Ok. So I have noticed that in the relative short time I have been on these forums, people either love or they hate the Hobbit. Honestly, people tend to think it is one of the top 10 greatest games of all time, or they don't...as in REALLY don't. (There is often very little middle ground here -- it is usually one or the other.)

The thing I find so odd about this is that most people who tend to hate the Hobbit also tend to love MM...and I mean LOVE it. The odd thing to me about this is that I see both of these games being entirely similar with similar (if not entirely identical) layouts. From my perspective, I think it impossible to love MM, but hate the Hobbit. From a playfield layout perspective, they are largely very similar (if not in many aspects even IDENTICAL!)

Now, to be fair, I can see someone not liking either game. I could also see someone liking the newer technology, artwork, and greater sophistication of the Hobbit. Again, to be fair, I could even see someone preferring MM to the Hobbit -- if only for nostalgia. However, I can't for the life of me understand how anyone can claim that MM is one of the greatest pins of all time, and then with the same breath claim that TH is (in their words not mine) "terrible" or "boring."

Let's look at the fantastic (nearly identical in many respects) similarities shall we?

Largely Identical Single Main Bash Toy in Upper Left Playfield:
Both games, in a way, somewhat revolve around bashing the crap out of a single bash target. In fact, the main bash toys (i.e., Smaug and the Castle respectively) are in the EXACT same location on the playfield. One toy (Castle) has two standup targets and a drawbridge that lowers to reveal a hidden upkicker. The other (Smaug) has 5 drop targets which drop to reveal 3 hidden standup targets and a hidden upkicker.

Honestly, other than one is a castle and one is a talking dragon, there is almost ZERO difference between the two. The only real difference is the Hobbit's hidden upkicker (Balin) diverts to the left ramp instead of just spitting the ball back out.

Upper Right Wizard Upkicker:
Both games have another UNhidden cave/hole/upkicker on the right side of the playfield in almost the EXACT same place. For crying out loud, they are both even named after Wizards! MM's is Merlin. Hobbit's is Radagast. The only real difference, again, is Radagast's upkicker diverts to the right ramp instead of just spitting it back out on the playfield.

Pop Up Trolls/Beasts to Block Main Shots:
MM has pop up trolls that block the two main ball paths depending on the mode. The Hobbit has the same -- but it just has 4 popup targets instead of 2.

Largely Identical Ramps:
Both games have two ramps towards the back of the machine -- one on the right and one on the left. The right ramp on both machines leads to the left flipper and vice versa on both machines.

Far Left Catapult/Windlance:
Both machines have second shooting mechanisms on the far left of the playfield. One is called the "catapult." The other is called the "windlance." Other than the fact TH allows players to control the strength of the windlance shot, they are largely identical in both form and function.

Location of Pop Bumpers:
For crying out loud, even the pop bumpers are located in the exact same place in the upper right corner of both playfields!

Orbits:
Far left and far right orbits surround both machines.

Standup Targets on Lower Right Playfield:
Three standup targets are found in the lower right of both machines.

Honestly, I fail to see how anyone could fail to miss the blatant similarities. Yes, there are some differences, but these differences are largely with the Hobbit having far more sophistication and deeper gaming rules (which, again, I really don't see as a bad thing). As far as the playfield layout is concerned, the differences seem pretty minor.

Minor Changes to Layout (differences with Hobbit):
1. Added a far right upper flipper and a far left upper slingshot dedicated to help in your bashing the main toy. (People act like this is a bad thing, but I find it very useful. I get this is arguably the biggest difference, but it is one that makes total sense to me. TH is basically MM with an additional upper right flipper and upper left slingshot to help bash the main toy.)
2. Added two additional pop up targets to block main shots (i.e., 4 instead of 2), but made it less likely that more than one of those targets would be active at the same time. Also added an additional mini game (Beast Frenzy) to the pop up targets throughout the game.
3. Added a "one ring" button for the player to better control the power of the hidden far left catapult/windlance for more skill shots mid game. Diverted the catapult/windlance to the lower playfield instead of the orbit. Added a variety of cool skill shots with the catapult/windlance.
4. Added two magnets on the orbit to drop the ball into a secret cave leading to a subway or into the pop bumpers.
5. Added a captive ball/standup target in the top center of of the playfield in the center of the two ramps and to the right of the main bash target.
6. Added drop targets in front of the 3 lower right standup targets, added the same to the lower left side of the playfield.
7. Changed the primary shooter rod to divert to the lower playfield instead of the orbit; again, added multiple skill shots.
8. Changed the theme of the game from a medieval theme to a Tolkein movie theme. Added a number of additional software and gaming modes and more sophisticated game code. Changed the artwork. Added an LCD sreen instead of a DMD screen. Replaced the damsel in distress toy with a different toy book having a second LCD screen. Added toys on the top of the pop bumpers.
End.

