image

The launch of The Lord of the Rings: Gollum on other platforms was an unmitigated disaster. After multiple delays of the game, what eventually released was a buggy, unfinished mess that left customers feeling incredibly burned.

Shortly after that release, The Lord of the Rings: Gollum publisher Nacon released an apology that they shared on social media. If you happened to miss that apology back when it was first shared, you can find it in full below.

image

The apology was first published back in May of this year, and ever since there have been some who felt something was off about the statement. In particular, the gang at the Game Two YouTube Channel have been doing some legwork to find out what it is about the apology that didn’t ring true, and they believe they’ve discovered the answer.

Following their investigative work, there are now accusations that the above apology wasn’t written by a human at all. While not confirmed at this time, Game Two alleges that the AI program ChatGPT was used to craft the apology, and this direction was supposedly chosen by publisher Nacon.

Taking things a step further, two staffers at Daedalic Entertainment, the now-shuttered studio that created The Lord of the Rings: Gollum, claim that they weren’t informed of the apology letter at all before Nacon shared it. Seems a bit odd to offer up an apology to players that pledges fixes and more without actually talking to the developers behind the game.

Nacon is yet to comment on the accusations of their apology being written by ChatGPT. There’s no doubt the publisher would like to put this entire mess far behind them, but it looks like they’ll have a bit more explaining to do before that happens.

Add Comment

Comments (7)

mereel

8M ago

What a strange story. I just read through the apology letter, and found it to be perfectly acceptable in addressing the criticism as well as taking ownership of the problem. To me, the apology seems to have been written by a human. Even if it wasn’t, certainly a human had to read it over a few times, and perhaps make a few tweaks, before hitting ‘Send.’ I don’t see what the big deal is with this.
As a member of a Nintendo-only household, I’m glad we missed this game.


hawk

8M ago

We're approaching the area where people don't need to think for themselves anymore. I keep hearing colleagues talk about things they get ChatGPT to do for them--cover letters, programming, reviews--and it makes me worried. I guess ChatGPT is apologizing for us, too. This won't end well for humanity.

Side note: I asked ChatGPT if it could tell me how to beat the Dam level in the Ninja Turtles game for NES, and it was way off. Don't put TOO much faith in it, folks.


khufuthemummy

8M ago

@mereel

I think the criticism is that the apology isn’t very sincere if someone else wrote it. AI programs just form things from already existing content.


Sure, but then it leads to the question, who do they even need to "sincerely" apologize to? The game is bad, absolutely, but who cares? It looked bad at every instance shown, and being harassed by a bunch of nerds online who didn't even buy it doesn't warrant an apology, especially when they stopped developing games because It bombed so bad. No part of this story was that big of a deal.

Edited 1 time

khufuthemummy

8M ago

@bakfug

It may have "bombed", but a lot of people still bought it. I'm sure there was some jumping on the pile by people who didn't, but those who did have every right to complain. Using PR spin when the developers don't even intend on fixing the problems is maybe not a big deal, it's just weird.


I personally wouldn't consider ~10,000 sold "a lot" especially when that doesn't take into consideration how many people on Steam that refunded it. It was a big stream meme game for a week too, so a ton of people who didn't buy it were ripping on it constantly. I didn't say they couldn't complain either, but people demanding and dissecting an apology from a studio no longer making games because it absolutely bombed, by any stretch of the word, is more obnoxious than anything. Instead, people should actually look at what they are buying first.

But of course it's weird because the devs seemingly didn't do this nor know about it. But that wasn't your point to being with. This apology didn't need to exist, but since it does, it's perfectly fine as is.


khufuthemummy

8M ago

@bakfug

That point is brought up in the article itself. *shrug*