Destiny-Locked

Just a week ago, Lord of the Rings Online launched. Every wannabe game writer on the planet had their shot at a preview and a review and a perspective and an opinion. There seems to be a near-universal consensus on a few points.

-- It's World of Warcraft in Tolkien clothing.
-- It launched cleanly.
-- For a dedicated MMO player, LOTRO will just be an intermezzo -- something to tide them over until they either regain their passion for the One True Game, or move on to Warhammer or Age of Conan.

I believe all of this is true. I also think it misses the point.

My experience with MMOs has been similar to my experience in most games -- short term bursts of fashion, a modicum of skill, followed by a decline in interest, ending in a sense of guilt that I have moved on and somehow betrayed something which I loved, and loved me in return.

Lord of the Rings Online has only been part of my canon for a few months. I'm not naive enough to utter the four most expensive words in the English language (this time it's different) but I am willing to say that to dismiss LOTRO as just another MMO is a mistake.

What sets LOTRO apart on the surface is the story. Not the world, the story. Yes, LOTRO benefits from having a rich backdrop of shared experience. Everyone knows what a hobbit looks like, how elves talk, and where the Old Forest is. But this background is nothing more than a shortcut. World of Warcraft, EVE Online, Neocron -- they each have deep, well developed stories, and given the maturity of those worlds, the stories are for fans as convoluted, interesting, and compelling as Tolkien stories are to Tolkien fans. And while the shared knowledge creates accessibility, successful MMOs have long since learned how to bring new players into the stories, the world, and the characters in it in a believable and comfortable way.

The reason that Story sets LOTRO apart is because you know how it ends. This is a luxury World of Warcraft simply can never have. There is no logical end to WoW, where the evil WoW faction of the Horde is victorious, and every member of the good-aligned Alliance dies. The viciously PvP nature of EVE Online means that the story can only sit on the sidelines and inform, not take center stage. But in LOTRO, the game is the story. In this, the game has far more in common with Oblivion than it does with WoW.

When dedicated WoW players join LOTRO, they are hit with what's so similar. The skill system, the crafting system, targeting, combat, even much of the interface can be seen as derivative. Of course, that's the point. WoW built on what worked in the games before its rise to dominance, just as Ultima Online drew on what worked in the 3/4 view RPGs that predated it. This isn't unoriginal, it's common sense. Turbine has simply chosen to use conventions players already know. While there are unique tweaks here and there, and while those could form the basis of an endless discussion of pros and cons, they simply don't matter. These players will simply not survive long in the game. The lack of a real PvP system, and the "just different enough" aspect of the game will likely drive them back to WoW, or on to new games that offer genuine gameplay innovation.

What will keep LOTRO alive is the players who want to be part of a story. Yes, this will mean legions of scary Tolkein freaks who will sit in OOC chat and argue about what kind of tobacco should grow in the shire. But it also means that for those gamers able to admit their love for the story lines in games like Planescape: Torment and Oblivion, there's a new animal here. It's the Co-Op Destiny-locked RPG.

This new beast compels different motivations than WoW. In WoW, the ultimate goal is power. Capping your character is about accessing end game content, and end game content is about new shiny, more powerful PvP, and killing yet bigger bad guys. Don't get me wrong, I love pretty shiny things. And I love power-gathering and PvP and big bad guys. But LOTRO is simply designed to scratch a different itch.

When I log on to play for an evening, sure, I'm stoked if I level up. But I'm stoked not because becoming a bigger bad ass in its own right is fun. No, it's because I know that with more power, I will gain access to more plot. The story -- the real story -- of LOTRO starts at point A, and will, someday, lead to Point B with the destruction of the One Ring. Becoming more powerful means I can read one chapter further into that story, and play my small part in it. And by chapter I mean chapter -- the main story quests are divided into Chapters and Books, apparently following the loose timelines of the six books in the Lord of the Rings. (For the under-geeked, the Lord of the Rings is actually divided into 6 logical books, two packaged into each physical book.) If I'm grouped (umm... fellowed) with like minded souls, the denouement of a given chapter can be breathtaking not because we killed the baddie (woot!) but because we got to experience the story from a first person perspective.

