Talk:Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor/Archive 1

cover assasins creed similarity/controversy?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-01-24-assassins-creed-dev-questions-shadows-of-mordor-similarities

among many other game sites covering it. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Seeing how |one of Assassin's Creed II's developers complained about it, I don't see why not. 24.67.94.109 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ring of Morgoth
The ring of Morgoth is not a valid source for saying Men cannot be re-animated within Tolkien's Legendarium. Given we have two separate instances (Barrow-wights and the Dead Men of Dunharrow) within the Lord of the Rings. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  18:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a valid source. It is by Tolkien. This is what it says: "No fëa [spirit] of a dead Man ever returned to life in Middle-earth." Tolkien's own words, in his own book. The Barrow-wights and the Dead Men of Dunharrow are irrelevant to this point. They did not come back to life. They were dead men who lingered in the world. To return to life means to return to one's own corporeal form. As Tolkien also notes in my source, there is only one instance of that: Beren. That required the intervention and design of Eru, and Beren was never allowed to see another mortal. There's nothing to indicate that this is the case for Talion. Gódhellim (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I should note that we don't really know what the Barrow-wights are. The reanimated bodies were formerly men, but we do not know what reanimated them aside from being 'fell spirits.' Regardless, it is not an instance of a man coming back to life. If you're going to take issue with my edits, you ought to know what you're actually talking about first. Gódhellim (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Mordor innacuracy
The other inaccuracy, on the part of Monolith, is the claim that Mordor was a barren wasteland. Notwithstanding the Plain of Gorgoroth, the rest of Mordor has forest, lakes, rivers, and farmland--this as of Return of the King. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.229.10 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This note would be less confusing if your post wasn't from last week, over the last 4 months Monolith have shown several demos, videos and trailers that depict parts of Mordor that are forest lakes and rivers (not sure about farmland, maybe when we get the full game)2601:C:AD80:109A:38CF:6A52:4C6A:D5D9 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Lore issues
Monolith and WB have pushed a marketing campaign to make their game be seen as faithful and authentic to the lore, which this article reflects. However, the Tolkien fan community has not been as quick to apply those tags, and there are notable issues with the claim that this game is 'faithful' or 'authentic' to the lore. I do not believe Wikipedia articles should be the host for PR campaigns. If this article is going to host WB's claim that it is faithful to the lore, it should also host refutations of that point. For example:


 * Talion is a resurrected men -- refutation: Aside from Beren, Tolkien explicitly noted that men could not be resurrected in Middle-earth. That means they could not return to their corporeal form after dying.


 * Celebrimbor is depicted as a houseless elf, going under the term of 'wraith' -- refutation: 'Wraith' and 'houseless elf' are not synonymous terms. A wraith is a faded, corporeal being. A houseless elf is a lingering spirit of an elf who has died. It's also worth mentioning that the idea of Celebrimbor being a houeless elf in Middle-earth long after his death is Monolith's fan-fiction. Additionally, we know how wraiths are made. The Ringwraiths did not become so due to greed. They became wraiths due to prolonged usage of their Rings, which caused them to fade into the unseen realm and become subservient to Sauron's will.


 * 'Wraith-powers' -- refutation: We know well the limits of wraiths and houseless elves. Neither could resurrect dead men. Neither could give them magical powers. The magic depicted in this game is not the sort of magic that Tolkien described in his stories.


 * The history in this game is very off. Talion is supposedly among Gondor's guard on the Black Gate on the night of Sauron's return to Mordor. However, the guard was abandoned about 1600 years before that time. The game also depicts Gollum in Mordor at this time. However, Gollum did not arrive in Mordor until several centuries later. The game also depicts NW Mordor as a lush and green environment, but that was a ruined and cracked land for many centuries prior to this game taking place.

Again, if we're going to include WB's claim that the game is faithful, we ought to include these refutations as well so that readers are given an honest picture of the situation. Gódhellim (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

New update: I saw someone address my update in the article itself, so I will talk about that here. But first, I would like to note that the article itself is not a space to have discussions on it. That is why we have the change log and this page. Now then...

