Battle for Middle Earth!

[Kraellin]

i dont know if it's hit the stands yet or not. i dont think so, but i do think it's coming this november, iirc. also, i saw a 'movie trailer' for this last night. oh....my.....god! now, we all know that promotions and marketing ALWAYS put their best foot forward, but this thing was pretty incredible looking. i believe the setting was out front of Minas Tirith(sp?), the mountain fortress of Gondor. the view was from the walls and on the battlefield. there were siege towers moving towards the walls, the big elephant critters moving towards the walls, the various trolls and hundreds of orcs and others. multiple siege engines were firing at the walls with flaming whatever and the whole thing just looked pretty amazing. and the view from the battlefield was just as intense.

of all the games i've seen promoted throughout this year, this is the one i've been watching most closely. and it's the one i ask about every time i go into the game store. in the sheer magnitude of the thing it looks like it rivals RTW. as for how well it's going to play and what else is involved besides that one battle, i dont know. i also dont know what the minimum specs are going to be, so pay particular attention to that if you go in to buy it. i'm sure it will require a pretty decent machine.

it's fascinating to me to have come up through text only computers, through blocky graphics like the C-64 to Amigas with much better graphics and sound and early pc games with semi-working 'multi-media' and now these far greater machines and the games that push even them.

this is one game i'll prolly buy without reading the reviews, just because i'm a sucker for the cinematics and because i've a bit of pocket change eating a hole in my pocket. but if it's half as good as the trailer, it shld be an interesting play.

K.

[Ii Naomasa]

To me all the gameplay videos I've seen reek too much of typical RTS for my tastes (not as much as the War in Middle Earth or whatever the game released last year was called, but close). 'Summoning' Balrogs and Ringwraiths just feels wrong to me. And one of Sauron's powers is to use his movie-based spotlight of doom eye as a fear tactic.

Moving the camera with your cavalry or watching pitched battles on walls in RTW has completely spoiled me... I almost feel EA's milking the license without being very creative. I might get it if reviews give me a glimmer of hope that what I've seen isn't all the game has to offer, but otherwise it just doesn't do much for me, unfortunately. I'd rather play the over 10 year old Middle Earth strategy game from Melbourne House.

[RZST]

c&c generals with a new makeover? i think so. i mean any rtw which lets you use the "eye of sauron" as a special attack just deserves to be put in the bargain bin.

on another note, ea games corporation are evil. such a shamefull company =(

[Duke John]

Thanks for sharing the link, now I will make sure to never buy software from EA.

[The Wizard]

I think I'm going to buy this piece of software, because it seems to offer something similar to WarCraft III, only on a larger scale and offering more tactics. Also, the map is so gorgeous :0 I wish RTW had such a map...



~Wiz

[jeffreyLebowski]

Even though I don't think BFME is going to be masterpiece of strategic gameplay, I'm still going to pick it up. Mainly because EA has done a pretty damn good job with cranking out some extremely polished and well-made LOTR games. They really know how to use a license, the voice acting, score, art styles all really drip with atmosphere. I would have preferred more epic battles featuring larger amounts of troops, but I'd be lying to myself if I said I wasn't going to buy it. As soon as I see the words Lord of the Rings written on something, I pretty much fold. (With the exception of that awful game released by Vivendi, War of the Ring. Jesus that game was awful.)

[Kraellin]

whelp, was in the game store yesterday and the date for release has been pushed back to early december. it was supposed to be out in middle november.

K.

[Bob the Insane]

Yikes, read the PC Gamer (UK) review last night...

They where a little unimpressed to say the least and were particularly harsh about the AI in the game and some of the balancing... An average RTS that does not deserve the license....

Mind you they still gave it 74%...

[econ21]

Yes, I skimmed the PC Gamer review in a shop - seems very telling, given that I might have expected the magazine to be charitable in view of the game's hype. The unfavourable comparison to Dawn of War was particularly worrying. I found Dawn of War ultimately unsatisfying because in the end it was an old school Command and Conquer type RTS. But PC Gamer rightly praise it for loving its source material (as a Warhammer player, I really liked the little touches taken from the original tabletop game). If BME is significantly worse than DoW, it will be - as PC Gamer concludes - a major disappointment.