In short, it makes me feel important to the life of the game. Just like Oblivion. Just like Planescape: Torment. And while in those games I know that generally speaking, "the good guys win," in the case of LOTRO, I know how the good guys win. The story I participate in sidecars along known events with known outcomes. Already Turbine has dropped the first carrot out there for new players. In June they're releasing the first content expansion, letting players tag along as Strider goes on a scavenger hunt for all the bits he needs to remake the "sword that was broken." We know what happens -- the sword gets remade. We know when it happens -- sometime between when Frodo shows up at Rivendell unconscious and the lazy buggers get their act together and start heading south. But we've never really known much about how it happened. We get to be part of that story. And while this could devolve into a plodding life of Calvinist pre-determination, so far, it hasn't. Turbine has managed to make the game feel fluid and open, while riding the story on rails.

And while all MMOs can be seen as co-op (after all, that's what grouping is all about), in the case of LOTRO the co-op is the whole point. While much of the content and all of the power of the game could be had solo, the story threads -- the chapters and books -- can't be pursued very far without help. I suppose theoretically a dedicated solo player could wait until they were level 40 to tackle the level 20 chapters solo, but along the way they would have missed most of the game. The game is designed so that everyone is on the same side, pursuing the same goals, together.

It's not a perfect game. As with any game, there are plenty of bugs, or just things that could be done better. It's not a "Killer" or "better than" any other MMO. But it is different in ways that won't show up on any tally sheet of features or rating system.

And different is good.

Comments

Farscry wrote:

I guess the short of it is that the Lord of the Rings license on this product actually harms it for me.

Yeah I agree. Doing the kind of mundane repetitive things you do in an MMO, running alongside folks named Legolazz or Gymli, it just cheapens the great experience of the book. This just isn't what LOTR is about for me. I'd be happy if I never saw another licensed LOTR product - I think the movies did the books justice, but that's as far as it needs to go for me. The books are really enough.

AcidCat wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I guess the short of it is that the Lord of the Rings license on this product actually harms it for me.

Yeah I agree. Doing the kind of mundane repetitive things you do in an MMO, running alongside folks named Legolazz or Gymli, it just cheapens the great experience of the book. This just isn't what LOTR is about for me. I'd be happy if I never saw another licensed LOTR product - I think the movies did the books justice, but that's as far as it needs to go for me. The books are really enough.

I am hoping for a 4th age ES type game. I think that could work.

As a currently non-MMO player, this article said something for me about why I'm not playing WoW that no one else has brought up.

I don't play games for pure power. I do not want to spend bunch-teen hours molesting sparklebunnies to get my character to level whatever so I can beat the Great Big Dingy Whatever lurking in Overwrought Hollow so it drops the Shimmering Paisley breastplate. Without an over-arching story, that's just mowing the digital lawn. I have no desire for PvP at all. I don't feel any need to duel with others. Especially not the sort of hazing "let's go gank the newb" that some people delight in doing.

I might do it in an offline game because I want to get through to the story. For example, I've got an FFX gamesave with all of the Ultimate Weapons fully charged, and that includes Wakkas which requires playing 250+ games of blitzball. But that was because I wanted to get everything in the game because someone told me it would change the ending of the story. Which it didn't, BTW. I found out later that was only in the Japanese version. I have a 100% FFX-2 save and you don't even want to know what it takes to get that. Frickin' monkeys. I did it because it's the only way to get the two of them back together and for me that was the point of bothering with the whole stupid game. I'm damned skippy not going to pay a monthly fee to go there.

Am I going to just run out and start playing LOTRO? Probably not. The rest of the real-life issues I'm dealing with right now would keep me from investing enough time. I'd just be some sort of digital dingleberry on my Fellowship. Plus I'm enough of a Tolkien geek that would just make the failing sting even more. But if I was going to suddenly develop enough spare time, this would make me choose this over WoW or anything else out there right now. We'll see about Age of Conan when it shows up.

I think the WoW storyline is getting shafted a bit...Is it as good as Tolkien? Of course not! But there are some very good, engaging stories in there.

