You guys must be high, I thought bfme2, third age, conquest, and war in the north were all dope! I don't care if "their doing a bad job with the license", I'm gonna buy any game with lotr in the name because why not? Warhammer lotr costs like a bajillion quid to collect and by comparison the games seem like good deals no matter the quality. I always found the games were fun and DID make the rest of the lotr universe more accessible to me and my friends. I'm definatley getting guardians.
I guess we're both kinda saying that just because it has "Lord of the Rings" in the title, doesn't make it a good game, or a particularly thematic game. I'm not a big enough of a fan to buy an LotR game if its mediocre and non-thematic, and I really haven't found many of them to be particularly fun (I did enjoy FotR, RotK, and BFME). None of the LotR games have been particularly good, and maybe with the exception of LotRO, none of the more recent LotR games have been very thematic. EA, and now Warner Bros, know that people will buy their games simply because its LotR--in this way, they can continue to release mediocre games, and still make money, cashing in on the license. But there's nothing you can get from the LotR games that you can't get better from another game, except the fact that its "Lord of the Rings."
I do agree with you about video games, though. I no longer play SBG or collect LotR miniatures. And if a battle can be better simulated through a video game, I'm not as keen to try it in miniature. Like,"Why should I spend hundreds of dollars and hours on the Strategy Battle Game, when I could play Battle For Middle Earth instead?" For example, I've decided to pass on Flames of War, or any other WWII miniatures game, because I can't justify playing them over Company of Heroes, which I got from Steam for $10.