Metascore
57

Mixed or average reviews - based on 24 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 24
  2. Negative: 6 out of 24
Buy On
  1. Pelit (Finland)
    75
    The Lord of the Rings: Conquest has some good movielike moments but overall suffers from a boring and difficult single player mode and lousy controls on the PC. The multiplayer is decent enough if you're into epic but rather simple fantasy action. [Feb 2009]
  2. Lord of the Rings Conquest succeeds in bringing Tolkien's fans a solid videogame, with intense action and a good representation of battles. But there is a strong difference between playing it multiplayer and single player, less fun than the former. Solo players should think twice the purchase.
  3. Total PC Gaming
    70
    It's the "Battlefront" sequel we wanted, but it noticeably reduces the LOTR mythology to a boots-first brawler. [Issue#16, p.54]
  4. Lord of the Rings: Conquest is a videogame too far from excellence to be recommendable without making some kind of warning marks before. Those who don't like the senseless button smashing will not enjoy this game, but if you are a fan of both the Tolkien universe and the online battles you will find here an honest but reiterative entertainment.
  5. Standing at the gates of Mordor, listening to epic music and feeling as a part of a huge battle – these are the great moments in Conquest. Unfortunately the unbalanced difficulty, repetitive missions and dated graphics kill these moments.
  6. With unimaginative gameplay and occasionally confusing controls, Conquest isn’t going to be conquering Middle Earth any time soon.
  7. Except fpr some passages, the campaign sucks and the multiplayer-mode isn’t able to convince, either. This game simply offers no motivation to keep playing.
  8. PC Gamer UK
    61
    Competent swords-and-sorcery excursion minus vital soul. [Mar 2009, p.69]
  9. Unless you fall in love with the deathmatch modes, the main draw here is the two campaigns - and most gamers will be able to cut their way through both in under five hours. Even if you're a massive fan of the series, we'd advise you to approach this game with caution.
  10. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    60
    Lord Sauron campaign and the possibility to play as famous heroes are the only things keeping Conquest above a grey and a boring average. Yeah and killing the Olyphants too. [Feb 2009]
  11. Lord of the Rings: Conquest is indeed awesome, but it’s the kind of awesome derived from watching people falling out of trees on YouTube or seeing your friend get punched in the nuts at a party. It’s the sort of game nobody in their right mind can take seriously, but because it’s so ludicrous, it winds up being fun.
  12. Play (Poland)
    60
    The concepts that work in an online shooter not necessarily translate directly to a game consisting of swordplay, archery and area spells, as this example proves. The simplified and shallow rules don't leave much room for skill development that is crucial in every game that aims to foster longtime online competition. [Mar 2009]
  13. This game is nothing but a plain insult to all Fans of The Lord of the Rings as well as all other gamers.
  14. The basic idea behind Conquest is cool: play the largest battles from Lord of the Rings from the perspective of a soldier. The out-of-date graphics, bad class balance and stubborn controls would be no problem if this was a mod for Battlefront or Battlefield, but this is a full price game. The only thing worthy of the big license is the soundtrack and that's available for less.
  15. While Pandemic Studios has attempted to bring their applauded formula to The Lord of the Rings in Conquest, the game is just missing too much finesse to impress most audiences.
  16. 50
    We were hoping for more from The Lord of the Rings: Conquest, and we're disappointed that the game didn't do more with such a powerful license. Star Wars: Battlefront hasn't aged very well, and to get essentially the same game with a different theme left us wanting more.
  17. I simply can’t recommend The Lord of the Rings: Conquest. The game is riddled with both minor and major mistakes, the camera is awful, it looks like a PlayStation 2-game, and the gameplay consists of little more than mindless hacking and slashing of countless enemies. The only positive aspect is the decent multiplayer-mode, but even that feels outdated, compared to Call of Duty 4, Gears of War 2 or anything in that direction.
  18. While fans of the franchise will get a kick out of re-enacting their personal favorite battles, most folks will probably be wishing that hacking up hobbits was more like blasting Ewoks. And even if you do get a kick out of it, much like dating a crazy hot chick, the enjoyment will be short-lived once you start to look beyond the surface and see the glaring flaws.
  19. Conquest isn't a very fun game. Thanks to all the aforementioned drawbacks, there's virtually nothing to enjoy about the single-player (we strongly advise you skip that).
  20. A fantasy version of "Star Wars: Battlefront 2" with all the boredom intact. It’s like a poorly made pasty – too little jam, too much unleavened dough.
  21. PC Format
    48
    Tolkien must be revolving speedily in his grave. [Apr 2009, p.48]
  22. PC Zone UK
    43
    LOTR deserves a better action game than this, and with the rich source material available to them, Pandemic and EA should be ashamed of themselves for unleashing this on the general public - even if we know it'll go straight to the top of the charts regardless. [Apr 2009, p.52]
  23. Very much throwaway gaming, Conquest is wholly lacklustre, devoid of any real purpose, and is a real low point for Pandemic, which after Mercenaries 2 is really saying something. 'Must do better' is a gross understatement.
  24. AceGamez
    40
    There's some limited fun to be had with The Lord of the Rings: Conquest, and there are even times when the great game it could have been almost shine through, but plagued with such gaping flaws and wasted potential, the small amount of enjoyment that you might be able to gain never seems to justify the time you spend trying to discover it.
User Score
6.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 41 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 10
  2. Negative: 2 out of 10
  1. SimonF
    Jan 19, 2009
    4
    Might have made 6 if it wasn't for the appalling Camera motion during combat!