The whole Storrmwind/Defias political struggle is a great example of a story where you start out thinking you're one of the good guys and you gradually develop a nagging feeling that the guys you've been killing (Defias) have a legitimate beef.

And what about the whole enviro-terrorist angle with the Venture Company deforestation schemes? Good stuff!

I think that just because WoW doesn't rely on its stories for keeping the player engaged, people either assume the stories are all fluff or they just race right past them.

Farscry wrote:
rabbit wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Spoiler stuff

Spoiler wrote:

[color=white]
Unless I'm wrong, when Frodo got pricked by the blade in book 1, doesn't Strider go on about how people wounded by things like that turn into servants of the RW? I'm no deep geek on this stuff honestly.[/color]

Spoiler response

[color=white]While that's true, I don't recall ever reading about the process ending up that way for anyone else in Middle-Earth, so I suspect that it would've killed him and turned him into a wight perhaps, but not a ringwraith.

I just really didn't feel that that part of the story really worked for me. Maybe my Tolkien geekiness (which is mild compared to others I know) makes it tougher for me to enjoy stuff that feels like it violates Middle-Earth canon too much.[/color]

Spoiler response response:

[color=white]I seem to remember that the dude wasn't turned into a ringwraith so much as some crazy undead wight thingy. I'll let you know when I go through it with my second character. Does that make it better?[/color]
hubbinsd wrote:

I think that just because WoW doesn't rely on its stories for keeping the player engaged, people either assume the stories are all fluff or they just race right past them.

If the majority of the players are not actually playing the story, but instead just tallying checklists, then the story is rendered lame. If the MMO part of the RPG detracts from my ability to invest myself into the story, then I will just play Oblivion.

hubbinsd - Those stories are nearly okay, but they are conveyed in such a slipshod, haphazard manner that they are rendered useless. At least half of any good story is its telling; I'd give these plots a C in terms of content and an F- in terms of presentation.

I just started a thread that sort of discusses what I would like to see, here.

wordsmythe wrote:
hubbinsd wrote:

I think that just because WoW doesn't rely on its stories for keeping the player engaged, people either assume the stories are all fluff or they just race right past them.

If the majority of the players are not actually playing the story, but instead just tallying checklists, then the story is rendered lame. If the MMO part of the RPG detracts from my ability to invest myself into the story, then I will just play Oblivion.

Especially since there is a fair contingent who not only are ignoring the story, but are actively making sure other players don't get a shot at it. While I don't hold WoW responsible for that sort of asshatery, that doesn't mean I'm willing to put up with it to get to something as thin as that political unrest mentioned above.

Enchanted Arms is better than that, for crying out loud.

We all know the story...

Back in the days of yore, programmers used to design the entire game. This included creation of art, sound and story assets. Being God in a virtual world of your own, having full control, is an irresistible draw, and it was made possible by the generally low requirements on presentation. The author of PONG did not need a team of dedicated artists. Years later, neither did the author of Arkanoid.

As time went on, more and more tasks started being offloaded from the programmer to the other team members. Art was first. Then sound. The last remnants of the era of old could be seen in Quake 2 - as the player ventured into the alien prison bunkers filled with tortured marines, he was subjected to the truly horrifying experience - the voice acting skills of the id software crew.

Today, all of the game's presentation is offloaded to different teams - 3D models, landscapes, texture art, sound. But, surprisingly, professional writers are still seen as an unneeded luxury. Before, it was the programmer's ego. Now it is the project designers who deem themselves to be the almighty gods of powerful storytelling.

Most of the time, they get away with this approach. The reason is simple - "original content". I have nothing to say to the goblin trader in World of Warcraft who tells me to "Keep it real", because, hey, that's how that goblin trader IS. I also have nothing to say about the fact that he just asked me to bring him 15 Murloc Feet, because, hey, perhaps, that's what he eats for dinner.

In this light, Lord Of The Rings Online is put in a position unlike the majority of games of its type. It is based on a highly detailed universe which is intricately known and loved by millions, if not billions of people. For a game like this, employing talented writers is not a luxury - it is a _requirement_.
The spirit of a rich, established universe simply cannot be kept alive by a team of game developers. The Matrix Online and Star Wars: Galaxies have gone down this wobbly path before and drowned in their inadequacy.

