Rings of Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

/whoosh

Blizzard had phenomenal success in getting their existing player-base to try WoW, and an awful lot of them liked what they saw, because the gameplay was engaging. The brightly colourful cartoonish world too (because everyone was used to that from the RTS games). Not so much the story. And from there, positive word of mouth went everywhere and before you knew it seemed everyone was playing it. But it all started out with their legions of existing fans.

---

this does not represent Cataclysm being a huge improvement to game mechanics but failing misserably to retain players from WotLK (cataclysm had a huge drop in population compared to other expansions, and it improved many game mechanics, including dungeon and raiding difficulties).

that's why many people consider WotLK as the end of warcraft saga. therefore, the saying: "tell them only that the lich king is dead and that world of warcraft died with him".

to paraphrase Bolvar Fordragon at the end of WotLK cinematic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

No, just you neglecting the story again (because you haven't read it and don't value it). For starters, no Elf would read some evil book and imagine themselves on the side of the Enemy. It'd be utterly against their nature for them to associate themselves with Sauron & Co. in any way.

---

evil has nothing to do with what an Angmarim or Numenorean that narrates an event such as a past battle against free people.

if you wanna play semantics and locate evil as a mysterious mythological trascendental force that permeates and imbues a book, then, that's part of your interpretation.

an Angmarim or Numenorean writting a book or a few pages narrating a story from a past battle does not need to have a mysterious evil force that prevents elves from reading.

in fact SSG plays with these ideas by making Jajax an ally to free people. and he's supposed to be a Corsair.


active imagination and self-identification have nothing to do with each other. picturing something while you read it has nothing to do with feeling pleasure from imagining yourself killing someone. in this case you're failing to differentiate both.

i guess that you can picture what a murderer does through a story without the need to feel like you're a murderer. point of view and identification are two different things.

for example, in a neo noir tale, sometimes a detective has to place himself in the mind of a murderer to know how he acts and what's his motivation. but it has nothing to do with feeling pleasure from killing someone.

knowing your enemy is what makes you immune to his logic and motives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

I'm going to put it plainly then, if you think you know the devs' business better than they do then that'd be unbridled hubris and arrogance.

---

i think you developed the habit of idealizing a bunch of people too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

No, it's just generic fantasy that'll cheerfully borrow anything (including Tolkien tropes) and it's entirely derivative; all been seen elsewhere before. I laughed out loud when I first saw Blackrock Mountain and saw a volcano with a great big door in it. Hmm, whatever could they have been referencing there? When Tolkien was writing, his work was highly original and became a hugely influential classic that brought fantasy into the mainstream, whereas WoW is just a mishmash of popular fantasy and pop-cultural references and Warcraft started out as a ripoff of Warhammer.

---

yeah, and they still had managed to sell a lot of books related to Warcraft lore through 15 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfhelm

I plan to watch the new series, hopefully with an open mind and judge for myself whether or not it's worthy of sticking around for. I have serious reservations, given some of the things I've read, but you never know, it might surprise.

---

Also (posted by Arnenna) "For the purpose of this thread though, and back to the topic it raised. I don't think this TV series will have any effect on the true Tolkien fans that play this game. If its entertaining, they may watch it, if its ridiculous over the top fantasy, they probably wont, but they will still come here for their real LotR fix (meaning as close to the book as they can get), which is based on a book that they love and cherish. If the producers ever stray too far away from that, they will lose their main audience."

I agree with both sentiments. Conflating a new series (that may or may not be any good) with LOTRO is a stretch at best, an argument looking for a premise at worst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spaltung

this does not represent Cataclysm being a huge improvement to game mechanics

---

Players look at the whole package, not just technical improvements. What about content? You didn't even mention that. I remember Cata being a bit meh but I didn't give a damn about the story and there was never much talk on the forums about that, just the gameplay.

You're also ignoring other changes that had happened in the meantime. WoW had grown steadily less friendly and more impersonal as it had gone on. People who remembered the sense of community we had in vanilla felt something had been lost. (Hence the appeal of Classic...)

Quote:

---

an Angmarim or Numenorean writting a book or a few pages narrating a story from a past battle

---

Your concept falls over at the point it'd require characters to actively associate *themselves* with what's going on in the account. If you were keeping emotional distance from it you'd picture the person who wrote it. A bit different from wanting to actively picture yourself there as a gleeful participant in his misdeeds.

