I have to assume the real explanation is one of these:
Monolith and WB wanted a sexy evil chick in their game. There’s no sexy evil chick in The Lord of the Rings, so they just picked Shelob because fuck it why not?
Michael de Plater has the same kind of interpretation of Tolkien that you get at least once out of every undergraduate lit class. Just some dumbass hot take that involves literally zero understanding of the text, but man, you just don’t get me, man.
I always felt the worst thing about the first game was that it tied itself to the relatively restrictive LoTR lore. It would be a far better game if it used a generic fantasy world.
It needed greater enemy variety. One orc being afraid of fire and another immune to ranged attacks didn’t cut it for me. I finally got through the game, and the combat was decent enough, but the lack enemy variety made it tough to stick with.
On the other hand, I would have had absolutely zero interest in playing Shadow of Mordor had it been a generic fantasy world. The Middle Earth license is pretty much the only thing that got me to bite.
Having said that, I played it for about an hour and bounced off it. I’ll eventually give it another shot because it looked like there was a lot of fun to be had somewhere in there. There’s just something about a single player game where dying and respawning is a mechanic that rubs me the wrong way. I had the same problem with Planescape Torment…
Amen. Was thinking exactly the same thing when I read the prior post. Shelob as a daughter of Ungoliant is, if anything, even more evil than Melkor (Satan), let alone Sauron. This is a ludicrous distortion of lore.
I can understand this complaint, but largely because people interpret the lore as requiring a very restrictive list of enemy types, when you could easily include the same diversity as D&D if you wanted to in terms of creatures - just not as organized army units.