As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Lord of the Rings: Conquest

LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
edited January 2009 in Games and Technology
I played the demo, and thought it was pretty fun. I haven't bought the game yet and was wondering if anyone has played it and if its worth the investment?

On Metacritic it has a really poor score, so I have a bad feeling about it. Just wondering about the game from a player's perspective.

Like I say, the demo was cool. I'm curious if the rest of the game is as good.

Lucascraft on

Posts

  • Options
    DJ Cam CamDJ Cam Cam Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Is this the game where you can die by walking into a stream?

    DJ Cam Cam on
  • Options
    LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Did not like the demo.

    Not one bit.

    LewieP on
  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    DJ Cam Cam wrote: »
    Is this the game where you can die by walking into a stream?

    Yep.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    ArchonexArchonex No hard feelings, right? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    There was a huge bit of outrage on the official forums for this game, when on release day, after a good number of people had bought the game, the developers basically came out and said "Oops. We lied about all these features being in the game. Yes, we know we said they were in two days before the game launched. No, we don't care. Have some PR.".

    Skipping over the fact that the "epic" battles only occur in campaign mode, and instant action is 8v8, where-as Battlefront 2 could reach up to 200v200 with the user-made maps, i'd say to ignore this game just because the developers tried to pull a fast one on their consumers.

    Archonex on
  • Options
    liquidloganliquidlogan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    This game is awful.

    The single-player is a glitched up mess with loose controls.

    The multi-player is class based, but there are only 4 classes, of which only the archer and the wizard are worth anything, and even then it is a crapshoot since everyone runs around wildly. It, too, is a glitched up mess.

    Every time I think about Lord of the Rings: Conquest, I wonder how we got from the fun Star Wars Battlefront II to this horrible, unfinished game. It also makes me mourn the loss of Battlefront III.

    liquidlogan on
  • Options
    liquidloganliquidlogan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Archonex wrote: »
    There was a huge bit of outrage on the official forums for this game, when on release day, after a good number of people had bought the game, the developers basically came out and said "Oops. We lied about all these features being in the game. Yes, we know we said they were in two days before the game launched. No, we don't care. Have some PR.".

    I didn't hear about this. I would like to know more.

    liquidlogan on
  • Options
    FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Archonex wrote: »
    There was a huge bit of outrage on the official forums for this game, when on release day, after a good number of people had bought the game, the developers basically came out and said "Oops. We lied about all these features being in the game. Yes, we know we said they were in two days before the game launched. No, we don't care. Have some PR.".

    Skipping over the fact that the "epic" battles only occur in campaign mode, and instant action is 8v8, where-as Battlefront 2 could reach up to 200v200 with the user-made maps, i'd say to ignore this game just because the developers tried to pull a fast one on their consumers.

    wha?? you mean, even the single player non-campaign is only 8v8??

    ...

    I glad Bioware hasn't taken the nosedive in quality that Pandemic seems to have since being aquired by EA, although Merc 2 was a load of fun, if buggy as hell.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    ArchonexArchonex No hard feelings, right? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Archonex wrote: »
    There was a huge bit of outrage on the official forums for this game, when on release day, after a good number of people had bought the game, the developers basically came out and said "Oops. We lied about all these features being in the game. Yes, we know we said they were in two days before the game launched. No, we don't care. Have some PR.".

    I didn't hear about this. I would like to know more.

    On the release day, one of the big PR guys accidentally mentioned that certain "large" battles (Helms Deep.) didn't have the high number of characters in them that the developers promised. A shit-storm erupted where people went from asking for clarification, to outright saying the developers were jackasses when players who had gotten the game early thanks to being closer to shipping locations confirmed that the only large battles were in campaign mode, and were often limited to about 24 to 32 characters per battle (The rest being animations.).

    Things got worse when someone who had the game read the post by the PR guy (Who disappeared after accidentally outing the developers.) and posted a write-up of what was in and what isn't. Pretty much over half of everything they promised, including AI grunts in Instant Action/MP, along with one or two game modes, weren't in, limiting Instant Action/Conquest/MP to being 8v8 only. Shit-storm further erupted, and the developers/PR guys started mass deleting topics to keep things quiet.