I grew up playing MM in the late 90s (my parents had a machine). I own a Hobbit. I fail to see how anyone refuses to recognize the blatant similarities between the two. The Hobbit is essentially MM evolved. To me, it is impossible to like the layout of MM and hate the layout of the Hobbit. They are largely the exact same (or at least entirely similar) layouts.

Again, I think you can hate the layout of both games (that is fair). I think you can like both games. I think you can also prefer one game over the other (also fair). I do think, however, it is impossible to love the layout of one (usually MM) and claim to hate the layout of the other (usually TH). Such an argument does not seem genuine. Personally, again, I find the Hobbit to be the vastly superior game. In my opinion, it is much like MM, but on steroids with far more shots, far more skill shots, far more sophistication, far better theming, and far better artwork, and a far better pin experience.

Again, it is cool if you don't agree with me on this (we are all entitled to our own opinions), but I really just don't think you can say you LOVE the layout of MM, but hate the layout of the Hobbit. It seems to me both illogical and irrational given how absurdly similar the layout of the playfields of these two games are.

Just my two cents.

Well put. Again, I am fine with impact as long as those who claim to dislike the Hobbit can articulate rationally and logically their playfield dislikes. And, again, it is totally cool if you dislike both MM and the Hobbit -- I think having that opinion would be totally fair.

But, as I said, to date, the only gripe I ever hear about the Hobbit from the dislike camp is that they don't like the playfield layout. And, then, I check the history of these same forum posters, and most seem to be unable to do anything but give rave reviews for MM. As but one example, go read the reviews for the ratings of the Hobbit. Pretty much everyone admits the game is beautiful -- maybe even one of the most beautiful games ever made. Pretty much everyone agrees that the game has stellar music, animations, callouts, and theming. Everyone agrees the game rules are incredibly deep and engaging. Really, the only place where some people give this game bad reviews are in the layout category. But then, you check these same reviews for MM, and it is 10 out of 10 for layout.

And, yet, the playfield layouts of the two games are entirely similar...indeed, almost identical...

Seems odd. Seems nostalgia above everything else tends to be a major factor or like/dislike of the theme. Which is fine for preferences purposes, but can you really LOVE the layout of MM but HATE the layout of the Hobbit at the same time?

Seems impossible to me.

Glad I am not taking crazy pills... My points exactly. Best.

I think all three are similar games in many respects, but TH is closer to both LOTR and MM than LOTR and MM are to each other.

I own both the LOTR and the Hobbit. I could argue that the Hobbit feels much like LOTR in a way because of the number of quest modes and the depth and sophistication of the gaming rules. But other than this, does not feel much like the hobbit and feels very little like MM.

First, there is no bash target in the LOTR other than Balrog Bash and Fellowship multiball. That bash toy is also on the lower center of the playfield -- and, again, is for very limited use. There is one, and I mean one, mode where the diverter moves and you can directly target Orthanc tower in the upper left area of LOTR, but again, that is very limited play given the number of modes in the LOTR.

No popup bash targets, no primary bash target other than VERY limited play (like less than a 10th of the game), and no catapult/windlance. The ramps too in LOTR are anything but the smooth and buttery feel to the ones in MM and TH. The far right ramp of LOTR in particular appears to be at a wrong angle. In any event, the entrance for the ramp is in the front part of the playfield as opposed to the back. The ramps in the LOTR really do not feel like ramp shots at all to be honest in the traditional sense. Not the same as MMR and the Hobbit.

