sry every1 if this has already been asked but ur froum pages are so long now.

Anyhoo, i was just wandering if there r gonna b any unique weapons and meshes. i.e. wud u c the shards of narsil if u went 2 rivendell, or cud u get 2 the troll hoard b4 Gandalf and get Glamdrings brother sword?

A phrase the devs like to use is 'If it existed then it will most likely be in'.
Yes there will be many new weapons, armours and so on and yes there wil be new meshes . As for Narsil it will most likely be there if it fits with the time line. But the trolls i'm not sure of because if you kill them first it would effect the time line, which isn't going to happen. I'm pretty sure you wont be able to get Glamdring itself because that would most certainly effect the time line. But if there was a brother sword (another one or something) you may or may be able to get it.

p.s. little bit of advice, you can get alot of questions answered by using the search function. Also in such threads as 'Daerk On'. Have fun.

also note that tolkien didn't write about EVERY miniscule aspect of middle earth, so there is a lot of potential in design giving us the ability to come up with a multitude of items. (of course, as long as were not equipping the elves with tazers and space suits.)

You could steal the sword maybe, if you managed to get past the trolls without getting smashed.

Yes i can see it now. I walk into Rivendel just to be chased out by Elrond in a space suit and holding a tazor. Now that is worth paying for!

How would Elrond get a taser?

Comon he's a high profile guy i'm sure he's got a few tricks up his sleeves.

To lazy to do the research right now, but it might be possible to wield Glamdring, Orcrist, or similar weapons. Unless something has changed that I've missed, the mod is set before Bilbo finds the ring. We know that Thorin and company find Elven weapons in the Trolls hoard, but do we know how those weapons came to be in that hoard? As a player it might be possible to wield one of them centuries before Thorin, Gandalf etc. Seeing as we will not be more that "big fish in small ponds", it might be possible to use items of lesser power without attracting to much historical attention. And given the timeline boundaries we've been given, it would be quite possible to lose said items well before they occur(reoccur) in Tolkien canon. Of course if you find yourself wielding Orcrist in the late third age, you had better avoid Trolls at all costs

I think that it has been said before that it might be possible to wield certain items as long as it makes sense. By this, I mean that the item is a certain location, and it would be plausible for the player to find it.

Example of something you can't do: A hobbit finds Isildur's Bane on the ground, and puts it on. He then steals the shards of Narsil, and convinces the Elves to fix them. Then, he's running around with the One Ring and Anduril, and he manages to steal [insert important item here.] You get the point.

Example of something you can do: Sneak into an [insert location here], as long as you don't get caught, and you happen to find [insert semi-important sword here.] After playing with this until [insert event where it is required] is about to occur, you are ambushed by [insert people here] and the word is taken...

Then, throughout a course of events, the player loses that item/gets it taken form him, and put back into it's correct place in the timeline.

Something along those lines...

The above may or may not be true, it's just what I recall...

We will have unique items. If it does not effect the timeline or contradict anything then I see no reason why, if in the right place at the right time, you could not obtain it and weild it.

some of the unique items that will be extant will include things like numenorean relics (a screenshot of just such an object, in the form of a bow, is show in the sample images on the forums).

All the "named" relics from Tolkien's writing will be in existence. the approach Olorin suggested above is possible, but seems a little artificial in some ways - such artifacts, to be honest, are morelikely to be seen in passing, a more subtle style of implementation.

as for what other artifacts are likely to lurk in the MeMod, well, there will undoubtedly be a whole host of weapons and armours, and a lot of more "special" items - named blades, ancestral objects, "ancient blades of the downfallen west" lurking in hoary barrows, and so on.

in the examples originally asked, all of those objects will be in existence, however are likely to be very, very hard for a player to access. as to the details of some of them, that would reveal the timeline, and this is'nt the time to give that detail away... not yet, thought that time is coming close.

oh, and KFM, for god's sake, why did you tell them about the spacesuits and tasers? we'll have to scrap that and go back to the dwarf-made jetpacks and the noldorian plasma cannons.
really. you have no knowlege of how to keep the important truths about Memod's content secret.

Sooner or later he might begin talking about the ability to buy a spaceship and explore other planets than Arda...
Woops shouldnt have said that

Suze, are you saying that you are considering to reveal the timeline of the mod before its release?


pharzon..

That, or the mod is coming out sooner than we think [aka on the pretense of being the Beta 1.]

That, or Suzerain just likes to torture poor MEMOD fans by giving them false hopes! At least... if I were him, I'd find that very entertaining

I *twitch* JUST CANT *twitch* TAKE IT 8twitch* ANYMORE !!!!!


You are going to relaese MEMOD while im in the middle of the F*****G ocean.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

You WILL, won't you???? just to get at me!!!!

I'm gonna go



just make it good..............very good

rofl

lol, theres a lot of crazy people in this thread and the devs not being the least crazy.