    Edit: They stopped deleting topics after the game started to sell and go into stores more regularly nation-wide, a day after that happened. By then, though, plenty of people had bought it, not knowing that it was a dud game, and were rather pissed.

    Archonex on
  • Options
    liquidloganliquidlogan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Archonex wrote: »
    There was a huge bit of outrage on the official forums for this game, when on release day, after a good number of people had bought the game, the developers basically came out and said "Oops. We lied about all these features being in the game. Yes, we know we said they were in two days before the game launched. No, we don't care. Have some PR.".

    Skipping over the fact that the "epic" battles only occur in campaign mode, and instant action is 8v8, where-as Battlefront 2 could reach up to 200v200 with the user-made maps, i'd say to ignore this game just because the developers tried to pull a fast one on their consumers.

    wha?? you mean, even the single player non-campaign is only 8v8??

    ...

    I glad Bioware hasn't taken the nosedive in quality that Pandemic seems to have since being aquired by EA, although Merc 2 was a load of fun, if buggy as hell.

    I'm not sure what you mean by single player non-campaign. If you mean you going online to play with other people or instant action, yes, the server maximums are set to 16. Trust me, it is plenty crazy. But not the good crazy.

    liquidlogan on
  • Options
    FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Archonex wrote: »
    There was a huge bit of outrage on the official forums for this game, when on release day, after a good number of people had bought the game, the developers basically came out and said "Oops. We lied about all these features being in the game. Yes, we know we said they were in two days before the game launched. No, we don't care. Have some PR.".

    Skipping over the fact that the "epic" battles only occur in campaign mode, and instant action is 8v8, where-as Battlefront 2 could reach up to 200v200 with the user-made maps, i'd say to ignore this game just because the developers tried to pull a fast one on their consumers.

    wha?? you mean, even the single player non-campaign is only 8v8??

    ...

    I glad Bioware hasn't taken the nosedive in quality that Pandemic seems to have since being aquired by EA, although Merc 2 was a load of fun, if buggy as hell.

    I'm not sure what you mean by single player non-campaign. If you mean you going online to play with other people or instant action, yes, the server maximums are set to 16. Trust me, it is plenty crazy. But not the good crazy.

    I meant Instant Action.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    liquidloganliquidlogan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Archonex wrote: »
    Archonex wrote: »
    There was a huge bit of outrage on the official forums for this game, when on release day, after a good number of people had bought the game, the developers basically came out and said "Oops. We lied about all these features being in the game. Yes, we know we said they were in two days before the game launched. No, we don't care. Have some PR.".

    I didn't hear about this. I would like to know more.

    On the release day, one of the big PR guys accidentally mentioned that certain "large" battles (Helms Deep.) didn't have the high number of characters in them that the developers promised. A shit-storm erupted where people went from asking for clarification, to outright saying the developers were jackasses when players who had gotten the game early thanks to being closer to shipping locations confirmed that the only large battles were in campaign mode, and were often limited to about 24 to 32characters per battle (The rest being animations.).

    Things got worse when someone who had the game read the post by the PR guy (Who disappeared after accidentally outing the developers.) and posted a write-up of what was in and what isn't. Pretty much over half of everything they promised, including AI grunts in Instant Action/MP, along with one or two game modes, weren't in, limiting Instant Action/Conquest/MP to being 8v8 only. Shit-storm further erupted, and the developers/PR guys started mass deleting topics to keep things quiet.

    I will say that I thought it was horrible when in the first mission of Helms Deep the objetive was "kill the invading horde!" or something equally ridiculous given the 10 or so orcs that began to climb the ladders. Also, why couldn't I kick those ladders down? Hell, you could do that in Demon Stone for the Original Xbox if I'm not mistaken.

    liquidlogan on
  • Options
    ArchonexArchonex No hard feelings, right? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Archonex wrote: »
    Archonex wrote: »
    There was a huge bit of outrage on the official forums for this game, when on release day, after a good number of people had bought the game, the developers basically came out and said "Oops. We lied about all these features being in the game. Yes, we know we said they were in two days before the game launched. No, we don't care. Have some PR.".

    I didn't hear about this. I would like to know more.