There is a big buttery orbit and a right and left upkick in all three machines with pop bumpers in the same location, but that is about it.

I would say the Hobbit is far more similar to the LOTR than LOTR is to MMR. And, TH is far more like MM than any other game. TH feels to me very much like the code and mode sophistication of LOTR met the almost identical playfield design of MM and they had a baby. But, mom and dad were different animals -- similar, but different.

That being said, and in my personal opinion, there is absolutely no question that TH is better than both mom and dad as far as overall gameplay is concerned -- but that is a different topic for a different thread.

In conclusion,
MM and TH and LOTR = All Have Certain Similarities
MM and TH = Most similar
TH and LOTR = Second most similar
MM and LOTR = Least Similar Despite Certain Similarities

Pretty telling conclusion and is exactly the point I am trying to make. MM sits in the top 2 best pins of all time. LOTR? Allegedly number 6. The Hobbit? A very distant alleged 29th.

What? This seems extremely inconsistent, especially given that TH is arguably the evolution of both MM and LOTR -- but particularly MM. Is it because people hate the artwork of the hobbit? Nope, pretty much everyone agrees it is one of the prettiest games of all time. Is it because they don't like the game rules? Nope, pretty much everyone agrees the game is one of the most sophisticated pins of all time with over 31 different modes. Is it the callouts, music, lack of licensed theming? Nope, everyone seems to agree that the TH is one of the best in these categories.

What is it then? Well according to the negative raters, it is the playfield layout. BUT, these same raters seem to find no problem in rating the layout and gameplay of MM as being the best or one of the best of all freaking time!!!! Huh???

Look, again, you can argue that LOTR and MM are your preferred pins over TH. You can even say you hate the Hobbit theming. You could maybe even argue that you think the Hobbit stole its awesome ideas from MM, and therefore you don't like it. BUT...there really is simply NO WAY to argue that LOTR and, particularly, MM have vastly superior playfield layouts to the Hobbit -- the layouts of TH and MM are entirely similar if not almost the exact same!!

And, yet, if you were to read the negative ratings for the Hobbit on pinside and the reason why this game is allegedly not in the top 10, the number one reason given is "playfield layout" and "gameplay." Seems beyond absurd to me when these same negative raters turn around and rate the playfield layout and gameplay of MM as being arguably one of the best, if not THE best, of all time.

My point: it seems too many of us seem to favor nostalgia a bit too much. Either that, or far too many pinside members hate short people with hairy feet and big appetites.

And, as someone who grew up playing pinball in general and MM in particular, I can totally agree and even relate to this.

However, if this is the case, then let's be honest shall we? We rate MM as being a top 10 pin because a) we like it and b) nostalgia. In turn, it seems unfair to pick on TH just because it is newer. It is certainly unfair to rate it lower than it deserves just because we didn't spend our formative years playing it.

Again, it is pretty obvious that my personal preference is that TH is a top 10 pin. If we on pinside are going to rate is lower than top 10 (as it currently stands) then let's at least be honest about why we are doing this. Being arbitrary and capricious and stating it is only a top 30 pin because of "playfield layout," when that does not seem to be a the case, seems a bit unfair to our integrity does it not? Or, at least to JJP who made one heck of a game?

I know right? I mean, even the artwork of the trapdoors are largely the same artwork!

There is no need to apologize, but we certainly do not need to add a poll. That is the whole point, there already is a poll. That poll is called the Pinside Top 100 that ranks MM as being arguably the best pin of all time and TH a distant 29th.

This thread is not meant to be offensive in any way. Rather, for those who truly allegedly HATE the layout of the Hobbit, but LOVE the layout of MM, please tell us Hobbit lovers (as players who also grew up playing MM and played the crap out of both games), how they game layouts are so dissimilar -- i.e., because the point is they really are not that different.

With all due respect, I could not disagree more, nor do I think you have thought this through entirely. I see some of your points, but I think this misses the mark.