Alas, for reasons unknown, Turbine has not learned from the mistakes of its predecessors. As I was wandering through the world, I repeatedly found myself thrown back into the alien bunker, listening to to John Carmack's nasal voice inexplicably tied to a wounded marine , begging me to finish him off.

Maybe the grander purpose of LOTRO is to finally blow the lid on the whole thing. Many of us are not 15 anymore. Inserting the word "Frodo" into a Murloc quest and flashing a ring before our eyes does not make you Tolkien. It's not "just words". It's not something that "anyone can cook up at the last minute". Get over your writing aspirations, hire professionals, or lose a good chunk of your potential player base. It's that simple.

wordsmythe wrote:
hubbinsd wrote:

I think that just because WoW doesn't rely on its stories for keeping the player engaged, people either assume the stories are all fluff or they just race right past them.

If the majority of the players are not actually playing the story, but instead just tallying checklists, then the story is rendered lame. If the MMO part of the RPG detracts from my ability to invest myself into the story, then I will just play Oblivion.

I'm not sure I follow that logic. If the players pay attention to the story, then it is good, and if they don't then it is bad?

I won't argue that WoW is an MMO first and the story comes second, I'm just saying I think the stories can be very enjoyable. But I would argue that based on my, admittedly limited, experiences the presentation of the stories in LOTRO is not much better. They are no more integrated into the gameplay, and LOTRO relies just as much on tallying checklists as WoW does...just look at the accomplishments, they're all about checklists.

I'm not trying to come down on LOTRO - it seems like it could be a good game and I look forward to trying it again. It just seems that it may be getting a lot of slack as far as the story elements go because it has the luxury of having so much great writing to set the stage.

I wrote about it more in the other thread, Hubbins, but the idea is that if the other players aren't part of the story -- if they're doing their own instanced parts of the plot that you will do on your own time, or, heaven forefend, they are all standing around the bank shouting command words and selling useless garbage to put in your home, they will break the narrative flow.

shihonage wrote:

Get over it your writing aspirations, hire professionals, or lose a good chunk of your potential player base. It's that simple.

And here I just finished thinking about how there are no jobs out there that involve the things I love! Please start hiring professional writers!

Quick question:

How much of the actual story content (Book X: Chapter X) is doable solo or with a small group? Does it all require 5 person groups?

hubbinsd wrote:

I'm not sure I follow that logic. If the players pay attention to the story, then it is good, and if they don't then it is bad?

Yes, but let's get causality in the right place - if the story is good and well told (this is covered in the thread I started earlier), then the players will pay attention. Or more of them will. If the story is bad or poorly told, the players will not.

Therefore, if you have a game where players are not paying attention to the story, then yes, the story is bad (or badly told).

shiho makes a fantastic point, I could not have said it better myself - the gaming industry has contempt for writing, and some of it still has contempt for story altogether. I never finished Doom, Quake, Quake 2, etc. because there was no story compelling me to go forwards. The id guys openly laughed at the idea of a story in an FPS, yet they betrayed that they knew a story was necessary by tacking on the occasional page of text, or the awesome CGI opening to Quake 2.

What we consider to be a good story in a video game would be the worst movie you've ever seen, or most predictable book you've ever read. There are the occasional stories that are good enough to stand on their own, but by and large they are just the barest context for the actions the game designer is trying to get you to perform.

shihonage wrote:

It's not "just words". It's not something that "anyone can cook up at the last minute". Get over your writing aspirations, hire professionals, or lose a good chunk of your potential player base. It's that simple.

Wow, that just nails it for me. Nothing really to add, just that I've been increasingly disappointed with storytelling in games as I've gotten older, with only a few notable exceptions. Sometimes I wish they would dispense with the writing in games altogether, as often it's so trite, unimaginative and plain boring that it distracts me from the game and just nukes any suspension of disbelief I've managed to build.

Shihonage,

I couldn't agree with you more if you were in my own brain. But I guess I think that Turbine has in this case hired at least SOME folks who know how to write SOME of it, because I've really enjoyed the writing of the thing, as much as the game. Maybe that makes me a no-talent hack with no taste for prose, but hey, it's just my opinion. Is it perfect? No way. Is it better than SWG was in the glorious beginning? I think so, from a story perspective. And I loved SWG in the beginning.