    On the release day, one of the big PR guys accidentally mentioned that certain "large" battles (Helms Deep.) didn't have the high number of characters in them that the developers promised. A shit-storm erupted where people went from asking for clarification, to outright saying the developers were jackasses when players who had gotten the game early thanks to being closer to shipping locations confirmed that the only large battles were in campaign mode, and were often limited to about 24 to 32characters per battle (The rest being animations.).

    Things got worse when someone who had the game read the post by the PR guy (Who disappeared after accidentally outing the developers.) and posted a write-up of what was in and what isn't. Pretty much over half of everything they promised, including AI grunts in Instant Action/MP, along with one or two game modes, weren't in, limiting Instant Action/Conquest/MP to being 8v8 only. Shit-storm further erupted, and the developers/PR guys started mass deleting topics to keep things quiet.

    I will say that I thought it was horrible when in the first mission of Helms Deep the objetive was "kill the invading horde!" or something equally ridiculous given the 10 or so orcs that began to climb the ladders. Also, why couldn't I kick those ladders down? Hell, you could do that in Demon Stone for the Original Xbox if I'm not mistaken.

    If you really want to get the LOTR battle experience, go out and buy the trilogy of games that were released around the same time as the movies. Starting with the second game, they get pretty epic. The combat system is much more involved as well, along with the battle levels being larger, usually, too. They can't be more then five dollars nowadays.

    Archonex on
  • Options
    Kris_xKKris_xK Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    do_not_want_azn.jpg

    Kris_xK on
    calvinhobbessleddingsig2.gif
  • Options
    JubehJubeh Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I loved the demo. Like

    A lot.

    So I was disappointed when I heard all the ruckus about this game. I think I might just go back and buy the old games to get my Gandalf fix.

    Jubeh on
  • Options
    Mr.BrickMr.Brick Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    My co-worker bought this because he is an idiot when it comes to buying games (he just kind of wanders in, grabs something at random- then goes on about how shitty games are these days.....)

    So we played it a bit at work on our DLP and good god is weak. Weak in the knees and mouth.

    Mr.Brick on
    pew pew pew
  • Options
    mastriusmastrius Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I found the game to be really good. Sure its not a buy but its a great rent. Something to pass some time really fast. And the online is pretty great at times but really stale at others. Like never do Hero Team Deathmatch because everyone will choose Gandalf and annihilate you. Certain things are very annoying but I dont know, I found the game to be really fun. The demo really hooked me when I played it, and Im happy I rented it. I think Id be a bit sad if I had payed full price for this though.

    mastrius on
    "You're like a kitten! A kitten who doesn't speak Japanese." ~ Juliet Starling
  • Options
    JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    So, wait - the guys who made Battlefront II made a similiar style of game based on Lord of the Rings? And it sucks?!?!

    I don't know what God is punishing me for, but I take it back!

    JihadJesus on
  • Options
    mastriusmastrius Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Doesnt suck. Just isnt worth buying.

    mastrius on
    "You're like a kitten! A kitten who doesn't speak Japanese." ~ Juliet Starling
  • Options
    EndaroEndaro Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    mastrius wrote: »
    Doesnt suck. Just isnt worth buying.

    Well the quality is kind of subjective. I can't really speak on it's quality because I only played the demo, but from what I saw...
    The whole dying in water wasn't that big of a deal because, in the demo, there was only 1 river and it was a small part of the map. However most of the other criticisms I've heard seemed spot on. If the tutorial battle is indicative of the "epic" campaign battles, than yeah, it's bullshit. Rather small forces with a decent helping of invisible walls to keep you away from all the fake fighting going on in the background.

    The multiplayer wasn't much better. As mentioned, few classes and not very well designed. Oh well, it'll sell well enough on it's LOTR name.

    Endaro on
  • Options
    liquidloganliquidlogan Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Archonex wrote: »
    Archonex wrote: »
    Archonex wrote: »
    There was a huge bit of outrage on the official forums for this game, when on release day, after a good number of people had bought the game, the developers basically came out and said "Oops. We lied about all these features being in the game. Yes, we know we said they were in two days before the game launched. No, we don't care. Have some PR.".

    I didn't hear about this. I would like to know more.