Rob the Mariner just think, in a way you'll be lucky because when you get to down load the mod you may not have to wait in a huge cue for hours lol

Lol... and how about me? I am leaving in October, I'll be spending 9 months in Bordeaux, France and I won't have a computer there... although I'll come back for Winter break and Spring break... I'll have to download the mod when I come back in July, if it has been released by then

Crazy? Who's the crazy one? I'M NOT CRAZY! YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING! I DIDN'T DO IT!
*Procedes to flail about madly until he smashes into the monitor, knocking himself out.*

Page format killing scream removed. Don't do that.

maquizar, id be happy to send you the game by mail if i get it sooner than you, france isnt that far away from here.
And about distributing the game, i beleave a magazine here called "pcgameplay" did a article some time ago about memod, and considering their background i think the devs should talk to them about distribution, i think they might help.

Sorry about that, Peregrine.

They're going to use many ways to ditribute it, I believe. Mostly through BitTorrent, I think.

Idea: You could make money if you distributed the game for free, but charged like 5 or 10 dolalrs for shipping...

If someone tells me Hadhafang is in the game and useable, I will be a very happy man. I already have the replica sitting atop my wardrobe, the mod also should have it

In my texts I cant find a record of there being a Hadhafang.

Someone have a quote to prove me wrong?

No.

1. Arwen did not help Frodo escape the ringwraiths... Believe it or not the movies over exagerated her part in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

2. English to Sindarin translation-

cleaver,sword: krist
cleaver of: rist
No such word "throng"
English to Quenya translation-

gather; crowd, throng, press: sanga

----------------------------------------
throng (thrông, thrng)
n.
A large group of people gathered or crowded closely together; a multitude. See Synonyms at crowd1.
A large group of things; a host.
-----------------------------------------

So even if it did mean throng-clever(assuming that we used Quenya and Sindarian combined...) it would be something like Sangakrist. This would then mean Clever of multitude.

3. www.cbswords.com is not a reliable Tolkien reasource... Not even the EoA is 100% reliable.... Please try to prove me wrong if you wish, find me a quote, and site page number and volume used, out of the HoME's, LotR, Sim., or other books writen by Professor Tolkien himself or his son, Christopher.

**** big time.... I'm sorry I didn't even read the whole thing beforet I quoted it I just expected it to be correct! Believe me I know that the movie is total bullpoop, but I didn't expect it to influence a sword-site! I just searched google for hadhafang, and when I found this swordsite claiming it to be Arwens sword it rang a bell (probably because of the movies...) and I assumed it to be correct! In fact I have several Tolkien books on my computer and when I searched through them it turned up nothing... So I should have realised that it does not exist... The only book I don't have on my computer is LotR, so I assumed ( I assume a lot!) that is where Hadhafang-info was hidden... NOTE: I do own a copy of every book I keep on my computer, so it is not illegal! Don't flame me...

This has lead me to assume another thing, though: I believe Hadhafang is a movie-only item, and that it doesn't really exist in Middle Earth as Tolkien himself saw it...

I am extremely sorry for any inconvenience caused by my stupidity and lazyness!

EDIT: I went to www.brainyencyclopedia.com and there they confirmed that Hadhafang only exists in the movies...

yes, Jackson's trilogy has committed many travesties to Lord of the Rings, not least the addition of utter bollocks to it.


as a note, "thong cleaver"'s closest transaltion in a crude sense, would be something like "hothcrist".

"recently discovered" meanwhile I suspect would be more accurately translated as "made up".

and, whatever could have possibly made Jackson want to increase the totty quotient in Lord of the Rings by adding as many scenese as he could get away with of Liv bloody Tyler sniffling doefully and floating winsomely in dresses?
weird that.



In conclusion. WIll hadha'bleedin'fang be in the Memod. like buggery would it, over my corpse...

Likewise, it would not be looking like the travesties that the "elvish" swords for LOTR were like.

Suz.

I would have preferred "No", to what Suzerain just said.

Peter Jackson should never have made the movies, just to shut fans who whine over every single detail up.

Just so you know, I didn't think much of Arwen's new-found importance in the movies, either. She was only mentioned in the Appendices in the books. Jackson made a lot of changes to the books for the movies, but only because you can't have every single detail in there, and somethings just don't work.

But nobody should try to make a movie based off any book ever again, because there will always be pregnant-doging from fans who are only trying to "protect" their precious books, when in reality their zealous "guarding" is only giving the wider community a bad name.

Nobody is perfect. Peter Jackson, as you seem to love to make a point of, certainly isn't.

But neither was Tolkien. I'll just go and admire my "travesty" of an elvish sword now, and let you get back to your important work.

First of all: It's a very nice sword!

Second: I have to disagree... By making the changes he did, I fear Jackson has forever disturbed the joy and satisfaction people get from reading Tolkiens books! The details are an important part of Middle Earth, and by making up a sword and then claiming that it was used by Elrond in the first war against Sauron etc. ruins those details and their credibility... The last time I read LotR I remember getting annoyed whenever I found one of those foolish changes! And just to let you know: I enjoyed tFotR movie... Two Towers was okay and RotK sucked, though...

And even though he couldn't put every little detail in the movie, he didn't need to exchange them for new and silly ones! As I see it it was all those silly details which completely ruined the movies for me.

