It's not a matter of "stupid" or not question.... as much as you are comparing apples to oranges.... What relation is there between Lotro and Skyrim? None, they are absolutely different game.... If you want to be playing Skyrim, get Skyrim... If you want to be Lotro-ing in Rohan, get the expansion..... Simple as that. What does it matter if it is as big as Skyrim, or other games...?
This has nothing to do with being a mature consumer or anything... the question has a clear bash-intension... first the $70 which have nothing to do with the size of the region... that you can get for $40 as well. Agreed, that this is quite expensive but that is discussed elsewhere and this thread has obviously no point.
Don't know if the numbers are 100% correct, but according to http://gameolosophy.com/games/rpg/sh...-pre-isengard/ the size of Lotro at launch was around 50 square kilometers (19 square miles). Then Evendim and Forochel came and increased the landmass to 90 square kilometers (34 square miles). Now comes the interesting part. Moria at release was according the same site about 35% of the existing landmass (31 square kilometers or 12 square miles). RoR is supposed to be twice as large as Moria, so it should be about 62 square kilometers (24 square miles).
Both games are fantasy -based RPGs....Apple to apple
Only difference one is MMO
You really do not factor in the size of the landscape as part of the games value?
Truly bizarre my friend
It's pretty shallow to pretend like all fantasy RPGs are equivalent, and that area is a meaningful tool to judge them. How many square miles was Diablo 2? How many square miles was Final Fantasy Tactics? How many square miles was Baldur's Gate?
If you think that square miles is what makes a game worth playing, then you should skip Skyrim and go all the way back to Daggerfall. Bethesda is giving it away for free, and it has over 100,000 square miles. I'm sure you'd prefer that to a modern game.
Fantasy RPGs are not all easily comparable. LOTRO has more in common with SWTOR than it does with Skyrim, and Skyrim has more in common with the new Fallouts than it does with LOTRO. Fantasy just means people use swords instead of lasers, and RPG nowadays just means that there are stats that you build up over the game. It's more meaningful to compare sandbox RPGs to sandbox RPGs, or MMOs to MMOs.
This isn't to say that I'm totally disinterested in how much area Rohan takes up, but I'm much more interested in what I'm going to be doing in that area.
A lot of skyrim is very detailed. A lot of rohan seems to be just wide open featureless flat land - so no comparison can be made, even if sizes were known.
"Come and get one in the yarbles, if ya have any yarbles, you eunuch jelly thou!" - Alex DeLarge
A lot of skyrim is very detailed. A lot of rohan seems to be just wide open featureless flat land - so no comparison can be made, even if sizes were known.
Don't know if the numbers are 100% correct, but according to http://gameolosophy.com/games/rpg/sh...-pre-isengard/ the size of Lotro at launch was around 50 square kilometers (19 square miles). Then Evendim and Forochel came and increased the landmass to 90 square kilometers (34 square miles). Now comes the interesting part. Moria at release was according the same site about 35% of the existing landmass (31 square kilometers or 12 square miles). RoR is supposed to be twice as large as Moria, so it should be about 62 square kilometers (24 square miles).
Guess we'll see in the autumn.
Good info
But keep in mind that Evendim is 90% water and Forochel is 90% snow
Not exactly "quality content"...unless you consider swimming in an empty ocean or tracking thru blinding snow fields as exciting
What exactly is this thread about then? Really wanting to know what square miles the new area is? Or stating that it is too expensive? Or saying that there is not enough in this area?
How should the East-Emnet look like? Certainly not with as many villages, caves, forests, terrain changes etc. that Skyrim offers, since it is a completely different landscape and vegetation. I would welcome an empty area with a feeling for massivness in which mainly the mounted combat takes place... and then quest-hubs in the perisphere of this plains.
Sorry, but after the opening post and some of the following posts by you I do understand the reactions of people here.
I can't help but feel the person you should really be angry at is Tolkien seeing as it was he who decided Rohan should be a massive sprawling plain devoid of interesting features with it's people thriving in mounted warfare. Exactly what were you expecting Turbine to do with Rohan?
