This thread over at RPG.net links to the article and people describe what it says inside. What do you think based on this info?
I've not read that thread in its entirety just yet, but here are my feelings about some of the points translated on the first page there (unsure how accurately...) -
* Sophisticated Games liked Francesco Nepitello's work on the LotR boardgame, so they hired him to do a RPG, too, once the licence was free. Cubicle 7 will be publishing, obviously.
Not good.
* The physical product MIGHT look something like Warhammer 3.
Not good.
* For "doing one thing but one thing well" he cites D&D4 and WHFRP3 as examples.
Not good.
* So what is it about? Historical Reconstruction. They went back to the source and researched Tolkien's texts extensively. The game tries to capture his specific stories, themes and characteristics.
Good.
* This means the game won't include stuff like long histories of the world, maps of the whole Middle Earth or rules to play High Elves. It is their choice not to go the old way of making a book that has rules on how to "create any character or do anything". The focus is on the human themes of that period in Tolkien's history.
Not good.
* These periods will go from after The Hobbit (base book) up to the "finale" at Mt. Doom. (so apparently no Silmarilion material)
Not good.
* The game doesn't assume that Frodo or any of the other characters exist. It will be up to the players to tell the story. Maybe the PCs will take on the task of carrying the ring, maybe they won't.
Good.
* What's important is the spirit, style and themes of Tolkien's stories.
Good.
* All of the game's rules serve this purpose.
Good.
* Characters are described by three base stats, taken from Gandalf's speech to Frodo about the trials ahead of him.
Not good.
* Game time is hence divided into "seasons". After each adventure comes a period of rest. This will allow a character to develop both heroic traits and family and friendly ties.
Not good.
* There will be a class/career system intended to respect Tolkien's tropes. (no point-buy jacks of all trades that don't fit in the world)
Good.
* The design team paid a lot of attention to what people actually do at the table and influence player behaviour through game mechanics
Good.
* So the point is social dynamics at the table, and not preoccupation with the physics of the world and questions whether a sword does +1 or +2 damage.
Not good.
* Pendragon is cited as an influence.
Good.
The other points were either vague, ambiguous, irrelevant (to me), or such that I have no definite feelings about them, at this stage.
Really could with more detail, of course, but thanks for linking that. I'll see if the rest of the thread yields anything of value.