Quote:

---

in fact SSG plays with these ideas by making Jajax an ally to free people. and he's supposed to be a Corsair.

---

It's clearly hinted in LOTR that the ordinary Easterlings and Haradrim weren't all evil. Unlike the guys in charge and their fanatical followers who'd really bought into it. So I've got no problem with that.

Quote:

---

i think you developed the habit of idealizing a bunch of people too much.

---

You think I idealise the devs? Hardly. The point is that they're professionals and I'm just some guy who's never so much as worked in the gaming industry. I don't have the gall to imagine I really know their business and nor should you.

Quote:

---

yeah, and they still had managed to sell a lot of books related to Warcraft lore through 15 years.

---

Merch published on the basis of a game's popularity is nothing like the same as a novel being the basis for an IP and the fundamental source of its popularity,

Again, WoW lore was always hard to take seriously because it was junk fantasy that Blizzard didn't really give a damn about and would change wholesale any time they fancied. People were initially drawn to WoW primarily because it looked like a decent game and Blizzard had a proven ability to deliver the goods, rather than because of the story. After WoW was announced there was a ton of hype even before WC3 came out the following year, i.e. before we even knew about the story elements you seem to think were such a draw. I'd made up my mind that I'd most likely play WoW when it came out before I even bought WC3. Even then there was something about it that said "next big thing" (in MMO circles at least), although none of us had any idea just how broad its appeal would end up being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Players look at the whole package, not just technical improvements. What about content? You didn't even mention that. I remember Cata being a bit meh but I didn't give a damn about the story and there was never much talk on the forums about that, just the gameplay.

You're also ignoring other changes that had happened in the meantime. WoW had grown steadily less friendly and more impersonal as it had gone on. People who remembered the sense of community we had in vanilla felt something had been lost. (Hence the appeal of Classic...)

---

that was the main point.

the game became a bigger thing than its lore over the years.

cataclysm had a ton of investment on both Kalimdor and Eastern Kingdoms by re-designing both, they had to do it all over from scratch, with new quests and stuff to make it available for flying mounts.

blizzard started to use lore with gaming purposes in mind, rather than the opposite: gaming purposes subject to lore.

that's why deathwing destroys azeroth, because they had to justify a re-design for azeroth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Your concept falls over at the point it'd require characters to actively associate *themselves* with what's going on in the account. If you were keeping emotional distance from it you'd picture the person who wrote it. A bit different from wanting to actively picture yourself there as a gleeful participant in his misdeeds.

---

reading a story is totally impersonal because it happens through you and not by you (this can be understood with the concept "signifiying chain"), one cannot help to imagine such events. which would justify a player being able to play in a battle impersonally.

it'd be like saying: "hey, do not imagine a white elephant". the signifying relationships are created with no need for an ego to happen (because ego is a by product of that signifying chain too).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spaltung

that was the main point.

the game became a bigger thing than its lore over the years.

cataclysm had a ton of investment on both Kalimdor and Eastern Kingdoms by re-designing both, they had to do it all over from scratch, with new quests and stuff to make it available for flying mounts.

blizzard started to use lore with gaming purposes in mind, rather than the opposite: gaming purposes subject to lore.

that's why deathwing destroys azeroth, because they had to justify a re-design for azeroth.

---

That only illustrates how flimsy their lore is. Lore affects gameplay, to add a bit of flavour? Get rid of it! Need an internal reason for gameplay changes? Make something up! (And having a big angry dragon trashing things is just a plot point, not 'lore').

I don't recall us ever getting an explanation as to why the Night Elves suddenly lost their ten-millennia-old horror of arcane magic. It just happened. And that sort of thing is why their story is just disposable trash fantasy, where even huge things like that just get conveniently forgotten. Also why most people don't give a damn about it because there's no point.

Quote:

---

reading a story is totally impersonal because it happens through you and not by you (this can be understood with the concept "signifiying chain"), one cannot help to imagine such events. which would justify a player being able to play in a battle impersonally.

it'd be like saying: "hey, do not imagine a white elephant". the signifying relationships are created with no need for an ego to happen (because ego is a by product of that signifying chain too).