And I know that I shouldn't be this protective over Tolkien, but I can't help it... I just am!

As I've said many many many times, I like the movies as movies, but like nearly ALL book adaptions, they are BAD.

The movies are well made, Peter Jackson made a good job, imagine a Steven spielberg LoTR, with some horse jumping with the moon as background...

I'm sure you don't think on the "producer's view" also know as "I pay for this, then, put arwen in there, she is owning too many money to apear two times in the trilogy". I liked the changes of the FoTR, they are put there to not contradise (sp) with the parts they HAVE to cut. I didn't like the changes in TTT and RoTK because a lot of them are meanningless, like the nazgul in osgiliath with frodo oO!!.

In the other hand, ANYONE forced you to see the movies before you've read the books, I've only seen Harry potter I (I don't want to put the entire name now ) because is the only book I've read.


Fear the Kong version XD

Thong-cleaver.
an honest typo. along with all the others I did in that post. oops.

as for the films, they're good. they're very well made... they're just not the books, in the same way "fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is'nt the book, or "Bladerunner" is'nt "Do androids dream of electric sheep?", and so on. they're very different media, print and film, and they can't be compared as the same.

FotR is a wonderful, superb film, and captured the book almost perfectly, in my opinion, even the changes to the battle in moria are good.
TT is likewise, a fantastic film, albeit beginning to diverge from the books. the whole aragorn off a cliff bit is my only gripe that gets me annoyed.
sadly, IMO, Return of the King let down the trilogy, by ignoring most of the book, particularly the Scouring of the Shire. I'll reserve judgement for the extended DVD, but it's a nice film, but not tolkien's work.

Of course you can argue that Glorfindel should've met frodo and aragorn in the wildeness, not arwen, and so on, but equally, Sean Bean has become how I envision Boromir in my head, such was the acting, and so on - for each duff bit there was a superb element. Equally, Isenguard was'nt a mass of spikes, because tolkien's own drawings show it in a beautiful shapely appearance... and a hundred other details.

In my opinion, the elven swords were awful... but my opinion is no more important than any other's.

S

I know the feeling exactly....

All too well..

I am one of those people complaining throughout a movie Me and my friends are planning a LotR extended maraton, and I had to promise not to say a word before they allowed me to watch it with them... I am in rehab though. Usually when we watch a movie I don't get to talk untill after the movie, but I think its over 10 hours of errors attacking Middle Earth That might be hard...

There it is: My dark side!

Those double-bladed dealios were kinda strange...

I try not to compare the books with the films because they just cant be done. Books are nor movies and movies are not books, they give different kinds of entertainment.

I agree with Suzerain though FotR did a good job. But about Arwen and Glorfindell, i think that had to be done because remember in films they have to show the love between Aragorn and Arwen not tell show. I mean Glorfindell doesn't do anything after that part of the book really so it was a good way to include Arwen. Then with the cliff thing it's the same, another moment were they could portray the love between Aragorn and Arwen.

A thing that i didn't like though is the way Legolas is portrayed especially in the third movie, they practically made him into some sort of super hero lol

Yeah Legolas is totally uberpowered in the third movie. But again, from a producers point of view, Orlando Bloom is the most popular actor, so you would make his role more important, because in the books he is not contributing very much to the success of the fellowship.
I hate unrealism in films that aren't meant to be, because it destroys the illusion.
Well, you could say that LOTR itself is unrealistic, but inside its own universe it isnt.

I agree. FOTR was the best.

Do you remember Caradhras in the books? Where Legolas runs on top of the snow... I think that the whole Oliphaunt-scene is a tribute to the agility of the elves! But I think he might have overdone it a little... I remeber seeing it, and I just went

Oh, and he had to make a big deal out of Arwen, or else no girls would go see it! Note to all Tolkien-/Action-loving girls out there: Don't freak out! That statement was not an attempt to insult you. It was an assault on Hollywood for not being able to produce a single action-based movie on a grand scale without including some awful lovestory! Like in Braveheart and Pearl Harbour... and LotR.

I agree Brave Heart isn't the most historically correct film made it's a good for the battle scenes but not for history. I think Mel Gibson is good at making historically inaccurate films, dont even start me on the 'Patriot'

The South Park take on Braveheart was pretty funny though

To clear things up: I am not a Machoman! Drama can be good! It's just that in a war-movie I expect the focus to be on war, and not on all the girls waiting at home... One word: Platoon! And has anyone seen the german movie Stalingrad? Oh, yeah, Mel Gibson actually made a good war-movie, too: We Were Soldiers. A good visualisation of combat! Not a memorable story, but good combat-scenes! The best combat ever still goes to The Thin Red Line! I liked the way they hired famous actors and killed them of at once! Especially Woody Harrelson and Jared Leto! The movie is packed with such symbolism, and that's what really captured me...

How about South Park's LotR episode, though? Now that's funny!

Hmm. I wonder how a thread about unique weapons turned into a thread about Mel Gibson war movies?

pharzon..