Bashing the castle slows down gameplay in MM far more than the drop targets in TH. Both slow down some (again, similar). There is substantial "give" with bashing the castle -- WAY more than the drop targets in the Hobbit. There is also often crossing the moat that slows gameplay and flow down even more, so I am not buying this argument that Smaug drop targets slow down gameplay and flow more than then moat and give to the castle in MM.

The ramps in TH are entirely similar to the ones in MM, but are even more centrally located for more punishing returns. And the castle, like Smaug, is to the left -- it is not entirely SDTM. Maybe more than Smaug, sure, but the ramps in TH are far more punishing that the castle in MM -- especially given the diverter that turns this into a fast loop on occasion.

Also, the ramps are shorter in TH for quicker flipper returns and flow. It is far more punishing to target ramps in the Hobbit than in MM given they are slightly closer together in the middle. Moreover, unlike the ramps in MM, the ramps in the Hobbit are entirely critical to high score and gameplay. In the Hobbit, you can't just sit back and bash Smaug and expect a good score. As far as center drains are concerned, TH can be far more brutal very similar to shooting the one ring ramp in LOTR.

Successful ramp shots are also much quicker in TH from what I can tell.

Yes, there is more side to side in the wide body hobbit. There is also the dedicated upper flipper. But, no, center shots do induce center drains in the exact same way regardless of body type (side to side shots are different in a wide body, not center shots).

The ramps in the hobbit are SDTM, Smaug is slightly to the left -- so is the castle in MM.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Yes, there are differences, but not so many as to claim that one game has the best playfield layout of all time and the other is only a top 30 -- and dropping -- due to playfield layout.

I agree the playfields are not the exact same, but they are still entirely similar. Even though one is wide body, there are mechanisms in place that make these two games feel very similar.

And what would be the purpose? We already know that many who love MM hate the Hobbit. These people are not going to admit to the accuracy of my (and others) observations on the clear similarities -- especially if they can just disclaim them with the click of a button. I didn't write this post to gain a popularity contest. I already know that most pinsiders believe MM to be the vastly superior game, even if they won't admit the playfield layout and gameplay of the two games are entirely similar.

The problem is, can they truly articulate it in more than one word responses such as "wide body" even though the Hobbit is indeed a widebody, but with punishing center shots -- and therefore irrelevant as to bodytype. Or "drop targets" even though the moat and give of the castle in MM slows down gameplay far more than Smaug drop targets. I am looking for two things with this post. First, that there are other pinside members who agree with me (confirmed). Second, can anyone fully articulate their own observations as to why I am dead wrong? (I have yet to see it.)

I have played these games. With respect to MM in particular, I can promise I have played it far more than most. I see both these games as being very similar both is style, layout and gameplay -- though one being vastly superior to the other as far as versatility, artwork, music, modes and sophistication is concerned. Again, not my point of this thread, but even watching games on you tube should show you that gameplay is largely the same in both games -- except that in the Hobbit you actually have to shoot the ramps and other targets and not ignore them altogether.

More side to side in the Hobbit? Sure. It is by design. Is that alone justification for one of these machines being the "best of all time" and the other being a distant 29 and dropping? I certainly don't see it. Especially when "playfield layout" is the number one "argument" for the contrast in ranking -- because it surely isn't artwork, callouts, animation, theming, or versatility.

Honestly, I just wanted one person to agree with me because so many others acted like I was taking crazy pills when I first pointed out what I see are beyond obvious similarities. In truth, I think there is no question that MM was the inspiration for the Hobbit. In fact, I would be shocked to learn if the game designers at JJP didn't start with a template of MM and build and expand from there.

I already know it is not the popular opinion (heaven forbid that MM ever be dethroned as the "greatest pin of all time" in my lifetime if not my great grandchildren's lifetime). But, the opinion is still mine (and, apparently others too). The only question that remains is whether there is a convincing argument I have missed as to why my observations are dead wrong. I guess we will see, but so far all I get are "too long," "not reading," "essay," "widebody," and "drop targets" -- i.e., not entirely convincing.

Cheers.

Thank you for this.