First, the points here have nothing to do with what can be considered canon additions to Tolkien's legendarium. This is about claims made by the publisher and developers, and how accurate those claims are. I do not believe Wikipedia ought to be a PR resource. If it's going to host a claim made by a company, it should also host possible points of contention on those claims to avoid bias and misinformation. It's simply a fact that WB and Monolith's claim does not live up to what it says, and that doesn't change just because you don't like it. This isn't the space to be a fanboy. This is a space for information. Gódhellim (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The source disputing the cannonisity of the changes needs to be third party, not direct from one book. Otherwise it is supposition and original research which is not allowed. Other editors may disagree with your interpretation - this is why this should be referenced to a third party and not your opinion. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  05:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't supposition though, and the books I am quoting are Tolkien's own. From Morgoth's Ring: "No living fëa of a dead Man ever returned to life in Middle-earth." From The Return of the King: "The second and greatest evil came upon Gondor in the reign of Telemnar, the twenty-sixth king . . . Soon after a deadly plague came with dark winds out of the East. The King and all his children died, and great numbers of the people of Gondor, especially those that lived in Osgiliath. Then for weariness and fewness of men the watch on the borders of Mordor ceased and the fortresses that guarded the passes were unmanned." [Appendix A] "1636 - The Great Plague devastates Gondor. Death of King Telemnar and his children . . . 2942 - Bilbo returns to the Shire with the Ring. Sauron returns in secret to Mordor." Ok, so it was ~1300 years, not ~1600. I misremembered the specifics, and I'll edit that, but 300 years doesn't make a difference here.


 * The developers claim that the game, which depicts a man who has returned to life and has the Black Gate being unmanned in 2942, is faithful to Tolkien's lore. My examples show inconsistencies with that claim. These are facts, not interpretations or opinions. They are supposing faithfulness to Tolkien's lore, but Tolkien's lore explicitly goes against their presentation of it.


 * There is no original research here. The guide to original research states that it qualifies when "no reliable, published sources exist" or it includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." I am using Tolkien's own words, with no added interpretation. Is Tolkien himself not the greatest authority and most reliable source regarding his own stories?