[doc_bean]

A local magazine (PC Gameplay) also had a review, they gave it a 91, I didn't read the review because I needed my shopping done today :-)

I'll await a demo to make my opinion then, if they won't have a demo, they can certainly forget about my money.

[CrackedAxe]

Build and rush, build and rush (yawn). I would sooner wait for the Middle-Earth mod for RTW.

[jeffreyLebowski]

what's the general hostility towards the RTS genre on these boards? i mean, i love the total war series and all, but i think you're missing out if you sit in your room playing campaign after campaign of MTW/RTW. there's tons of other strategy games out there that might not require a degree in military tactics but are still damn fun.

honestly, the total war series can be distilled and beaten using 2 or 3 simple strategies most of the time, especially thanks to the god awful AI... and this is coming from someone who loves the TW series. the TW series does a nice job of intergrating tactics and morale into gaming, but it's not rocket science by a long shot. some people seem to think they're brilliant strategists becuase they play RTW instead of starcraft of something along those lines... i've got news for you: playing either one of those games doesn't take a great deal of thought. at the end of the day, they're still GAMES, to be enjoyed.

i've been playing BFME for a couple days now and it does a pretty good job of capturing the feel of the films. it's not the game of the year or anything, but it's certainly fun. despite the previous poster's insinuation, there really isn't much to the rush in BFME. the game itself plays at a slow speed, especially compared to other RTS's. the immediate availability of defensive castles/camps/etc pretty much prevent any of that stuff. if you like the lord of the rings universe, you'll definetely enjoy it... if you're not into middle earth, then it's nothing special.

[Jacque Schtrapp]

To me all the gameplay videos I've seen reek too much of typical RTS for my tastes

Everything I've seen says you've nailed it. I got tired of those types of games right after C&C Red Alert. As far as Real Time Strategy goes... well suffice it to say the only stategery involved in those types of games inevitably involves choosing whatever race produces the most grunt type troops the fastest in order to rush the other players.

The whole genre needs some serious

[NagatsukaShumi]

I love the game, I'm getting loads of fun out of it. Yes, RTW is a better game and even though its the movie version of LOTR, my love for LOTR is been satisfied by this game.

Yes, some features are a bit bizarre but the game is far greated than some people would presume or read about, I read PC Gamer, still gave it the chance either way. Its a nice game to play around with if you've got an hour or so spare, its easy to pick up and if you enjoyed the movies its genuinely a good game, especially seen as you can be evil

[Bob the Insane]

Nice post NagatsukaShumi... I was interest because PCZone gave it 91% and PCGamer 79%. PCZone mentioned the same issues as PCGamer so it was difficult to make out what the reviews were trying to get across. I have also read some less that complimentry posts about the game on the PCZone forums as well.

Could those who have the game comment further on what is good and bad etc???

[Devastatin Dave]

I asked my wife for it for Christmas, but I might reconsider. At the same time I loved the movies even though they didn't match hardly to the books, but they were great movies all the same. But I am a little worried to shell out $40 or $50 for just eye candy.

[Kommodus]

I was also disappointed to hear that BFME fell back on the old RTS staple of combining economic development and production with tactical combat in the individual battles and skirmishes. It's not that I have something against that genre; after all, I played Warcraft II for hours on end, and I had a blast. It's just that even before the TW series came out, I dreamed of a game that provided epic battles by keeping real-time tactical combat in its own separate area of the game. Now that such a series of games exists, something about the old RTS formula just doesn't ring true.

The problem, as I see it, is that while games following the build-and-fight model like to promise large and interesting engagements, they never quite deliver on the promise. For example, the Cossacks series of games had the ability to feature huge armies marching in formation and facing each other in grand engagements. However, the AI did what it always does in this style of game - it sent small groups of poorly-led troops to launch ineffective attacks against the player's well-build defenses. Thus, the promised tactical battles never materialized. From what I hear of BFME, the same thing happens in most skirmishes.

