From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

The Hobbit (2003) by Sierra came up as a semi-precursor to souls-likes.
It looks and sounds interesting, and seems to get a lot of praise. Unfortunately while it was available on PC, it was never released for streaming, so is essentially unavailable, unless Arr. Most sources I
can find review the PS2 or Nintendo versions.

I'm wondering if anyone here has played it and has thoughts?
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 19:23:34 -0800, Justisaur <[email protected]>
said this thing:

The Hobbit (2003) by Sierra came up as a semi-precursor to souls-likes.
It looks and sounds interesting, and seems to get a lot of praise. >Unfortunately while it was available on PC, it was never released for >streaming, so is essentially unavailable, unless Arr. Most sources I
can find review the PS2 or Nintendo versions.

I'm wondering if anyone here has played it and has thoughts?

I played it back when it was new-ish. Of course, that was 20+ years
ago, so my memories of the game aren't the sharpest.

It wasn't a good game, I remember that much. It was a kid-friendly
retelling of the book and not, IIRC, connected at all to the movies
(so there was a significant difference in art style). It all felt very cartoony. My general recollection is that it didn't really feel fresh
in anyway, beyond its license; just another in a long line of similar
feeling third-person action games.

From what I recall, it was more platformer than combat and calling it
a Souls-like is probably stretching the definition. The fighting was
very forgiving, and not that dependent on timing or blocking (in fact,
I don't remember if you even could block in the game). Just wacking at
the attack button was usually enough to get you through most fights.
Nothing really in the way of upgrades, no serious penalty for dying,
no real dark atmosphere. It lacked pretty much everything that made a
Souls game so distinctive.

Much of the game revolved around climbing and jumping. It was relly
more of a third-person action/adventure, more akin to games like "Tomb
Raider" or "Soul Reaver". Games which, sure, are part of the
Souls-genre's heritage... but ultimately I wouldn't consider The
Hobbit to be a souls game in any way.


(It also didn't help that the PC version I played was a very obvious
port of the console versions, which offended my 'PC Master Race'
sensibilities. I'm more forgiving of that sort of things these days,
but it annoyed me back in 200x when I played it ;-)

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 3/5/2026 8:54 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 19:23:34 -0800, Justisaur <[email protected]>
said this thing:

The Hobbit (2003) by Sierra came up as a semi-precursor to souls-likes.
It looks and sounds interesting, and seems to get a lot of praise.
Unfortunately while it was available on PC, it was never released for
streaming, so is essentially unavailable, unless Arr. Most sources I
can find review the PS2 or Nintendo versions.

I'm wondering if anyone here has played it and has thoughts?

I played it back when it was new-ish. Of course, that was 20+ years
ago, so my memories of the game aren't the sharpest.

It wasn't a good game, I remember that much. It was a kid-friendly
retelling of the book and not, IIRC, connected at all to the movies
(so there was a significant difference in art style). It all felt very cartoony. My general recollection is that it didn't really feel fresh
in anyway, beyond its license; just another in a long line of similar
feeling third-person action games.

From what I recall, it was more platformer than combat and calling it
a Souls-like is probably stretching the definition. The fighting was
very forgiving, and not that dependent on timing or blocking (in fact,
I don't remember if you even could block in the game). Just wacking at
the attack button was usually enough to get you through most fights.
Nothing really in the way of upgrades, no serious penalty for dying,
no real dark atmosphere. It lacked pretty much everything that made a
Souls game so distinctive.

Much of the game revolved around climbing and jumping. It was relly
more of a third-person action/adventure, more akin to games like "Tomb Raider" or "Soul Reaver". Games which, sure, are part of the
Souls-genre's heritage... but ultimately I wouldn't consider The
Hobbit to be a souls game in any way.

I looked up and watched a little bit of playthrough, yeah very basic
hard action/adventure platformer. That isn't enough to bring it close
to souls, though souls was essentially that before people decided to
carve it off into it's own genre. It does seem to have some sort of
jumping attack and some powered attack, but no dodging and looks clunky
(of course Demon Souls, DS1&2 are pretty clunky if you don't play the remasters - which DS2 doesn't have.)

I'm guessing it's just people being nostalgic about it who played it at
that age it left an impression as that seems to be mostly what I saw
about it.

As a fan of the book (movies were just o.k. to me, except the old
animated one I liked) I was hoping it was good, but it doesn't really
look it.

(It also didn't help that the PC version I played was a very obvious
port of the console versions, which offended my 'PC Master Race' sensibilities. I'm more forgiving of that sort of things these days,
but it annoyed me back in 200x when I played it ;-)

I too am less incensed about console ports these days than I would've
been then.

If it were more available at a reasonable price I might consider giving
it a try just for my love of the Hobbit. I'm sure I could find it and
emulate it from PS2, but I'd frankly rather pay a couple bucks than go
through that hassle, the hassle being a bit too much from what I'm seeing.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2