---

If it was just happening 'through you' then all you'd ever get would be session play, i.e. a recreation of what 'actually' happened. Not something where you have any real agency. You actually want it to be 'by you' to allow for player agency, if it's a would-be excuse for PvP. So no, that doesn't hold water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spaltung

reading a story is totally impersonal

---

no. To someone with the humanizing attributes of empathy, or imagination (to name two), reading a story is anything BUT impersonal.
This is why stories have protagonists and antagonists, and normal people usually identify with, and care for the former, while disliking
and rooting against the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flaxie

no. To someone with the humanizing attributes of empathy, or imagination (to name two), reading a story is anything BUT impersonal.
This is why stories have protagonists and antagonists, and normal people usually identify with, and care for the former, while disliking
and rooting against the latter.

---

You're probably wasting your time here, Spaltung has already admitted that he doesn't read novels, so probably won't be able to relate to what you're saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

Again, WoW lore was always hard to take seriously because it was junk fantasy that Blizzard didn't really give a damn about and would change wholesale any time they fancied.

---

Absolutely correct. Trying to compare WoW "lore" to Tolkien is like comparing Justin Bieber to Mozart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

If it was just happening 'through you' then all you'd ever get would be session play, i.e. a recreation of what 'actually' happened. Not something where you have any real agency. You actually want it to be 'by you' to allow for player agency, if it's a would-be excuse for PvP. So no, that doesn't hold water.

---

that's not accurate. playing through Mordor Besieged or Azanulbizar wasn't made through a session play because it was meant to be a big part of an expansion and update (minas morgul & blood of azog).

it'd be odd for a player to play half an expansion as an NPC.

it has nothing to do with agency or motives. although you can interpret that way if you want, that's up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flaxie

no. To someone with the humanizing attributes of empathy, or imagination (to name two), reading a story is anything BUT impersonal.
This is why stories have protagonists and antagonists, and normal people usually identify with, and care for the former, while disliking
and rooting against the latter.

---

that's not accurate either.

while you're reading a story you cannot decide which elements are being brought to it. the color of the sky, the shape of the characters, their faces, the scenarios are not under control, although it can be manipulated by what you're reading (for example, descriptions).

that's because it is happening without your conscious agency.


people identify themselves with protagonists and antagonists equally, because an antagonist reflects whatever one dislikes about oneself. it's a very ancient mechanism called psychological projection.

but we don't choose to identify, like or dislike to those qualities. those were created by the culture in which we were raised.

for example, the whole idea of individuality and autonomy is brand new in western society and it was created as an effect produced by scientific knowledge.

there are tribes that did not develop an ego, individuality and autonomy the same way westerners made in the last 300 years.

they treat each other as an extension of themselves with no names or individual qualities.

so, knowledge produces certain effects that are not under our conscious control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU

If you really wanted to get my goat you should have said you liked the live action Cowboy Beebop :rolleyes:

---

Not to pull this thread back off course too much, but I'm coming in late to the conversation.

Now. As a very long time and deep fan of Bebop, I very much liked the live action interpretation. Was it every going to mirror the anime? no. and quite frankly expecting it to was an exercise destined for failure and being upset that it failed is just, IMO, silly/childish. Adaptive works are just that, adaptive and by necessity, constraints, and changing time require changes. The series kept the core idea of the story, kept the core idea of the characters. They kept many element and tweaked others, merged stories and created new one and it was a fun ride until toxic fandom who refused to give it a honestly fair look through an adaptive eye killed it off. (again, that last is IMO). They saw the changes and were hyper vocal about how it ruined the property when it did nothing. We still had Spike 'running' from his past, we had Jet coming to terms with his past, and Faye trying to figure out her past. With each element wearing slightly updated clothes and as the story is about the characters and their growths from past to potential self, I'm very sad we'll never see that realized future.

Jackson made changes by necessity while trying remain true to the source material and I think he did an admiral job but even he made stylistic choice changes most notably with the removal of Tom Bombadil as well as the removal of the Scouring of the Shire and the death of Saruman in the extended version.

We have "generic fantasy" because Tolkien gave us the foundation upon which 'generic fantasy' and rest, take root, and grow. To say that the Amazon is just using the back drop of Tolkien's work and making a generic fantasy story out of it is the ultimate in call backs to Tolkien as the primary progenitor of the genre. But that's just my take as well maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halphast

It's the same as the stereotype of the "strong" male. Goes around being angry and fighting... does the entertainment industry know how to show any other kind of strength, regardless of gender?