From Age of Empires to Command and Conquer, the same set of problems plague this genre in game after game. Field battles don't matter; the only real goal is to destroy the enemy's economy, not his army. Players are forced to jump back and forth between the base and the troops in the field, alternately directing more unit production and tactical combat orders. Decision-making is placed on the back burner, while micromanagement and fast clicking take front and center. The same economic buildup procedures must be repeated again and again, adding a degree of frustration and boredom, and hurting the immersion factor (what civilization really has to research the same technologies again and again?)

I would think that the creators of BFME would have recognized this. Did Sauron build orcs and send them into battle while the battle for Minas Tirith was in the middle of being fought? Did the Rohirrim train more cavalry in the middle of the battle for Helm's Deep? As I said before, something about it just doesn't ring true.

[NagatsukaShumi]

Ok, some good and bad points.

+ The storyline gives you the chance to go off and fight battles, or, in the case of the Fellowship, follow movie events.

- On skirmish mode you do get the "build and attack, lose, build and attack again" gameplay, defeats in skirmishes don't really cripple you.

+ On the other hand, you are forced to build large armies to win, if you don't you can get a beating quite easily and vice versa.

- Hero's can be, at times, over powered.

+ The hero's are a nice feature, its always fun to soar through the air with the Naxgul, it is a bit daft that neither Eomer or Theoden actually ride horses but thats nitpicking.

- It takes a bit before you military machine gets going in an interesting way, you start off with, as in TW, your base and essentially crappy units.

+If your patient you can unlock some pretty nice looking units, graphic wise they are very good. Mumakil look great, the knights of Gondor are good too, basically, if you play longer, your rewarded more and more through the unlocking of new units.

- It doesn't follow the book

+ Who cares? Its a game, its fun because of what it does include so ignore what it doesn't include.

- It does play and look like C&C Generals combined with Warcraft III

+ Both of those are good games, it does pull off what its trying to do effectively.

- If you hate the movie you WILL hate this game.

+ If you are grown up enough not to spit your dummy out becuase PJ took some creative license in what he did, you will enjoy this game.

- If the game doesn't hook you quickly the first couple of plays, don't expect it to ever do this.

+ It's quite addictive if you've got time to play it properly.

Thats my opinions anyway.

[ShadesPanther]

I got it.
It's a fun game if you liked the movies.

I am a bit dissapointed that you can't do ehlm's deep or Pelannor field inskirmish mode, Oh well. Basically as long as you treat it with the usuall type of RTS and remeber it IS made by EA

can't wait for the LOTR mod for Rome

[jeffreyLebowski]

+ The hero's are a nice feature, its always fun to soar through the air with the Naxgul, it is a bit daft that neither Eomer or Theoden actually ride horses but thats nitpicking.

just so you know. theoden, faramir, eowyn, gandalf, and eomer can switch between mounted and unmounted at will. mounted obviously makes them faster and stronger against infantry, but more susceptible to pike attacks.

[NagatsukaShumi]

just so you know. theoden, faramir, eowyn, gandalf, and eomer can switch between mounted and unmounted at will. mounted obviously makes them faster and stronger against infantry, but more susceptible to pike attacks.

Ok, I stand corrected. Nice to know I can have that option.

[jeffreyLebowski]

@Kommodus:

you pretty much exactly stated how i feel about build/fight rts's... i still find them fun, but i much prefer that base construction/army recruiting should be seperated from combat. that's why i always enjoyed myth2, ground control, etc... i guess the only difference of opinion i have with a lot of the posters here is that while i prefer the TW style of play, i still find classic rts gameplay to be fun as well. BFME and Dawn of War are two recent examples of fairly straightfoward RTS gameplay that manage to be pretty damn fun regardless of their design faults. i just get annoyed with the sort of genre snobbish attitudes seen around here... the whole 'Meh, I'm too l337 for RTS.' thing.

[Scipio]

Can one of you who have the game tell me how the campaign make works? Are you hppy with it? Cheers

[Devastatin Dave]

Does anyone know if it will go to PS2? I would almost prefer it on my PS2, less bugs ya know... aka RTW!!!

