Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle-earth Ships

'The Lord of the Rings' Fans Rise Up! EA Ships The Lord of The Rings, The Battle for Middle-earth has news that the Real-Time Strategy game based on the Lord of the Rings movies is now available in stores. Here's a bit:
Choose your army! Gondor, Rohan, Mordor and Isengard are available and awaiting your command. Each with their own distinct heroes, strengths, and weaknesses, the battle for Middle-earth has commenced and players must lead their chosen army to victory. Prepare for war by creating offensive and defensive strategies set in the memorable battle locations taken straight from the big screen. The Lord of the Rings, The Battle for Middle-earth brings the stunning visuals and sounds of the films directly to the PC with extensive use of the movie's digital assets, film clips musical score, and voiceover from the real actors.
View : : :
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
24.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 9, 2004, 00:48
24.
Re: No subject Dec 9, 2004, 00:48
Dec 9, 2004, 00:48
 
So what's a good RTS?

I'm really not an RTS fan, I like very few of them and play even fewer.

Sacrifice
Dungeon Keeper 2 (first one was so-so)
Homeworld

These are the 3 best RTS games ever imo. I played them all the way thru, and DK2 and Homeworld I played thru twice. Only other RTS I finished entirely was Starcraft. Everything else I played, while good, just weren't good enough. C&C, Red Alert, Warcraft 2 & 3, Age of Empires, Total Annihilation...etc, etc.

----------------------------------------------------
Zero Tolerance Games Counter-Strike: Source server.
http://www.ztgames.com
23.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 8, 2004, 00:38
23.
Re: No subject Dec 8, 2004, 00:38
Dec 8, 2004, 00:38
 
zodd, the only good reasons you gave were 1&5. I won't buy it until I play a demo as well.

And Shadowcat, I'll take your advice on Total War. The last RTS I followed closely was Rise of Nations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
22.
 
No subject
Dec 7, 2004, 15:51
22.
No subject Dec 7, 2004, 15:51
Dec 7, 2004, 15:51
 
I was hoping this would finally be a good RTS game, but I'm afraid I will not buy this because:

1) No demo
2) No beta tester reviews
3) It's made by EA
4) It's a RTS and the last 20 I bought were horrible.
5) No demo

I'm sorry, I've just about given up all hope for the RTS genre. Hordes of mindless "infantry", "tanks", and "flyers", each coming out of a magical unit-generator with a different texture worked 10+ years ago. It has no appeal at all to me anymore. THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!!

21.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 7, 2004, 15:05
21.
Re: No subject Dec 7, 2004, 15:05
Dec 7, 2004, 15:05
 
Ataneruo: The "Total War" games really are a slightly different kettle of fish to most RTS games. Read some reviews and see what you think.

20.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 7, 2004, 11:46
20.
Re: No subject Dec 7, 2004, 11:46
Dec 7, 2004, 11:46
 
Generals was a very enjoyable game I thought. The engine was stellar and still is to this day.

Rome Total War is the best RTS I have ever played but it does have its flaws just like most games.

Dawn Of War was one of the worst RTS games I have ever played. Far too easy and extremely boring.

I think and have read some pre reviews of this LOTR rts and most people said it was really weak except the graphics. I will try before I buy if you know what I mean (bit torrent).

19.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 7, 2004, 10:40
19.
Re: No subject Dec 7, 2004, 10:40
Dec 7, 2004, 10:40
 
Well I definately wont be buying it before I try, the trailers made it look good since they havent shown ANY REAL gameplay at all, just fun moments in the game. Generals does suck as a MP game and it sucks even more as a SP game, Dawn of War and Total rome are the best RTS this year, seriously this LOTR game sounds pretty bad, I was going to buy it straight after the reivews but meh, they had to dumb it down didnt they.

For me the auto recourses is the stupidest idea ever, why put them there at all??? I win alot of battles in Warcraft 3 by making opponents spend all their gold and dumbasses usualy sit there and think why didnt they took a second goldmine, in this game any retard will have a much bigger chance to win, yay for EA, those faggots let retards "Challenge everything"

This comment was edited on Dec 7, 10:41.
18.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 7, 2004, 10:21
Sty
18.
Re: No subject Dec 7, 2004, 10:21
Dec 7, 2004, 10:21
Sty
 
We must have realism in our fantasy games! lol

_________________________________________________
"...another typical bluesnews have a cry about everything thread" - AcidDrone
You know selling dlc before you patch the client doesn't impress upon me the need to support your shit. -massdev
Avatar 13874
17.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 7, 2004, 08:29
17.
Re: No subject Dec 7, 2004, 08:29
Dec 7, 2004, 08:29
 
Horse factories?