Some great discussion here. I agree 100% that the quests were more interesting than WoW and that the story was more involved and made you feel important. I also agree that the combat system and mechanics are generally clumsy. But what really killed this game for me was the look: it just felt bland and generic, from the characters clothes to the terrain.

I understand that visuals are largely subjective, but I felt that one of the strengths of the LOTR franchise was to evoke a glorious, mystical fantasy world, both in the books and in the films. Every character felt larger than life, and every setting reeked of wonder. I really felt that the visual experience in LOTRO is not up to snuff in this regard. I feel like this is more a stylistic issue than quality issue: we've all seen how WoW could make even the lowbie zones come to life. The first two zones in the LOTR beta just felt tired. This really took AWAY from the story for me, and I couldn't appreciate it because apart from the text on the screen, my brain made absolutely zero connection between the image in front of me and the world of middle-earth.

Again, just a subjective opinion. If you like the art style, more power too you and enjoy your game experience. I just believe that a powerful, unique, creative style is among the factors that made WoW the hit that it is; and for MMO's to compete long-term against that monster at a large-scale level, they will have to match it toe-to-toe stylisticly.

I like the writing a lot too. It's exceptionally well-done. But they rely too much on it.

Rabbit, you've been slashdotted.

A good story wont make a bad game suddenly "fun" or "not bad" just as the complete lack of story wont suddenly turn a stellar game into an also ran.

As long as games are interactive (and also possibly social) then what the player(s) actually do in the game end up FAR more lasting and important than a narrative story.

Our Guild in WoW has plenty of "stories" that we all recall fondly and still talk about this day from our "adventures" in the game.. which to me is of far greater significance than a canned narrative.

Like when Loki soloed BWL.

I admire LOTR and the story through out. While I am encouraged to give it a try I find myself currently engrossed in another MMO called Vanguard. Perhaps I will give it a try when my interest there wains. However let me bring another MMO to light that I feel deserves a bit of light. A spy-fi (as they call it) MMO called Global Agenda. This article here has more on it and links to more info: http://razorwire.warcry.com/news/vie...

Cheers and keep up the great writing!

a few things:
1) you can turn on a particle animation that plays to notify you when a skill is ready to use. I think it's in the combat options. I haven't actually tried this yet. The main problem is that the ui is not scalable (so if you're running at a really high rez it's really really small)--hopefully they'll change this soon.

2) my hobbit minstrel has solo'd most of the shire. I have jumped in a couple random fellowships when i've seen folks all waiting around for the same spawn, but in general i've been able to manage on my own. I haven't actually played in a really large group yet.

3) my hobbit has spent all of 15 levels in the shire! I went to bree once just to see it, but quickly ran home. I really like the 'shape' of the game, and i plan to get to know all of the shire (and finish most of the quests) before poking my hobbit feet out into the big world.

4) i think perhaps some people are taking the game too seriously. I've really enjoyed kicking back and playing my harp on a mountain top overlooking the party tree and engaging passing elves in long conversations about taters. I also like to sit in a random pub and smoke my pipe, watching the toons come and go. i do have a couple power-players on my friends list, and they do give me a hard time about my low level, but i notice that they also seem to come back regularly to hang out in the shire with me. I purposefully avoided wow, so maybe it happens there too, but there's a layer of juicy social goodness that i'm really enjoying.

I'm glad rabbit likes it, but i'm a little dismayed by how much negative feedback is in the forum replies. this game seems to embody every kind of 'play' i like to get from my games (including social play/light rp). Didn't i see somewhere that you guys are on landroval? 'cause that's where i rolled. Keep an eye out for a little grey-haired hobbit named 'hanna'. but don't look for her outside of the shire for a while yet!

TheGameguru wrote:

A good story wont make a bad game suddenly "fun" or "not bad" just as the complete lack of story wont suddenly turn a stellar game into an also ran.

As long as games are interactive (and also possibly social) then what the player(s) actually do in the game end up FAR more lasting and important than a narrative story.

