and due out later in 2004. A GameSpot interview with producer Steve Gray has more information, as he notes that "the combat is turn-based... if you have played Final Fantasy it will feel familiar to you", and says of the game structure: "You travel on a sort of 'S' curve that weaves in and out of the path of the Fellowship through the story of the trilogy. At times you'll be behind or 'next to' them; at other times you'll be in the same time and place as members of the Fellowship." He also teases the game's bad side: "The main focus of the game is the quest on the side of good, but you can also unlock evil encounters, and we think players will really enjoy playing on the side of Sauron in addition to playing as good guys."

5 of 40 comments (clear)

  1. Players on the side of Sauron? by Michael+Belrose · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I can feel Tolkien turning in his grave right now.

    1. Re:Players on the side of Sauron? by Michael+Belrose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether this is the first game to do this or not is irrelevant. My point is that it runs counter to the entire spirit of the original works (the books).

    2. Re:Players on the side of Sauron? by dancingmad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt it. If you ever hear the tapes of Tolkien reading from LOTR, he relishes playing Golem, he has fun with the voice.

      Plus as someone who writes, I'm sure Tolkien understands that the bad guys are necessary to a story. They have to be presented.

      Plus, most of Tolkien's baddies started off good or neutral. The whole theme of LOTR is about choice - what makes a person a Gandalf or a Saruman? A Golem or a Bilbo? An Aragorn or Sauron? The game furthers that theme, it seems, by giving you as the player the same choice.

      --
      "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
  2. Did you hear they're not changing the story? by guard952 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But which story aren't they changing?

    I was very disappointed when I saw LOTR: ROTK, and there was no Battle of Hobbiton. I was really hoping to see this scene, and it just wasn't there.
    Then there is also Tom Bombadil. Where'd he go?

    If they stick to the story in the movie, then they're missing out some really cool stuff they Tolkin (and many devout fans) would (and did) sorely miss.
    And if they do follow the book, then all the wanna be fans won't have a clue where all the extra bits come from (or why they're important to the story).

    1. Re:Did you hear they're not changing the story? by Mechanik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was very disappointed when I saw LOTR: ROTK, and there was no Battle of Hobbiton. I was really hoping to see this scene, and it just wasn't there. [...] Then there is also Tom Bombadil. Where'd he go?

      Batte of Hobbiton I will concede, but c'mon, how many of us really wanted to see an hour of film devoted to Tom and his love of talking in rhymes and whatnot? Even as a fan I find those parts of the books annoying... how can you expect Joe Sixpack to sit through that let alone enjoy it?

      IMHO, I think including Bombadil would have done a lot to wreck the generally serious and epic feel of the films. People already had enough complaints about the comic relief of Gimli and Pippen ruining the atmosphere for them. Personally I thought those were fine, but put in Bombadil and you would have whole different movie. When I think of the LOTR movies as is, I think "epic" the way I think of say, Ben Hur, or Spartacus, not funny and silly like the animated Disney movie Hercules.


      Mechanik