    On the release day, one of the big PR guys accidentally mentioned that certain "large" battles (Helms Deep.) didn't have the high number of characters in them that the developers promised. A shit-storm erupted where people went from asking for clarification, to outright saying the developers were jackasses when players who had gotten the game early thanks to being closer to shipping locations confirmed that the only large battles were in campaign mode, and were often limited to about 24 to 32characters per battle (The rest being animations.).

    Things got worse when someone who had the game read the post by the PR guy (Who disappeared after accidentally outing the developers.) and posted a write-up of what was in and what isn't. Pretty much over half of everything they promised, including AI grunts in Instant Action/MP, along with one or two game modes, weren't in, limiting Instant Action/Conquest/MP to being 8v8 only. Shit-storm further erupted, and the developers/PR guys started mass deleting topics to keep things quiet.

    I will say that I thought it was horrible when in the first mission of Helms Deep the objetive was "kill the invading horde!" or something equally ridiculous given the 10 or so orcs that began to climb the ladders. Also, why couldn't I kick those ladders down? Hell, you could do that in Demon Stone for the Original Xbox if I'm not mistaken.

    If you really want to get the LOTR battle experience, go out and buy the trilogy of games that were released around the same time as the movies. Starting with the second game, they get pretty epic. The combat system is much more involved as well, along with the battle levels being larger, usually, too. They can't be more then five dollars nowadays.

    The first one that Vivendi made was awful though. I will say, however, that I've always wanted to play The Two Towers and Return of the King. I think you are right. EB is selling them for less than $5 CDN now. Then, there is always Goozex too.

    liquidlogan on
  • Options
    EliminationElimination Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    yeah i played the demo for this, i was all hyped that it might be like battlefront. Yeah Battlefront II was better than this, this game is supremely underwhelming. 8vs8 is not nearly epic enough for LOTR, and the heroes and classes are stupid and unbalanced.

    Elimination on
    PSN: PA_Elimination 3DS: 4399-2012-1711 Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/TheElimination/
  • Options
    ArchonexArchonex No hard feelings, right? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Archonex wrote: »
    Archonex wrote: »
    Archonex wrote: »
    There was a huge bit of outrage on the official forums for this game, when on release day, after a good number of people had bought the game, the developers basically came out and said "Oops. We lied about all these features being in the game. Yes, we know we said they were in two days before the game launched. No, we don't care. Have some PR.".

    I didn't hear about this. I would like to know more.

    On the release day, one of the big PR guys accidentally mentioned that certain "large" battles (Helms Deep.) didn't have the high number of characters in them that the developers promised. A shit-storm erupted where people went from asking for clarification, to outright saying the developers were jackasses when players who had gotten the game early thanks to being closer to shipping locations confirmed that the only large battles were in campaign mode, and were often limited to about 24 to 32characters per battle (The rest being animations.).

    Things got worse when someone who had the game read the post by the PR guy (Who disappeared after accidentally outing the developers.) and posted a write-up of what was in and what isn't. Pretty much over half of everything they promised, including AI grunts in Instant Action/MP, along with one or two game modes, weren't in, limiting Instant Action/Conquest/MP to being 8v8 only. Shit-storm further erupted, and the developers/PR guys started mass deleting topics to keep things quiet.

    I will say that I thought it was horrible when in the first mission of Helms Deep the objetive was "kill the invading horde!" or something equally ridiculous given the 10 or so orcs that began to climb the ladders. Also, why couldn't I kick those ladders down? Hell, you could do that in Demon Stone for the Original Xbox if I'm not mistaken.

    If you really want to get the LOTR battle experience, go out and buy the trilogy of games that were released around the same time as the movies. Starting with the second game, they get pretty epic. The combat system is much more involved as well, along with the battle levels being larger, usually, too. They can't be more then five dollars nowadays.

    The first one that Vivendi made was awful though. I will say, however, that I've always wanted to play The Two Towers and Return of the King. I think you are right. EB is selling them for less than $5 CDN now. Then, there is always Goozex too.

    Honestly, I wouldn't get the first one either. There's not much epicness in the way of fights, save for the end of the first "book". And that's more of an escape kind of thing. Second and third ones should be good, though. I believe the third one has an awesome mission system that lets you play all sorts of scenario's. Sort of like a level select feature, only you unlock more levels/characters to choose from as you go on.

