Lord of the Rings vs. Ring of Darkness

Auto-translated

There are many flaws, such as Lule instead of Aule, or Ungoliant, the spider, becoming Ungoliath of the Underworld, but these are minor.
Technical aspects are well-executed, and there are very few flaws in the combat system (about the same as in Tolkien's works).
A new perspective on Middle-earth – yes, and that's precisely why many criticize it.
The sequel, "Adamant of Henna," turned out to be completely unsuccessful.
The style is somewhat too epic, and you get tired of reading it towards the end.
Overall, these are very different books – Tolkien's is a sad, philosophical saga, while Perumov's is a harsh combat story with some philosophical ideas.
I also liked "The Black Book of Arda," but if there, Nienna relies on beautiful language and a logical justification for a new perspective, then Perumov relies on combat, brightness, and the epic nature of the narrative.

Guys, what are you reading???:smile48: I'm in shock.:eek: All of Perumov's works are terribly primitive, and "Ring of Darkness," etc., are just fan fiction, and bad fan fiction at that (actually, "per" in Elvish means "half," so Nikolka got offended at the Elves). If you tried to mention in a serious RPG that Perumov is generally not bad, you would be buried alive, or sent to an asylum. And Nienna's "creation" is just a bunch of sentimental female drivel spread over many pages. It was after this that the joke about the 3 tasks for a Tolkien fan was finally formed: to cross a moat with werewolves, to obtain a Silmaril, and to dishonor Nienna.
And here's a joke on the topic:
A Tolkien fan ends up in Middle-earth. He sees mighty knights in mithril armor with huge swords, approaches them, and asks:
- Are you Gondorian knights?
- No, we are Perumovian hobbits.

Reading content in

Interface language

Lord of the Rings vs. Ring of Darkness