Quantcast

Lord of the Rings: Conquest

Also known as: LotR 2008

One ring to screw it all up

Dear Pandemic,

We liked Mercenaries 2, but after some of our competitors unfairly kicked its face off you’d be forgiven for thinking we reviewers relish the opportunity to stomp a game’s head in. Nothing could be further from the truth. For one thing, bad games make for hard work. First, you have to play long enough to form an educated and authoritative critique. Then, you have to write several hundred words on something truly awful in a manner which your readers will find engaging, even though the game has stolen every ounce of your fading holiday buzz, and all you really want to say is “DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE”.

The very worst game reviews are laundry lists of good and bad points – this is good but this is bad, but that’s okay because this is good – bemoaning the faults and apologising for them by way of the stronger points. It’s the easiest review any writer can bang out, but even for that you need one redeeming quality. Just one, Pandemic. Just one would have been enough. Now, Star Wars: Battlefront was a pretty strong game. Even now, it sits just behind Halo 2 as the second most played online videogame on the original Xbox. It’s obvious why you’d think the same trick would work for the Lord of the Rings franchise; it’s all about the epic battles, after all. Fans of the book would probably dispute that, but – hey! – what do the nerds know, right?

It might have worked, too. EA did a fine job banging out three LOTR games cribbing from the Dynasty Warriors template, didn’t they? And those games were produced by the guys who did Greg Hastings Tournament Paintball, and the unfortunately named and now defunct Stormfront Studios, so how hard could it be, right? Well, you sure showed them. Battlefront managed a thoroughly decent bit of shooty-shooty-bang-bang between Empire and Rebel forces, but Conquest takes its cue from Dynasty Warriors and makes the combat so intangible and repetitive, and the combo system so incompetent there’s not a single decent punch-up to be had.

Where Battlefront looked good, Conquest is Keith Richards; where Battlefront had interesting and almost-balanced character classes, Conquest has a band of wooden-legged freaks who moonwalk like the Former King of Pop; where Battlefront had fun vehicles to pilot and fight, Conquest has the gimpiest horses since Two Worlds, and Cave Trolls and Ents which, frankly, look like claymation diarrhea.

Worst of all, where Battlefront showed respect to its inspiration and paid homage to the license, Conquest is more like an offensive parody. Remember that bit in Tolkien’s masterpiece where the loyal-unto-death lapdog Wormtongue gave his life fighting hordes of Middle Earth’s finest heroes in defense of his beloved boss Saruman, before Gandalf sprinted to the top of his tower to circle-strafe and lightning-zap the bugger to death? And how about the part where every battle was narrated with hilariously bombastic bellowed insights like “YOUR POISON ARROWS ARE POWERFUL. USE THEM!”? That’s right, Pandemic. That didn’t happen, did it? No.

And we know what you’re going to say – it’s designed to be played online. But even if you’d built a multiplayer game as magnificent and as robust as Saruman’s tower at Isengard, it would collapse like a house of cards because you’ve built it on foundations of poor mechanics, horrible presentation, dull combat, worthless maps, and total contempt for the mythology. There isn’t an online gamer, Battlefront player, Dynasty Warriors nerd, movie buff, or Lord of the Rings fanatic on Earth who could be satisfied with Conquest. It should ship with the pre-owned sticker already on the box.

We still remember Full Spectrum Warrior, you know. You’re better than this. Much, much, much better.

Jan 14, 2009

You'll love
  • Hilariously awful dialogue
  • Wormtongue is a badass!
  • Poison arrows are powerful!
You'll hate
  • Shows contempt for the license
  • Woeful combat design throughout
  • Looks terrible to boot

 
21 Comments
Order Comments: Newest First | Oldest First
key0blade  - 10 months 16 days ago 
Wow, all the hype, gone to waste
stewie88  - 10 months 16 days ago 
I was hoping it would be good cos i played all the others but i cud see from the trailers that it didn't look great. This just confirms it. Oh well!!
Playerhater50  - 10 months 16 days ago 
I reserved this game in advance believing that it would satisfy my LOTR game craving, but it really is as bad as they say it is. The totally messed it up
johnosoccerplayer  - 10 months 14 days ago 
Gamespot game it a 7...
Grenade  - 10 months 14 days ago 
Wow, a 2? That's way too harsh. It deserved at least a 6, I think.
Jimmyjammy  - 10 months 14 days ago 
Yay! I love it when things don't work out!
kruse  - 10 months 13 days ago 
well even with this bad review i think im still going to buy it
Synster  - 10 months 13 days ago 
Wow. A-ha. I just played the Demo for this, and Yes, it was awfully bad in both the Multiplayer and Single Player. But, a 2 is a bit harsh. I'd at least give it a 3 or a 4. From what I remember. This has to be one of Gamesradar's lowest scores.
supremetruth  - 10 months 12 days ago 
Wow...... I thought it was fun.... Maybe a lil... TOO FUN!
Blade1006  - 10 months 11 days ago 
THIS GAME IS FREAKING AMAZING HOW DARE YOU GIVE A BLOODY FREAKING RETARDING STUPID MORONIC TWO YOU BLOODY STUPID IDIOTS THIS IS ONE OF THE ONLY TIMES I DISAGREE WITH U AND U HAVE UNLEASHED THE BEAST!
Nitemarish  - 10 months 10 days ago 
@Blade1006
How ironic, you retarding stupid moron.
crazytar  - 10 months 10 days ago 
hahahaha retarding. thats pretty funny.
pornomancer  - 10 months 10 days ago 
and this is why I love you GR.

You seem to be on point almost always with reviews (except GTAIV which imo is really an 8) because you sometimes let the nerd in you give the review. sometimes to the games advantage and sometimes (like here) not.

and lol at retarding
paypay  - 9 months 23 days ago 
I didn't think it was THAT bad! LOL!
paypay  - 9 months 23 days ago 
I didn't think it was THAT bad! LOL! I liked it.
Ocelot  - 9 months 8 days ago 
i was so looking forward to this game. it's not as bad a 2, but still not good enough for me to waste £30-40 on. shame
Afrolad  - 8 months 29 days ago 
i have the game and i think its better than they say so if you like The third age get this game its like that but better.
legodude666  - 8 months 19 days ago 
@ blade 1006
dude change your picture, you look retarding!
Mattgue  - 6 months 3 days ago 
the review is way to harsh i mean there are lots of other games that actually deserve this score and this game is not one of them al least give it a 5
Kaz  - 5 months 18 days ago 
That was way too harsh. It's not an awesome game, can agree to that, but it aint even close to be that bad. I play lots of games and i must say ive seen far worse, lost via domus as an example, was granted a 4. This one deserves at least a 6. end of it
This video player requires Flash 9 Player or later. Please download the latest Flash Player.
The Knowledge
Lord of the Rings: Conquest
Lord of the Rings: Conquest

Genre: Action
Release date: Jan 13, 2009
Published by: Electronic Arts
Developed by: Pandemic Studios
Franchise: Lord of the Rings
Multiplayer Modes:
Online
4 player CO-OP
2 BROKEN
Read the review
Latest Articles About This Game
One ring to screw it all up
PS3 Review  -  Jan 15, 2009