². It's pretty large for that reason, but I think for a comparison with Skyrim would require more thought. Rohan consists of fields and is more rural than Skyrim, where it is semi-urban and heavily economical.
I'll go with 30-40 km² as my guess on RoR's total area.
But keep in mind that Evendim is 90% water and Forochel is 90% snow
Not exactly "quality content"...unless you consider swimming in an empty ocean or tracking thru blinding snow fields as exciting
90% is a huge exaggeration, and following that train of thought, how much of Skyrim was water and snow? Oh yes, and snow in Forochel is the land everything is on, just the same as rock in Moria or dirt in the Bree-lands
90% is a huge exaggeration, and following that train of thought, how much of Skyrim was water and snow? Oh yes, and snow in Forochel is the land everything is on, just the same as rock in Moria or dirt in the Bree-lands
And...how much of Skyrim is filled with mountains??????
Skyrim costs $100. EVE Online costs $30 and is much larger in size than Skyrim. Skyrim can't compare to EVE. Why is Bethesda charging so much for a smaller game???
Skyrim and EVE Online... apples to apples comparison.
Only difference one is a MMO.
You really do not factor in the size of the landscape as part of the games value?
Truly bizarre my friend
See what I did there. People are not objecting to your question about the landmass size of RoR. They are objecting to the way you asked it. You act as if the RoR Legendary edition is the only option available. And then you compare a single player RPG to a MMORPG. That's like questioning why Skyrim has better graphics than LOTRO. Two completely different things. Sure they are both games played on a PC with swords, horses, dragons, orcs, elves, men, dwarves, etc but again one is a single player experience and the other is a massively multiplayer online experience. A more fair comparison would be LOTRO and Elder Scrolls Online but even that's not a valid comparison because you shouldn't compare a MMO at launch to a MMO with 5-6 years of content updates.
Skyrim does not cost 100 dollars. I paid around 60 dollars for my copy. You can get it for $52.15 from Amazon with free shipping at the moment.
I was comparing the Collector's Edition Skyrim to the base cost of Eve Online just as the OP compared the Legendary Edition RoR to the base cost of Skyrim.
I was comparing the Collector's Edition Skyrim to the base cost of Eve Online just as the OP compared the Legendary Edition RoR to the base cost of Skyrim.
At least with Skyrim Collector you get an actual Battle Axe mailed to your home
Turbine usually gets the scale of regions just about right IMO. I remember when the NDA was lifted and people complained about RoI being too small in terms of landmass for an expansion. On reflection I think most agree that it is just about the right size and would not have benefited from being any bigger.
Can I ask which areas in the game currently you feel are not of sufficient size or scale? I guess my only complaint would be mirkwood which could have done with being bigger for an expansion... Other than that I think Turbine has mostly got things right.
You realy seem determined to bash on the expansion and the development team.
As far as I am always ready to criticise pretty much everything and everyone I do not understand how and why are people not being satisfied with how RoR will look like. We all had all kinds of different regions in this game as close to the lore as the devs could make or imagine how Tolkien wanted it to look like.
Now we are comming to a point in game where much of the regions is an open field and you are not satisfied? Well don't hate on development or Turbine because of this, there are much better stuff to do that about, that is how it was in books and movies. Horse lords riding across their lands. And we are given the mounts to take us faster from point A to point B in that vast space.
Someone already said... You can get to quest in RoR for less then 70$ and you get the landscape for less too, everything more is just your preference.
I enjoyed the bigger part of this game, even Evendim when I still didn't have VIP and had to swim across that sea multiple times to finish the quests and all that runing around doing epics there. If I didn't enjoy the game I wouldn't be spending all this money on it and neither would you probably.
You realy seem determined to bash on the expansion and the development team.
As far as I am always ready to criticise pretty much everything and everyone I do not understand how and why are people not being satisfied with how RoR will look like. We all had all kinds of different regions in this game as close to the lore as the devs could make or imagine how Tolkien wanted it to look like.