LOL, thanks Creston. Nice laugh for the morning. I for one like Dawn of War and would like to get into RTW someday, but the Generals team leaves me with a sour taste and this one doesn't sound as promising as it once did. I tried *really* hard to get into Generals, as did my friends. Anyone who's ever tried to play even a LAN game against AI opponents will tell you just how buggy and slow the game is. You basically have to limit your opponents or set them to an easy difficulty to get around it. Really screwed up a game I could have gotten into.

16.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 7, 2004, 04:19
16.
Re: No subject Dec 7, 2004, 04:19
Dec 7, 2004, 04:19
 
Hmm...so the game has to be real enough that pikemen attacked at the rear die, but there are no objections to the fact that there is no setup time involved in getting the pikemen ready for a cavalry charge? For that matter, why don't rider units fall off horses when the horses trip in holes during the charge? Honestly, I could care less about that kind of realism. It may be "realistic", but that doesn't equal "fun".

The IGN review DID suck regardless of the game being reviewed, because it was poorly written: riddled with poor grammar, scattered ideas, and failing to give a good feel for what the game experience was like. It would have sucked even if the author gave the game a 97.

The designers of the game built it specifically to involve a great deal of combat, forcing you to send waves of units against the enemy. Sounds fine to me, except that some writers have indicated that there is not a great deal of unit variety, which is a concern with a game so focused on combat.

And, I've had a long history with Warcraft II, Age of Kings, Starcraft, and Warcraft III. Although I haven't played anything newer (Age of Mythology, Rome Total War, Rise of Nations, C&C etc.) they appear to be the same style of play with more complex management in each new generation. Maybe a completely different change of dynamic from that type of RTS gameplay will be refreshing.

Incidentally, Tolkien would have been rolling over in his grave just upon seeing the Balrog. I'm sick of that overgrown ball of fire that looks like it came straight out of Diablo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
15.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 7, 2004, 03:36
15.
Re: No subject Dec 7, 2004, 03:36
Dec 7, 2004, 03:36
 
So what's a good RTS? I really haven't played one since Dune. I'm not really intro RTS games but I am having a FPS overload...

If you're looking for something fun then Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War. If you want to commit the next few months to a game then Rome:Total War.

14.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 7, 2004, 01:57
14.
Re: No subject Dec 7, 2004, 01:57
Dec 7, 2004, 01:57
 
The real beauty of a flanking maneuver is that an army can't fight both front and rear effectively at the same time, but this is NOT the situation that the author of the review outlined

Let's put it this way. The Total War series is about as close to actual warfare as any of us noobs will get. If you attack a unit in its back in Total War, it will die. It doesn't matter what unit it is and what you attack it with (within moderate reason).

A unit of pikemen ONLY slaughters cavalry when it is SET to receive the cavalry's charge. Ie, spears are buttressed into the ground to form a spear wall / phalanx, so the horses will charge themselves into the spears. Turning around a unit of SET pikemen would take several minutes AT THE LEAST. You can try to defend it if you like, but to me it spells "no flanking".

Also, you don't know if the IGN review sucked or not, since you admit you haven't played it. The IGN review might be spot on the money.

And actually, my attributing it to be very lacking in gameplay is combined on all four reviews that I've read of the game, ALL FOUR of which state that pretty much every map turns into "churn out units and rush them towards the enemy" type of gameplay. Resources are automatic, which already spells wasteful gameplay (see Dawn of War), but in order to build more advanced units, you have to build a large number of weak units first (to advance your unit factory).
Since you are then coming up on the level cap, you have to basically slaughter your low level units to make room for your high level units.

If that doesn't spell severely defficient / very lacking in gameplay to you, you really haven't played ANY RTS in the last three to four years. This was supposed to be the last one of the Big Three RTS's to come out this year (Dawn of War, Rome Total War and Battle for Middle Earth), and the fact that EA has obviously chosen to neglect the strategy part of the RTS is just shameful. According to one review, the battle for Helms Deep sees you as the forces of Rohan, churning out cavalry from your factory set inside the fortress.

Tolkien is rolling over in his grave.