    If I was being attacked by 30+ Uruk Hai..... I would
    Might have made 6 if it wasn't for the appalling Camera motion during combat!

    If I was being attacked by 30+ Uruk Hai..... I would like nothing better than to stare at my feet!...What idiot at EA (admittedly a long list of Buffoons to choose from) came up with the mouse camera action in this game?.... You have to constantly move the mouse up, just to keep your eyes on who is coming!

    I can't help thinking how much better the LOTR games would have been...If a decent software house like Ubisoft had the licence!

    Go back to making boring Golf Games EA!
    Full Review »
  2. Dec 1, 2015
    6
    I was one of those peoples who got this game in 2009 when it first came out.

    "LordOfTheRings: Conquest" was suppose to be a counterpart for
    I was one of those peoples who got this game in 2009 when it first came out.

    "LordOfTheRings: Conquest" was suppose to be a counterpart for the ever so popular "StarWars: Battlefront" games, but everyone quickly noticed it wasn't even close.

    The game was made by "Pandemic Studios" who are the developers for the Battlefront games, which makes it even more weirder that they would totally suck at making the same game with different theme.

    Not long after the company was defunct by they're mother company EA and no wonder since they only released mediocre games that weren't too popular.

    LordOfTheRings: Conquest does have its moments tho where it clearly shines as a good game, however there is more bad ones than good ones.

    The combat in the game seems stiff but fun at times due to the weaker enemy types (bots) that fill the battlefield making it look populated around all the real players (This is a feature i haven't yet experienced in any other game and i feel like the system is quite good cause it gives the immersion of a big battles) however the combat (especially the campaign) feels short lived since it can be beaten in just a hour or so.
    The game does offer players a secondary campaign as the evil side, but all it offers is the same game backwards with only 2 or so different maps.
    The game also has familiar hero characters from the movie which is a clear plus, but whenever the text "Would you like to play as a hero" is displayed your only able to choose from 1 specific hero which to me kind of feels limited. The difficulty of the game is also the other aspect that makes it feel bad. Even players who are experienced with these type of games quickly notice that going head on against enemies usually gets you killed since they just maul you to death without letting you do a single attack on them, this makes the archer class probably the best in the game since you can 1 hit kill enemies with a well placed heads shots or shoot bombs that sends everyone flying and since everyone moves the same speed you can run backwards and no one will ever catch you.

    In all and all the game is not as bad as it may sound but i wouldn't pay any amount of real money for it since there is no real value with this game.

    Its fun with friends for a day but its one of those titles you play once and never look back at it again.
    Full Review »
  3. Aug 8, 2013
    9
    I got this game for my birth day when it came out and I LOVED it. I didn't really care for the campaign all that much, but that isn't what theI got this game for my birth day when it came out and I LOVED it. I didn't really care for the campaign all that much, but that isn't what the game was made for, it was made for multiplayer, and it is AWESOME. Think of it like Star Wars: Battlefront but with Lord of the Rings. Full Review »