I ran across this post in a search of back-articles and I thought I would follow up bit ...

The question is what exact part of the novel we are going to "simulate". If there was ever a huge, complete, internally consistent fantasy world, Middle Earth is it. I see no particular obstacle to simulating it in a game, any more than WWII simulations are impaired by knowing the Allies have to take Berlin (ok, an oversimplification to be sure, but you see my point. maybe.)

It's just a question of the level of simulation. Fellowship of the Ring is lame because the military aspect is completely removed, which badly hamstrings [sic?] Sauron because that's one of his key tools. War of the Ring fails because options that would've made sense in the context of the novels are eliminated; mainly, the Free People using the One Ring to defeat Sauron - a concept so fundamental that Sauron's whole strategy is based on it, and you can see how it might therefore screw up the victory conditions. War of the Ring has other problems, but this one is the game-breaker.

The Middle-Earth CCG is the best of the lot, but it has it's own issues; nonetheless, it does an excellent job of simulating the Middle-Earth environment (and it's breakthrough, of course, was to make both players competing "good guys", dig up some fairly obscure Istari from the Unfinished Tales to make it work, and to set the game before the War of the Ring has really begun - i.e., to pick a workable set of parameters).

A really good War of the Ring game has not been done yet, but almost certainly will be. It's just a matter of getting the level of the simulation right and getting the right factors. The Fellowship won't win a primarily military game (SPI's War of the Ring), and Sauron won't win a character-based game (Fellowship of the Ring). And anything that does not harness the same breadth and uncertainty that we see in Middle-Earth: the Wizards is unlikely to be compelling. A challenge, but certainly not an insurmountable one.