Creston

Avatar 15604
13.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 7, 2004, 00:31
13.
Re: No subject Dec 7, 2004, 00:31
Dec 7, 2004, 00:31
 
Warcraft III is still the only RTS I play. Well, for that matter, until I get half-life 2, it's the ONLY game I play. I don't know if I well ever get enough. Nothing beats a even 2v2 arranged team match-up, even meaning the teams are very close to equal skill.

12.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 6, 2004, 21:25
12.
Re: No subject Dec 6, 2004, 21:25
Dec 6, 2004, 21:25
 
So what's a good RTS? I really haven't played one since Dune. I'm not really intro RTS games but I am having a FPS overload...

...
11.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 6, 2004, 21:16
11.
Re: No subject Dec 6, 2004, 21:16
Dec 6, 2004, 21:16
 
Remember:

1. Generals got pretty good reviews. Generals was a bug-ridden, terribly supported mess.

2. The worst aspect of Generals was the unforgivably abysmal online play. Unbalanced, no support, horrible net code. None of these reviews are based on multiplayer because they were written before the game was in stores.

3. The Generals team was immediately moved to another project -- the expansion -- instead of supporting the existing game. The expansion was an unmitigated disaster. Not only did it introduce myriad new problems, it actually *re-introduced* many problems that had been patched in the original game. Why? Because the dev team and the high school kid they hired to "support" Generals apparently didn't communicate.

Note: I just received an email from EA announcing they're begun work on a new game in the Red Alert universe. In other words, THE LoTR DEV TEAM HAS ALREADY BEEN REASSIGNED. Don't expect anything in this game to be fixed.

Caveat emptor. Firms live or die by their reputation. EA has a lousy reputation; the team that produced this game has an absolutely horrible reputation.

10.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 6, 2004, 20:28
10.
Re: No subject Dec 6, 2004, 20:28
Dec 6, 2004, 20:28
 
How do you know that it is "very lacking" on gameplay, Creston? Have you played it? I haven't read a single review that indicated BFME was severely deficient in gameplay, merely that it is not as polished as a Microsoft RTS. By the way, the review that you referenced was from IGN. I have nothing against IGN, but that review sucked. Maybe when superior pikemen were being charged from the rear by a cavalry rush, they would actually, I don't know, turn around and fight? The real beauty of a flanking maneuver is that an army can't fight both front and rear effectively at the same time, but this is NOT the situation that the author of the review outlined. In any case, I will reserve judgement on the game, regardless of how deep or shallow the RTS gameplay is, until I find out personally whether it is actually fun to play.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
9.
 
Re: I'll But It!
Dec 6, 2004, 20:14
9.
Re: I'll But It! Dec 6, 2004, 20:14
Dec 6, 2004, 20:14
 
Is there a demo for this game yet?

i always thought it would not be good, but who cares, i just want to see massive amounts of stuff die

i could care less about flanking and crap like that

8.
 
I'll But It!
Dec 6, 2004, 19:48
8.
I'll But It! Dec 6, 2004, 19:48
Dec 6, 2004, 19:48
 
Ok, I've been following this game since day one, watched the vids over & over again. I'm not a hard-core RTS gamer, love HW2, WC3, & DoW so I think this game will be right up my ally. I dont care for super-detailed RTS games.

7.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 6, 2004, 19:23
7.
Re: No subject Dec 6, 2004, 19:23
Dec 6, 2004, 19:23
 
Good thing nobody is over-reacting here.

This comment was edited on Dec 6, 19:23.
6.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 6, 2004, 18:54
6.
Re: No subject Dec 6, 2004, 18:54
Dec 6, 2004, 18:54
 
It's a typical EA game. Great on production values, very lacking on gameplay.

One review I read mentioned that, for example, there is no such thing as flanking in this game. If you cavalry runs into a band of pikemen FROM THE REAR, they will still get slaughtered because pikemen > cavalry.

That is just bullshit. We played shit like this 10 years ago. Save your money and buy an RTS that's worthy, like RTW or Dawn of War.

This was on my MUST BUY list, until I read that there is no gameplay in it.

Nice going EA. It's amazing how you can make 1+ billion dollars a year, and yet still fail to turn out a single decent product. (sports games not included)

Creston

Avatar 15604
5.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 6, 2004, 18:44
5.
Re: No subject Dec 6, 2004, 18:44
Dec 6, 2004, 18:44
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older