    Archonex on
  • Options
    mastriusmastrius Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Endaro wrote: »
    mastrius wrote: »
    Doesnt suck. Just isnt worth buying.

    Well the quality is kind of subjective. I can't really speak on it's quality because I only played the demo, but from what I saw...
    The whole dying in water wasn't that big of a deal because, in the demo, there was only 1 river and it was a small part of the map. However most of the other criticisms I've heard seemed spot on. If the tutorial battle is indicative of the "epic" campaign battles, than yeah, it's bullshit. Rather small forces with a decent helping of invisible walls to keep you away from all the fake fighting going on in the background.

    The multiplayer wasn't much better. As mentioned, few classes and not very well designed. Oh well, it'll sell well enough on it's LOTR name.

    I see what you mean indeed. Im just saying, I did find it fun for like...a few days to rent and play for a while. Its not a lasting game by any means, but it is fun, and feels epic for a while. That wears off down the line but I still get a rush from taking control of an Ent or a Balrog and running out and annihilating bitches.

    And come on, there are PLENTY of games that kill you for falling in water, maybe not these days but....its not that big of a deal since thats not very often. It is stupid, yes, but its not like its all over the place. It really is a game you need to rent and try for a bit. I would not buy it. The single player campaign is SHORT. VERY. Short. But its fun while it lasts. The Multiplayer is fun, I love it, but its a bit unfair and things can go to hell fast sometimes, totally ruining the experience. Although I must say I love coming back from a major loss and winning. Its a great feeling.

    mastrius on
    "You're like a kitten! A kitten who doesn't speak Japanese." ~ Juliet Starling
  • Options
    ArchonexArchonex No hard feelings, right? Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    mastrius wrote: »
    Endaro wrote: »
    mastrius wrote: »
    Doesnt suck. Just isnt worth buying.

    Well the quality is kind of subjective. I can't really speak on it's quality because I only played the demo, but from what I saw...
    The whole dying in water wasn't that big of a deal because, in the demo, there was only 1 river and it was a small part of the map. However most of the other criticisms I've heard seemed spot on. If the tutorial battle is indicative of the "epic" campaign battles, than yeah, it's bullshit. Rather small forces with a decent helping of invisible walls to keep you away from all the fake fighting going on in the background.

    The multiplayer wasn't much better. As mentioned, few classes and not very well designed. Oh well, it'll sell well enough on it's LOTR name.

    I see what you mean indeed. Im just saying, I did find it fun for like...a few days to rent and play for a while. Its not a lasting game by any means, but it is fun, and feels epic for a while. That wears off down the line but I still get a rush from taking control of an Ent or a Balrog and running out and annihilating bitches.

    And come on, there are PLENTY of games that kill you for falling in water, maybe not these days but....its not that big of a deal since thats not very often. It is stupid, yes, but its not like its all over the place. It really is a game you need to rent and try for a bit. I would not buy it. The single player campaign is SHORT. VERY. Short. But its fun while it lasts. The Multiplayer is fun, I love it, but its a bit unfair and things can go to hell fast sometimes, totally ruining the experience. Although I must say I love coming back from a major loss and winning. Its a great feeling.

    Plenty of games kill you for falling into water, yes. Very few kill you for stepping into a knee-deep stream.

    Archonex on
  • Options
    Ain SophAin Soph Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I've placed this game at #3 on my personal list of worst games I have ever played.

    At first I was sad Lucas Arts took the Battlefront license and gave it to free radical ( then to Rebellion), but now I view it as appropriate foresight.

    Ain Soph on
    :whistle:
  • Options
    strebaliciousstrebalicious Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I liked the demo for the most part. I even enjoyed the hilariously cheesy voiceovers ("His fireball* attack is awesome!"). The multiplayer was alright, and I was probably the only one to ever use the warrior. But when I found how that the campaign was so short, it took all my interest of the game out. I was looking for a good co-op experience to do with the wife (because Dynasty Warriors is only so satisfying). Oh well. Castle Crashers gets my money instead.

    * or whatever

    strebalicious on
    camo_sig2.png
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I feel bad, because my roommate was lead tester for the DS version, and liked what he saw of the 360 version. He was so excited when I downloaded it, and just cannot accept that it really really was not good.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
Sign In or Register to comment.