---

Yes: Newt Scamander as played by Eddie Redmayne to name one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spaltung

t


reading a story is totally impersonal because it happens through you and not by you

---

Sorry, cannot agree with this at all, and I mean seriously, at all. I've been reading since before kindergarten, and I'll be the first to say that reading stories is VERY personal. Saying that readinf stories is impersonal is 100% inaccurate. Not even close to the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iktomi

Not to pull this thread back off course too much, but I'm coming in late to the conversation.

Now. As a very long time and deep fan of Bebop, I very much liked the live action interpretation. Was it every going to mirror the anime? no. and quite frankly expecting it to was an exercise destined for failure and being upset that it failed is just, IMO, silly/childish. Adaptive works are just that, adaptive and by necessity, constraints, and changing time require changes. The series kept the core idea of the story, kept the core idea of the characters. They kept many element and tweaked others, merged stories and created new one and it was a fun ride until toxic fandom who refused to give it a honestly fair look through an adaptive eye killed it off. (again, that last is IMO). They saw the changes and were hyper vocal about how it ruined the property when it did nothing. We still had Spike 'running' from his past, we had Jet coming to terms with his past, and Faye trying to figure out her past. With each element wearing slightly updated clothes and as the story is about the characters and their growths from past to potential self, I'm very sad we'll never see that realized future.

.

---

I liked both the animated and live versions of Cowboy Bebop. I honestly had no issues with the live version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidmeetHal

Sorry, cannot agree with this at all, and I mean seriously, at all. I've been reading since before kindergarten, and I'll be the first to say that reading stories is VERY personal. Saying that readinf stories is impersonal is 100% inaccurate. Not even close to the truth.

---

I agree absolutely. We don't necessarily put ourselves into the story (certainly I don't), but we empathize with the characters and try to understand their feelings and motivations. I also like to get a feel for what the different characters look like, sometimes almost subconsciously putting the faces of actors on them. If you and I were to read the same novel, then of course we are both reading the same story, but what we think and feel and what we see with our mind's eye may be vastly different. Only someone who never reads novels could think otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spaltung

that's not accurate

---

Missing the point. By using it as a would-be pretext for PvP you're talking about taking the part of someone on the Enemy side and revelling in slaughter. If it were narrative which humanised someone on the other side who wasn't evil and showed how awful it was and their struggle to be free of it then that would be fine, but instead it'd be someone who's evil and loving it (assuming you want your PvP to be fun). And that would be the sort of tale that people like our player-characters would instinctively reject, shrink from or feel sick or dirty just from reading and so wouldn't associate themselves with, and there your idea falls over.

Hmm this thread got seriously hijacked on one side and derailed on the other.. Fact is that it has little to do with the OP

Why don't the mods do there thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iktomi

Now. As a very long time and deep fan of Bebop, I very much liked the live action interpretation. Was it every going to mirror the anime? no. and quite frankly expecting it to was an exercise destined for failure and being upset that it failed is just, IMO, silly/childish. Adaptive works are just that, adaptive and by necessity, constraints, and changing time require changes. The series kept the core idea of the story, kept the core idea of the characters. They kept many element and tweaked others, merged stories and created new one and it was a fun ride until toxic fandom who refused to give it a honestly fair look through an adaptive eye killed it off.

---

It's facile to blame toxic fandom. I simply didn't like it, it seemed flat and 'off' somehow and I couldn't get into it. Everyone knows that doing live-action adaptations of anime is a minefield. Sometimes it works, often it doesn't. Sometimes things are of their time (and their original medium) and it's best to leave them there - and it's not just anime that applies to, like for example I could see why Luc Besson had a thing for Valerian but it didn't strike me as something to turn into a movie.

Quote:

---

Jackson made changes by necessity while trying remain true to the source material

---

Largely true but there were missteps, like overusing the Dead. I could see the practical necessity of simplifying the narrative (they were trying to get a quart into a pint pot) but turning a hard-fought victory into a deus ex machina was too much. I was unperturbed by about things like Bombadil being left out (too out of left field for the audience to get) or the lack of the Scouring (because RotK was already overlong and didn't need yet another false ending).