Now we are comming to a point in game where much of the regions is an open field and you are not satisfied? Well don't hate on development or Turbine because of this, there are much better stuff to do that about, that is how it was in books and movies. Horse lords riding across their lands. And we are given the mounts to take us faster from point A to point B in that vast space.
Someone already said... You can get to quest in RoR for less then 70$ and you get the landscape for less too, everything more is just your preference.
I enjoyed the bigger part of this game, even Evendim when I still didn't have VIP and had to swim across that sea multiple times to finish the quests and all that runing around doing epics there. If I didn't enjoy the game I wouldn't be spending all this money on it and neither would you probably.
Hello friend,
I just wish Tolkien was still here to at least supervise this games development
I couldn't agree more, but I'm certain development team is doing their best to bring LotR books to life to the best of their abilities. And sometimes steping away from the lore, filling in blanks (even though I'm not certain that Tolkien left any considering the lineage, languages, etc) making the game last longer. I'm certain you would rather be fighting then reliving some drama from the books.
Well... Point is, we can't realy hate on Turbine because of the looks of the regions, at least most of the time, but we can criticise some other stuff they are doing and that is an energy better spent.
It's a matter of trust. Isengard was advertised at twice size Moria and that simply did not happen.
The cash you pay in advance isn't put back into the game. The gain is, perhaps, that WB decides to keep Turbine since Turbine can point to WB shareholder happiness.
The real irritation has to do with being asked to pay for this content months in advance and knowing that it has no effect on the area in the game I'm interested in. It is more likely to cover some corporate rate of turnover miscalculation instead of another devout employee having fun in doing the best they can.
70US Dollars is just WB turning the cash flow tap on? It doesn't relate to the game.
Originally Posted by Caileen
Don't know if the numbers are 100% correct, but according to http://gameolosophy.com/games/rpg/sh...-pre-isengard/ the size of Lotro at launch was around 50 square kilometers (19 square miles). Then Evendim and Forochel came and increased the landmass to 90 square kilometers (34 square miles). Now comes the interesting part. Moria at release was according the same site about 35% of the existing landmass (31 square kilometers or 12 square miles). RoR is supposed to be twice as large as Moria, so it should be about 62 square kilometers (24 square miles).
Guess we'll see in the autumn.
Originally Posted by Bhoris_they_spider
Turbine usually gets the scale of regions just about right IMO. I remember when the NDA was lifted and people complained about RoI being too small in terms of landmass for an expansion. On reflection I think most agree that it is just about the right size and would not have benefited from being any bigger.
Can I ask which areas in the game currently you feel are not of sufficient size or scale? I guess my only complaint would be mirkwood which could have done with being bigger for an expansion... Other than that I think Turbine has mostly got things right.
It's a matter of trust. Isengard was advertised at twice size Moria and that simply did not happen.
I never saw such a comment stated by Turbine and I just did a search to confirm myself and nothing came up. So unless you had some really insignificant source that no one else posted or blogged about I'm going to go with a no, Turbine did not advertise RoI as twice the size of Moria.
The cash you pay in advance isn't put back into the game. The gain is, perhaps, that WB decides to keep Turbine since Turbine can point to WB shareholder happiness.
And what is it that Warner Brothers pays Turbine employees with and keeps them producing and refining content through expansions and updates?
Senior Member Online status:
Reputation:
Junior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Originally Posted by Bakica
Senior Member Online status:
Reputation:
Senior Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Member Online status:
Century Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Re: How many squre miles is Rohan
Grand Member Online status:
See what I did there. People are not objecting to your question about the landmass size of RoR. They are objecting to the way you asked it. You act as if the RoR Legendary edition is the only option available. And then you compare a single player RPG to a MMORPG. That's like questioning why Skyrim has better graphics than LOTRO. Two completely different things. Sure they are both games played on a PC with swords, horses, dragons, orcs, elves, men, dwarves, etc but again one is a single player experience and the other is a massively multiplayer online experience. A more fair comparison would be LOTRO and Elder Scrolls Online but even that's not a valid comparison because you shouldn't compare a MMO at launch to a MMO with 5-6 years of content updates.
Post Master Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