Even Gears of War has some semblance of a story. Unless it's a puzzle game, it has to have something.

As for a great story making the game good, well... I guess my love of text adventures colors my views on that.
(Eric the Unready!)

Even Gears of War has some semblance of a story. Unless it's a puzzle game, it has to have something.

Not really.. for instance Doom had the barest of story's.. there was some mention in the beginning and off you went.. your actions in the game formed the storyline.

I cant imagine a scenario where I'm going to suddenly say.. wow this game is a no go... the story is just to crappy.

Take for instance Deus Ex.. the game is so good that I basically overlooked the cheeseball story and corny voice acting.

We have a difference of opinion, then.

Yeah, there are very few games that I don't want a good story in. Sports games, racing games...but I'd differ with what someone said earlier, I think Puzzle Quest is showing us that even a puzzler can be improved through the use of a story, etc.

Sports games have story to me, but only because I'm very attached to my teams -- or to a boxer who happens to look a lot like me and has my name.

Still can't believe it wouldn't let me say I'm from Chicago, though. I mean c'mon. Flint?

I'm glad rabbit likes it, but i'm a little dismayed by how much negative feedback is in the forum replies. this game seems to embody every kind of 'play' i like to get from my games (including social play/light rp). Didn't i see somewhere that you guys are on landroval? 'cause that's where i rolled. Keep an eye out for a little grey-haired hobbit named 'hanna'. but don't look for her outside of the shire for a while yet!

Don't be too surprised about the comments as it is relatively common but as long as you are having fun that is what is important.

MMOs of all kinds seem to bring this out in people and it is amazing that it does.

Nobody or few ever say man Supreme Commander is basically the same old RTS with a few changes it stinks. Or even better this FPS uses the same controls that Castle Wolfenstein used where is the inovation!

The list goes on with how different MMOs are compared to any other game and it is almost hersey to have fun in a game of this type especially if it is not the big boy on the block.

LOTRO is a solid MMORPG that had one of the best launches since DAoC. If you are happy with other MMORPGs I doubt you will see a compelling reason to change.

If you do not get how big the difference of being story centric is or just do not like the story you will not like this game.

This game is not about leveling or getting great gear or getting faction yada yada.... It is about the story and for once we have a mmoRPG that delivers on the story RPG part and leaves a lot of the mindless crap for other games.

I say that about Supreme Commander, but then I don't like the genre. Heck, I even said it (quietly) about Company of Heroes.

That's a valid point Maladen.....my only counter would be that LOTRO when compared to the grand-daddy of the genre only improves in one aspect of the game (storytelling) and actually takes a step BACKWARDS in others (gameplay, interface, visuals), in my opinion. I have nothing against LOTRO for not innovating, I am criticizing it for not being on par with WoW in what WoW does well as well as improving in the questing/storytelling.

wordsmythe wrote:

I say that about Supreme Commander, but then I don't like the genre. Heck, I even said it (quietly) about Company of Heroes.

Well if you do not like the genre ....

Dysplastic wrote:

That's a valid point Maladen.....my only counter would be that LOTRO when compared to the grand-daddy of the genre only improves in one aspect of the game (storytelling) and actually takes a step BACKWARDS in others (gameplay, interface, visuals), in my opinion. I have nothing against LOTRO for not innovating, I am criticizing it for not being on par with WoW in what WoW does well as well as improving in the questing/storytelling.

It is valid if you think that it takes a step back in those areas but that is subjective. I like the game play, interface, and visuals better then WoW for example. Hence me leaving WoW with several high level characters for this game (when I say high level I was level 68 when I left over 2 months ago in a raiding guild).

I would disagree also that the story telling is the only improvement/innovation. The music system is obviously an innovation and even though Turbine had a cool music system in AC2 it was nothing that let you actually 'play' the instrument. One may argue that the Deed system is new too (with how you earn titles and traits) or certainly a new take on a talent tree. There are others that I think of as improvements/innovations but that is not really the point of the thread.

Which brings me back to my point, people may decide I do not like HL2 compared to say Doom2 but HL2 threads would in most cases never devolve into this game sucks Doom2 is better in X ways the way that MMORPG threads do.