 * It seems you are unfamiliar with Morgoth's Ring, and therefore you believe I am using an illegitimate source. However, your unawareness of that text doesn't invalidate it as a source. Gódhellim (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am quite familiar with Tolkien's work, and I am quite familiar that a lot of the posthumously published works are contradictory, one need only compare The Silmarillion to Unfinished Tales and The Children of Hurin to realize any attempt to describe something as 'cannon' within Tolkien's larger legendarium is fraught with difficulty.  GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  07:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right that these works can often be contradictory, though picking two works edited into a narrative by Christopher might not be the best examples. It's for that reason that I wouldn't have used the origin of orcs as a point or whether or not one of Fëanor's sons perished in the burning of the ships, if those applied. However, this specific point is not contradicted by Tolkien, and there does not exist any consistency issues with it in his mythology. Articles about Tolkien on this site are filled with references to his posthumous works. There are many, many articles entirely concerned about things exclusively found in those works. I do not see why we must exempt this point -- why, do you feel, it should be excluded? Furthermore, regardless of that, I've also cited The Lord of the Rings for the other point, which has no contention regarding its status as canon. I can draw other facts from that work as well. Gódhellim (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding Beren: In the source I provided for men not being resurrected in Tolkien's legendarium, Tolkien addresses the exemption of Beren. He notes that it was due to Eru's involvement, and the restriction that Beren not be seen by men again, that Beren was allowed to return to life. The game developers have stated that it is Celebrimbor who returns Talion to life, and marketing material has shown that Talion will see those of the human race after his death. Beren is not a valid counter to the statement provided. Furthermore, the issue of Talion's resurrection has nothing else to do with other inconsistencies between Tolkien's lore and this game's story. I also find it worth repeating that WB/Monolith/the game's designers are a biased and non-authoritative source on what is canon or faithful to canon.Gódhellim (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your analysis of the lore may be correct. It definitely is WP:OR though. Making a comparison of one source to another and saying they don't match when there is no reliable source doing that for you is the essence of WP:OR. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I still don't see how that is OR. If Tolkien stated in one of his texts that 'there are no pink fairies riding unicorns in this world' and then a game with Tolkien's world as its setting which depicted pink fairies riding unicorns, there's zero room for any other interpretation. There's no misleading implication in bringing that up. This is the case with the resurrection of men in Tolkien's world and this game. Gódhellim (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not OR to quote tolkein (although it would be best to get that from a WP:SECONDARY source and not a WP:PRIMARY since there are certainly things Tolkein wrote that are not canon. So, there are two bits of OR. 1) Your decision that that particular writing defines canon. 2) Your comparison that a particular game element does not align with #1 is also OR and WP:SYNTH. Now, especially if you have a secondary source (but perhaps even if not) its fine to say "this is what tolkein said". Its NOT fine to say "And this does not line up with what they are doing in the game" with words like "however, although, contradict" etc. We cannot make that conclusion for ourselves. However, its fine to provide the info to the reader and let them make that conclusion on their own. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see how we can't make that conclusion for ourselves. If it clearly contradicts what Tolkien states, and that is a statement which Tolkien did not contest anywhere within any of his writings, then it seems to me that there is only one possible, and inevitable conclusion. Though, if I understand you correctly, would your issue with this be: "However, there are inconsistencies between the game's story and Tolkien's legendarium. For example," and the article would otherwise be fine if that were to be removed? Gódhellim (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It certainly reduces the problems by quite a bit to remove that wording. The reason we can't make that conclusion for ourselves, is because it directly violates the core of the "No original research" policy. Have you never come across these policies before? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OR "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
 * WP:SYNTH "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. "
 * WP:STICKTOSOURCE "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."
 * WP:PRIMARY " Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"
 * WP:PRIMARY "For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so"
 * etc.

Some sources discussing lore accuracy
Remember, because these sources open the door, it doesn't mean we can say whatever we want. We can only summarize their conclusions. Some of these sources are more reliable than others, some are mere blogs. Remember when stating the opinions of others, it is best to use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV


 * http://tolkienblog.com/games/shadow-of-mordor-canon/
 * http://www.gamespot.com/articles/shadow-of-mordors-wraith-and-the-joys-and-tribulat/1100-6421293/
 * "The one I get frustrated with is, sometimes people say “Oh, we haven’t seen exactly this thing before in Tolkien’s writings, we haven’t seen an exact example of this type of wraith, therefore it can’t happen.” But in reading Tolkien, there’s nothing like the army of the dead until we’ve seen the army of the dead. There’s nothing like the barrow-wights until we’ve seen the barrow-wights. There’s nothing like the dead marshes until we’ve seen the dead marshes. There’s not exactly a consistent way in which the ringwraiths are handled. Do they have flesh? Do they not have flesh? Are they physical? Are they corporeal? Are they incorporeal? I think a key part of the authenticity is that you do want to introduce something with a bit of mystery and a bit of wonder, but is still authentic in the canon, in the myth, in what we already know. I don’t think we would ever want to limit ourselves to only showing things that have been specifically included or shown in the books."


 * http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/12/youre-not-allowed-to-see-middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor/
 * http://middleearthnews.com/2014/06/17/shadow-of-mordor-to-be-or-not-to-be-canon/
 * http://venturebeat.com/2014/05/22/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-is-a-tolkien-game-with-shades-of-gray-not-good-or-evil-interview/
 * http://www.gamespot.com/articles/shadow-of-mordor-will-be-very-respectful-of-lotr-canon-says-dev/1100-6416190/

On a similar topic http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2014/07/13/91041-tolkien-book-to-jackson-script-the-medium-and-the-message/ Gaijin42 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2014
For the engine: https://twitter.com/asalisbury/status/401115024254439424

BorisDG (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)