IP vs. IP: Is LotRO better than AoC?

by Shawn Schuster Jul 4th 2008 at 5:00PM

Filed under: Fantasy, Age of Conan, Lord of the Rings Online, Game mechanics, Leveling, Opinion

Let's face it, in the past, big-name intellectual properties in the form of an MMO haven't fared too well. We're looking at you, Matrix Online. However, Lord of the Rings Online has proven that the curse of the brand IP might be breakable. Enter Age of Conan. As an IP, the game is touted as being exactly what Robert E. Howard would have made, if he were an MMO developer. Although according to a recent article at MMOcrunch, they're not exactly seeing it that way.

The article, entitled Why LotRO is Better than AoC, touches on many of the current problems in this Funcom blockbuster, as the writer gives their opinion on how and why it just doesn't do it for them. The predominant message here seems to be that they don't understand why Funcom left all the good stuff for the end of the game. Why play 100+ hours to get to the actual fun part? Is this something we'll see from more developers in the future, or will they learn from the mistakes of current MMOs and just give us the goodies right up front. It breaks down to that fundamental question we ask from MMOs: should you need to work towards an ultimate goal, or should you be able to just have fun the entire time? Can't we have both?

Tags: age-of-conan, aoc, codemasters, funcom, intellectual-property, lord-of-the-rings-online, lotro, mmocrunch, turbine

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

GRT said on 6:17PM 7-04-2008

Massively really needs to take another look at their quality filters when it comes to linking to other sites.

Really guys & gals, the original content here is generally pretty damned excellent. But please don't waste our time sending us to posts at other sites written by people with only 3rd grade-level writing skills and nothing to say more interesting than a whiny rant.

Nadril said on 9:27PM 7-04-2008

Fuck, agreed. The best thing is that you're comparing two entirely different games. On one hand, LoTRO has an emphasis on PvE. On the other Age of Conan is very PvP based.

Just because it's about MMOs doesn't mean it belongs on here.

Pingmeister said on 10:43PM 7-04-2008

The Title to this Massively post is far more interesting than the linked article.

Comparing IPs is a valid and intriguing discussion.

The linked article pretty much says the writer got bored of AoC and isn't willing to put in the hours required ot reach teh content he's interested in.

Fine. But what does that have to do with Tolkein's Intellectual Property versus Robert E. Howard's?

Scott said on 12:09AM 7-05-2008

Agreed, I intended to reply to the author on his site a day before and realized it was pointless. AoC and LotRO are two completely different MMO's targetting at totally different audiences.

I honestly don't see the appeal of AoC as a PvE game for people that don't intend to participate in PvE, there are strong PvE MMO's than AoC.

As others pointed out the author was already biased, he's bored with the game and hasn't even gotten past the first third of it, intends to right a review when he's all but decided the game 'sucks'

AoC is the only true PvP oriented MMO on the market right now, no other MMO allows that freedom, for what faults it has, it's proven there's 500,000-700,000 subscribers backing that up. Players are tired of the existing MMO content, and they're tired of limited PvP rulesets, AoC delivered on those despite its early release and minor faults.

Scott said on 12:12AM 7-05-2008

Wish there was an edit option. ;)

Should have read: "I honestly don't see the appeal of AoC as a PvE game for people that don't intend to participate in PvP, there are stronger PvE MMO's than AoC."

Merkur said on 8:31AM 7-05-2008

Hmm, but AoCs PvP sux too :(

pufonthis said on 10:11AM 7-05-2008

I care nothing for AoC, but, this guy is obviously clueless. He says it took him 45 hours play time to get to level 35!?!

Seriously, for anyone who has ever played an MMO, even with reading quests, taking your time, crafting, etc in 45 hours would get to level 60-70.

I love Conan bashing, but this article was nothing more than a whiny rant, I completely agree with you guys on that. Besides, his whole point doesn't hold up. He says you need to play 100+ hours to get to the good stuff. If he knew anything at all about Age of Conan he would have known there is no good stuff.

Keen said on 1:14PM 7-05-2008

IP vs. IP: Imo, Lord of the Rings is vastly superior to Conan.

Game vs. Game: Entirely based on what style of game you like more. They are very different.

Pingmeister said on 5:22PM 7-05-2008

It's easy to dismiss Conan's IP if you are not familiar with the original (Robert E. Howard) Conan novels.

While I agree that Tolkein is far stronger a world-creator, Howard's Hyborea is still quite impressive.

In fact, I prefer Howard's Pulp-Fiction-esque writing style to Tolkeins.

Dan said on 6:09PM 7-05-2008

I have no idea what this guy is talking about. There is NO content in AoC end game. Just a small handful of broken dungeons, and weak PvP. The only enjoyable experience I had with the game was from levels 1-45. Here is my review: http://danpixley.wordpress.com/games/age-of-conan-is-it-a-bust/

Kaiallard said on 2:08AM 7-06-2008

Tolkien wins in creating a world; but Howard wins in actually writing a story. I honestly prefer all the fiction other then the books when looking at LotRO. The world Tolkien created is much more intriguing then the story of the Hobbit fest books.

Meraigard said on 11:51PM 7-06-2008

Comparing AoC to LOTRO is like comparing steak to apples (ok, really bad comparison but you know what i mean) The two are very different and it's really based on your style of playing, WoW vs LOTRO is another matter..... but i think we can all say WoW is starting to lose it's fire.

Anyways, just my take on the matter.