[discovery1]

RTW on the PS2? Or even BFME? Seems like a nightmare to control using those pads over a mouse and keybord. ANd just because it's a counsel doesn't mean less bugs. It's just aht the testing process must be more riggerous b/c no patches. Example:Thief 3 was released with a bug were if one saved during a mission, the difficulty reverted to normal. On the PC it was fixed with a patch, but nothing could be done for the xbox copies. And PCs have better graphics.

Your question:the games site says nothing about acounsel version, which is unlikely since it is a stargety game.

[The Wizard]

what's the general hostility towards the RTS genre on these boards? i mean, i love the total war series and all, but i think you're missing out if you sit in your room playing campaign after campaign of MTW/RTW. there's tons of other strategy games out there that might not require a degree in military tactics but are still damn fun.

honestly, the total war series can be distilled and beaten using 2 or 3 simple strategies most of the time, especially thanks to the god awful AI... and this is coming from someone who loves the TW series. the TW series does a nice job of intergrating tactics and morale into gaming, but it's not rocket science by a long shot. some people seem to think they're brilliant strategists becuase they play RTW instead of starcraft of something along those lines... i've got news for you: playing either one of those games doesn't take a great deal of thought. at the end of the day, they're still GAMES, to be enjoyed.

i've been playing BFME for a couple days now and it does a pretty good job of capturing the feel of the films. it's not the game of the year or anything, but it's certainly fun. despite the previous poster's insinuation, there really isn't much to the rush in BFME. the game itself plays at a slow speed, especially compared to other RTS's. the immediate availability of defensive castles/camps/etc pretty much prevent any of that stuff. if you like the lord of the rings universe, you'll definetely enjoy it... if you're not into middle earth, then it's nothing special.

The hostility, to me at least, is not for RTS games in general, but the boring, generic monstrosity that is the CnC franchise and its spinoffs (i.e. games made with its engine).

I have never, ever seen a more milked out franchise than the CnC franchise. CnC 1 was good, in its day, but every other member of its family (including games made with its engine, like BFME) is just a rip-off of the original, with tankrushing as the main stragetic aim in an average online game. In BFME, it's troll-rush, I'd imagine...

Sigh. I should have never expected anything special from a game by Westwood with the CnC engine...



~Wiz

[BDC]

EA Games lack soul. They are polished but are like prime-time 'comedy', aren't real art like a lot of very good other games (like RTW to an extent, and even more so, Sid Meier's Pirates).

[Scipio]

Short comment, I tried out the game and it is awesome! Sure it isnt RTW or in that level but still very fun. Bit dissapointed with the camp map tho, doesnt really do much but give you a cool look at ME in 3d

[Gregoshi]

I was initially excited about this game, but started to change my mind the more I read about it. The first strike against it was a preview in which EA talked about the "emotion" trait given to units to introduce a little realism into the battles. They wanted the units to express (my word) reluctance at doing certain tasks (an Ent exposing itself to fire), but not prevent them from carrying out an order against their will. Shock of shocks! Heaven forbid a unit act on instinct and not follow the player's orders. Routing or impetuous anyone? Not in this game apparently.

I guess one paragraph in IGN.com's review of the game put the final nail in the coffin for me:

The other problem here is that after playing games like Rome: Total War, it's hard to turn a blind eye to tactical strategies like flanking. You would figure this would make a difference. But if you manage to get behind a group of Isengard pikemen with a group of cavalry and run them down from behind, it has the same effect of running straight into them from the front. The cavalry will be smashed even though the pointy end isn't hitting them, which just doesn't make much sense.

Alas, the TW games have pretty much spoiled the RTS genre for me...almost. I think I can get over the "no flanks" type issue with games like Starcraft. The futuristic setting seems to eliminate the concept of the flank. Not so with these ancient warfare type games, and hence my problem with this game.

Anyway, it is LotR, so maybe I could overlook some of these shortcomings. I've not seen any, but is there a demo available for the game?

[ShadesPanther]

The command limit is a bit too low though (only 400 for evil when basic men cost 15 for 5-8 men) So here I made about 1000 orcs after a bit of modding





http://www.rpgplanet.com/memw/temp/b...ntchange.shtml

if you want to do it

(You can also download the helms deep map that has been edited to play multiplayer. There is also a minas tirith on the forums)