But if the primary shot of the wide body are the targets that are (more or less) straight up the middle or only slightly to the left, does merely being a widebody really change the gameplay that much? Oh it does in some respects to be sure, but so much so that we don't see these games as being largely similar? I just don't think it does.

To be fair, I would ask you to clarify what shot difference are so different? I see main bash target slightly to the left. I also see main back center right ramp, main back center left ramp on both machines. Other than there being far MORE shots in the Hobbit (especially with drop targets), I just don't see it being that much different.

I agree 100% on your observations between the Hobbit and the LOTR. But, to be fair again, the castle in MM isn't really a bash toy either -- at least not entirely. It is two standup targets that drop to reveal an upkicker after so many "hits."

Maybe I am just not seeing a huge difference between a moulded castle with two moulded targets that drop after so many hits to reveal an upkicker and a moulded dragon toy on a pile of gold with 5 interactive drop targets that reveal 3 standup targets and a hidden vertical upkicker.

Call it a bash "target" and it is more or less the same.

Really the main differences I see between the two games are not playfield design and layout at all. If it is anything it is the fact that, in the Hobbit, you can't just shoot the castle -- the objectives are purposefully far more diverse, which, ultimately does change gameplay. (Again, in my opinion for the better -- understanding that is entirely personal.)

But the differences in overall layout, not a lot. Hence, my confusion remains as to why one ranks so incredibly high in layout, and the other ranks (at least comparatively) much much lower.

Still seems very inconsistent.

New to pinside. New to personal pin ownership as an adult. Not at all new to pinball, both arcade and home. Not at all new to living in homes where a variety of pins are owned and playing the crap out of them. Besides, shouldn't make my observations any less relevant should it? Seems a red herring.

Edit: Especially the part about the Browns and Hellen Keller.

If these games are, indeed, so dissimilar as to layout and design, I would appreciate words and relevant cordial argument, not insults. (It just devalues your position and cheapens the dialogue I think.)

Cheers.

Appreciate that remark. Sorry if I offended you, but I don't think it merits the insult. If I am wrong, please articulate using an insightful response.

Honest Question For You: Do you seriously think the game designers at JJP did NOT have MM in mind as a template when they were creating this game? Because that alone seems to be a given. Honestly, I don't even think it is up for debate whether the actual professionals (i.e., the game designers at JJP) weren't at least trying to go for the same or similar feel as MM. Really, I think the only matter up for debate is whether they succeeded. Being professionals, I think it likely they did (and I have yet to hear why or how they did not).

I addressed over 90% of this in my original post. Not to mention that on some of this stuff you are just dead wrong. (Example: Both games have a "catapult" on the far left side of the playfield. The "windlance" in the hobbit is similar in both form and function. Just FYI. Have you played both these games?)

Honestly, everything you just stated was either (a) dead wrong (i.e., catapults) or (b) I have already acknowledged in my original post. Seriously are you just trolling at this point? We are talking already recognized differences, but most of these are minor. I am clearly not alone in my opinion;, others have admitted the playfield is similar and the play feels similar. For crying out loud you didn't even know there was a windlance in the Hobbit and I don't even think you have played the game.

As to the question I asked, I don't think there is any real doubt in anyone's mind (except maybe yours) that the designers at JJP had MM in mind when they created the Hobbit. Duly noted that you feel (even though you have apparently never played the Hobbit) that they failed in that regard. But with all due respect, I think I would rather listen to the opinions of those who have clearly played this game extensively.

Thanks.

Ain't it the truth?

Well played. Though to be fair, I recognized that they are different games entirely. Rather, my beef is largely if and when anyone generally has a problem with the Hobbit, it is allegedly because of "playfield layout." The issue is, particularly, playfield layout -- which I still think is largely similar to MM and, in my opinion, gives the game a similar "feel." It just seems interesting to me that two games with similar layouts and (albeit to some) similar feels can achieve such drastic differences in ratings based entirely on playfield layout.

Kevin Bacon wasn't in footloose. j/k

Sorry I took offense to your response. (I hate the Browns. )

Touche. I still see some similarities and (I think) will hold onto my opinions, but I can see your opinion (and your point).

Best.