I think we've had this discussion before about this exact same topic. However, why does it matter that it has a different tone to Tolkein's writing? It's written by different people, for a different purpose. Spin off titles don't need to share the exact same tone and messages as previous works in a universe.
I can agree that some of the magic stuff is a bit iffy and doesn't fit particularly well into the LOTR universe. However arguing that it doesn't work because it doesn't match Tolkein's tone is frankly a bit silly. Middle Earth isn't defined by the message that war is hell. It's defined by what Tolkein wrote, not how he wrote it. He wrote about orcs and men, dark powers, wizards, elves and dwarves, giant cities, deep caverns, evil monsters and little heroes. He created a world which people want to explore. This exploration shouldn't be limited by the messages he wove into his writings.
I disagree on this point entirely. The themes and ideas behind what he wrote in The Hobbit and LOTR (what you define as how he wrote) are the most important parts of the story. There are a million books out there with orcs and wizards and dark powers. Almost none of them have the same power, appeal or success as LOTR. Why? Because while very many writers have copied wholesale what Tolkien wrote (the wizards and orcs), they ignored the ideas and themes that made his stories so powerful in the first place. They copied the 'what' but not the 'how'.
The themes Tolkien covers in LOTR, regarding corruption, war, power et all, aren't just unimportant bits of background decoration, they are absolutely key parts of the story. Not just in the characters or the events, but in the actual way the narrative plays out. This is a setting where every evil thing in Middle Earth has its origins in the works of Melkor, where violence as the root of all evil isn't just a pretty saying, but
an actual historic fact. The reason that orcs, trolls, wargs, wraiths and other fell things even exist in Middle Earth is because Melkor turned against the Valar and decided to start a millenia-spanning war. Every part of Middle Earth's history is defined by the fact that war is almost literally hell, as it is the creation of the supreme agent of Evil within the setting. The reason the Tolkien Estate (and Christopher Tolkien in particular) have been upset over the films is because how how they missed that point, and instead focused on making the warring seem as cool as possible. This game looks to be going even worse in that regard, making primal violence the main appeal of the game, rather than one of its main horrors.
While writers are certainly at liberty to do what they want with the story (although in this case the story is legally obliged to be sat between The Hobbit and LOTR with no mention of the Silmarillion), they also have an obligation to make sure it is fitting and in keeping with the series it is drawing on. The LOTR series is one where the themes of the story are absolutely an integral part of the whole, and the 'how' is just as important as the 'what'. Jettisoning that to make a game which glorifies a magic ranger slaughtering orcs in a 'super epic' way just misses the point completely. It's like making a sequel to Saving Private Ryan and ending up with Captain America.
That's not saying anything on the game's mechanics or gameplay, just that it looks to have gained absolutely nothing by being set in Middle Earth, as opposed to an original fantasy setting that would allow for this sort of revelry in violence.
