I own Hobbit and LOTR so can't help comparing the code related gameplay.

In most aspects, Hobbit is like LOTR on steroids. More modes, better sound, display and lighting effects. It's very fun exploring the various aspects of the Hobbit, but if the games are meant to take you on an adventure, the Hobbit is missing some key story arcs whereas LOTR is complete.

To me, scoring is secondary to the adventure. After the adventure is completed you can go back and try to do it better!

Since Keith is the programmer on both games and given his past comments on game design, I wouldn't be surprised if the missing elements in the Hobbit were included in the original game architecture and are just waiting to be added as time and resources allow.

LOTR:
Start three different multiballs, each with their own starting requirements, to get to Destroy the Ring.
Start all modes to get to There and Back Again.
Beat modes and Multiballs to collect Elf Gifts.
Collect 7 Elf Gifts, Get to There and Back Again, Beat each multiball mode and Destroy the Ring to get to Valinor.

Hobbit:
Beat one Mode as one of the qualifiers for Arkenstone mode, further Mode completions don't advance adventure until Arkenstone mode is played.
Road to second Arkenstone mode is the same as the first.
Beating Multiball modes doesn't advance adventure.
Beating Arkenstone modes doesn't advance adventure.
Starting all modes doesn't advance adventure.

I think this is correct but if you see an error, please point it out.

TL:DR
Each of the features on the Hobbit are really well done and it's fun exploring the various aspects of the game. However, unlike LOTR, the Hobbit is less successful in taking you on an adventure because it doesn't advance the adventure when modes, multiballs, etc. are completed. I anticipate the missing elements being added in the future.

The best games engage both novice and advanced players.

IMHO the Hobbit succeeds with novice players and with some additional rules will succeed with advanced players.