Quote:

---

We have "generic fantasy" because Tolkien gave us the foundation upon which 'generic fantasy' and rest, take root, and grow. To say that the Amazon is just using the back drop of Tolkien's work and making a generic fantasy story out of it is the ultimate in call backs to Tolkien as the primary progenitor of the genre. But that's just my take as well maybe.

---

Not a callback but rather what mainstream fantasy has become coming back to haunt the work that inadvertently started it. Generic fantasy is a big bag of popular tropes that don't all have their source in Tolkien and aren't all compatible with the sort of tale he was trying to tell (old-fashioned, aiming for the feel of ancient myth and legend). To which you can add their apparent urge to 'modernise' it (how do you modernise something that was purposely retro, I wonder?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daeborn

I have played Lotro almost since launch, and I love this game. But we all know its one unsub away from being discontinued, and Im afraid the amazon tv-serie is going to be the haybale that broke the camels back.
Does anyone else have any feelings about this?

---

From what I've seen the show will be awful... But this game stands apart - different age - but also some people will love the new show and come to Lotro.
Let's just hope the show won't suck too hard :-D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pieck

From what I've seen the show will be awful... But this game stands apart - different age - but also some people will love the new show and come to Lotro.
Let's just hope the show won't suck too hard :-D

---

This is the most sensible comment in this thread. Anyone who plays Lotro won't stop playing because of this TV show but those who don't play and watch the show just might come and dip their toes in the 3rd age.

I'm quite optimistic about the new show. So far, virtually all of the complaints I've seen have been refuted with citations. And the one that remains is extremely weak. I obviously can't say it will be good or bad, but I'm not on the tragedy train. And new players are always good for the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trixie_Me

I'm quite optimistic about the new show. So far, virtually all of the complaints I've seen have been refuted with citations. And the one that remains is extremely weak.

---

Could you tell us what you're referring to, please? Because that sounds extremely unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidmeetHal

Sorry, cannot agree with this at all, and I mean seriously, at all. I've been reading since before kindergarten, and I'll be the first to say that reading stories is VERY personal. Saying that readinf stories is impersonal is 100% inaccurate. Not even close to the truth.

---

i'm sure it seems like that,

whatever seems personal to us is impersonal in the sense that it does not happen because there's a God that loves us, it just happens as a consequence of a seriality of events that are presented as neutral, but repreat through their presence of and abscence of, which creates and shapes the possibilities and impossibilities that characterizes meaning and sensible experience as a result. whatever seems real it's just created by a system of differences.


in other words, einstein was wrong: God plays dices.

he rejected the most radical parts of his own discoveries for an irrational attachment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spaltung

i'm sure it seems like that,

whatever seems personal to us is impersonal in the sense that it does not happen because there's a God that loves us, it just happens as a consequence of a seriality of events that are presented as neutral, but repreat through their presence of and abscence of, which creates and shapes the possibilities and impossibilities that characterizes meaning and sensible experience as a result. whatever seems real it's just created by a system of differences.


in other words, einstein was wrong: God plays dices.

he rejected the most radical parts of his own discoveries for an irrational attachment.

---

WTAF?

(More67890forlength)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MourneBlade

WTAF?

(More67890forlength)

---

I know huh? I was like “whaaaaat?”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidmeetHal

I know huh? I was like “whaaaaat?”

---

oh. Oh. OH!, Now I understand! Security has failed, one of the patients has gotten access to a computer!

I’m excited for the show. It looks good to me from what I’ve seen. I’ve seen plenty of the hate videos about it on YouTube and tbh it seems majority of them are from people whose “love of Tolkien” starts and ends with Peter Jackson’s films. They flip out over the skin tone of an elf or dwarf but not that Sauron is depicted as a giant flaming eyeball spotlight thing. Like one of these is a much bigger departure from Tolkien you know? On many of the channels I looked at their history and notice they never mention anything Tolkien related before. They just jump on the outrage bandwagon because the YouTube algorithm is promoting those videos atm and they get views and ad revenue from it. I haven’t put much mind to them since. Same with GoT. I enjoyed the final season. It was not as good as previous ones but it was not the end of the world or “ruined” to me.

As for lotro, I think it will get a minor bump. Not much. No big influx of players came with The Hobbit movies. I don’t think it will change.